How have media critiques—such as Tucker Carlson’s—challenged the FBI’s account of the shooter’s online footprint and what evidence supports those challenges?
Executive summary
Tucker Carlson accused the FBI of lying about the online footprint of Thomas Crooks, the 2024 would‑be assassin of President Trump, and released what he described as authenticated copies of Crooks’s posts and Google Drive material to prove it [1] [2]. The FBI pushed back through its “Rapid Response” account and public statements saying it never claimed Crooks had “no online footprint” while other officials had described only a limited or recently uncovered account linkage, leaving a factual dispute centered on scope and disclosure rather than a simple binary truth [3] [4] [5].
1. Carlson’s central accusation: the FBI “lied” about Crooks’s digital trail
Carlson publicly charged the bureau with concealing a significant online history by Crooks, saying the FBI told the public Crooks “had no online footprint” and promising to publish posts that would prove the agency lied and thereby expose a motive and broader failures in the investigation [1] [6]. He amplified that charge across platforms and on his podcast, arguing the files his team had obtained showed years of violent rhetoric and explicit threats that contradict a narrative of a secretive lone wolf [7] [8].
2. The evidence Carlson presented: Google Drive files, videos and social‑media content
Carlson released an approximately 35‑minute video and said his team had copies of Crooks’s Google Drive items, YouTube comments, and multiple social accounts that he and allies claim demonstrate a consistent history of violent rhetoric and planning — including dry‑fire practice footage and online comments allegedly attributable to Crooks [1] [9] [10]. Media accounts summarizing Carlson’s material say he asserted authentication of those records and characterized them as a “detailed digital trail” of threats and political violence [6] [7].
3. The FBI’s rebuttal and prior public statements
The FBI’s Rapid Response account immediately disputed Carlson’s claim that the bureau had said there was no digital footprint, posting that “This FBI has never said Thomas Crooks had no online footprint” [3] [4]. Public comments by then‑Deputy Director Paul Abbate in July 2024 acknowledged a social media account “believed to be associated” with the shooter but described a “general absence of other information…that reflect on the shooter’s potential motive and mindset,” language the bureau says has been mischaracterized by critics [3] [5].
4. What is demonstrably in dispute: definition, scope and disclosure
The core dispute is not only whether any online material existed but what the bureau meant by earlier descriptions and how complete its disclosures have been: Carlson frames the issue as a deliberate cover‑up of a robust digital trail, while the FBI points to cautious, qualified language and to a narrow set of linked accounts rather than a voluminous, easily attributable footprint [2] [3] [5]. Independent reporting cited by the FBI and other outlets highlights limited public records such as searches for “major depressive disorder” and use of encrypted connections that complicate attribution, underscoring a forensic ambiguity about how much content can be reliably tied to Crooks [5].
5. Motives, agendas and the limits of the public record
Carlson’s campaign to challenge the FBI serves both journalistic and political aims—pressuring a bureau now led by figures friendly to his political circle while feeding a narrative of institutional concealment that benefits critics of federal authorities; media summaries note allies and conservative columnists calling for more transparency even as the FBI rejects the framing [8] [2]. Meanwhile, reporting shows factual gaps: some referenced accounts “believed to be associated” were not officially linked in public filings, and the FBI has resisted wholesale public release of raw investigative files, leaving verification of Carlson’s claims dependent on either independent forensic review or further official disclosure [3] [7].
6. Assessment and implications
The challenge Carlson mounted forced the bureau into a rapid public rebuttal and intensified scrutiny over what investigators publicly disclosed about motive and digital evidence; his released materials — if authenticated and conclusively tied to Crooks — would undercut the notion of an entirely sparse online footprint, but the FBI’s statements and prior qualified disclosures mean the controversy currently centers on degrees of connection, attribution and transparency rather than an incontrovertible contradiction [1] [3] [5]. Without independent forensic validation of the files Carlson published or fuller declassification by the FBI and DOJ, the competing claims remain unresolved in the public record and continue to be shaped by partisan incentives on both sides [8] [2].