Trump’s Assassin Was Texting Unknown Persons Before Attack

Computer screen showing an FBI Most Wanted webpage — Photo: Jarretera / Shutterstock

The would-be assassin who opened fire in Butler, Pennsylvania, was texting unnamed contacts about 3D-printed “parts” months before the attack.

Story Snapshot

FBI records show a February 2023 text asking, “Did you 3D print the parts?” with “Yes, except for the fan blades” in reply.
Agents documented a separate chat thread with an unidentified person from May 2023 to January 2024.
Messages in December 2022 discuss “gifts” with another unnamed individual.
Judicial Watch obtained the records through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit; several outlets reviewed them.

What The Newly Released FBI Records Show

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) documents released through a Freedom of Information Act case show Thomas Matthew Crooks exchanged messages with unidentified contacts months before the Butler attack. One exchange from February 9, 2023, stands out. An unnamed sender asked, “Did you 3D print the parts?” Crooks replied, “Yes, except for the fan blades.” Multiple newsrooms reviewed the records and reported those exact words. Judicial Watch obtained the files and published a summary of the materials that include the quoted messages.

The files also describe a separate chat thread with a different unnamed person. The conversation spans May 21, 2023, to January 3, 2024, according to an FBI electronic communication dated July 19, 2024. The recipient’s name is redacted in the materials released. The public summaries do not reproduce the full thread but confirm that federal agents logged the communications as pertinent to the case timeline.

Unidentified Contacts And Redactions

The records point to at least two distinct unknown contacts. One asked about 3D-printed “parts.” Another exchanged messages with Crooks across several months. The files, as released, withhold the names and some content. That approach tracks with how the FBI often shields third-party identities in document releases, especially where individuals have not been charged or are not public figures. The result is clear: the government verified the communications and their dates, while limiting what the public can see.

Reports also note messages in December 2022 about “gifts” between Crooks and another unnamed individual. The available descriptions do not detail what those gifts were or why they were discussed. They do establish that Crooks maintained contact with unidentified people well before the shooting. That pattern matters for investigators who build timelines and map relationships, even when specific names remain out of view in public disclosures.

What The Messages Do And Do Not Establish

The 3D-print exchange confirms Crooks discussed printing “parts” and distinguished them from “fan blades.” That level of detail suggests he worked hands-on with a printer and components. The materials do not show, in their public form, whether the “parts” were firearm components, tools, or unrelated items. Straight reading favors a practical, parts-focused conversation, not random chatter. Linking that exchange to later actions requires more context than the redacted pages now provide, which is why targeted follow-on disclosures would matter.

For a factual baseline, the strongest statements rest on direct quotes and specific dates from the files reviewed by multiple outlets. That includes the February 2023 text, the May 2023 to January 2024 thread, and the December 2022 “gifts” messages. Labeling the chats as “mysterious” or “coded” adds heat but not light. The documents already carry the weight they need: they are FBI records produced after a legal demand and now part of the public reporting stream.

Accountability, Common Sense, And Next Steps

Public safety and accountability demand clarity on who messaged Crooks and why. The cleanest route is a complete chronology of extracted device communications, with time stamps and identifiers, subject to narrow privacy redactions. Congress can ask for a closed briefing from the case agents and digital forensics examiners on how they evaluated these threads and whether they pursued the unknown contacts as leads. That is not curiosity; it is the normal duty of oversight when a presidential target is involved.

Common sense says this: when a man who later fires on a president talks about 3D-printed “parts,” you check every image, file hash, and carrier record tied to that device. You also identify the people on the other end and ask hard questions about what they knew and when. Judicial Watch’s suit forced daylight onto records that should move that process forward. The public record now shows the messages. The next step is matching those words to names, objects, and actions.