Former Trump administration counterterrorism official Joe Kent is raising concerns about how authorities handled aspects of the investigation into the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, claiming a potential line of inquiry involving Iran was prematurely shut down — a charge the White House is forcefully denying.
In an interview Thursday with Cenk Uygur, host of the The Young Turks, Kent questioned whether investigators fully explored the possibility that the would-be assassin, identified as 20-year-old Thomas Crooks, may not have acted alone during the 2024 Pennsylvania rally attack.
Kent pointed to a separate case involving a man named Asif Merchant, whom he said had been sent by Iran to assassinate Trump in retaliation for the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. According to Kent, Merchant was apprehended by the FBI shortly after arriving in the United States and was arrested one day before Crooks carried out his attempt. Merchant was later convicted of murder for hire and attempting to commit an act of terrorism, with the Department of Justice stating he admitted ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and a mission targeting U.S. political leaders.
Kent’s central concern, he said, was whether investigators had done sufficient due diligence to determine if there was any connection between Merchant’s alleged plot and Crooks’ actions. “Have we done our due diligence to make sure that there was no linkage between the two events?” Kent asked.
He also noted that relatively little information had been released publicly about Crooks, prompting him to look into details about the suspect’s online presence. Kent said he drew in part on reporting featured in a 2025 documentary by Tucker Carlson, and sought to have that information reviewed through intelligence channels.
But according to Kent, those efforts were cut short. He claimed the FBI dismissed further inquiry into potential connections, telling officials there was nothing more to investigate. “Why wouldn’t we look into everything?” Kent said, arguing that exploring all possible leads should be standard practice in a case of such magnitude.
The White House, however, is pushing back strongly. In a post responding to coverage of Kent’s claims, Assistant Director for Public Affairs Ben Williamson rejected the allegations outright, calling Kent a “dishonest hack” who lacked any investigative authority related to the case.
Williamson argued that the situation was not about access being denied, but rather about Kent not having a role in the investigation to begin with. He also stated that the FBI had already allowed the National Counterterrorism Center to review intelligence reports early on, and that those reviews found no connection between the incidents.
“International Terrorism returned zero connections. None,” Williamson said, adding that Kent continued to promote claims despite those findings.
He went further, accusing Kent of using the issue to generate attention through what he described as a “shameless media tour,” and warned that spreading unfounded theories could complicate efforts to achieve justice.
The sharp exchange highlights broader tensions over transparency and trust in high-profile national security investigations. While questions about thoroughness and accountability are likely to persist, officials insist that the evidence has been carefully reviewed — and that conclusions should rest on verified findings rather than speculation.
As the debate continues, the episode serves as a reminder of how politically charged and consequential such investigations can become, particularly when they intersect with global conflicts and domestic security concerns.
[READ MORE: Trump To Sign 100 Bill For 250th]
