The assassination conspiracy (theory)

 Since the most recent foiled assassination attempt on Donald Trump, I’ve seen a lot of people from the left side of the political spectrum theorize that the attack was, for lack of a better word, and with apologies to Alex Jones, a false flag. That shouldn’t be surprising, but what is surprising is that it isn’t just Democrats who are arriving at this conclusion. While perusing coverage of the incident, I noticed a Wired article that opined, “MAGA Is Increasingly Convinced the Trump Assassination Attempt Was Staged.” The interesting thing about this is that, upon closer inspection, the article was published on April 17, a week before the attack at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. 

At this point, Trump has survived three assassination attempts as well as a number of other plots and security incidents. This has sparked online claims that Trump has survived more assassination threats than any other president and that Democratic presidents have not been subject to any attempts at all. The first claim depends on how you count, and the second is outright false, but it is true that Trump has had a number of close calls, particularly the Butler, Pennsylvania, attempt in 2024. It was the Butler attempt that was the focus of the Wired article, although there is a new one that deals with the WHCA attack.

Screenshot of video posted by Donald Trump showing Cole Thomas Allen crashing through security checkpoint 

Share

At this point, I’ll make two statements. First, I am a political opponent of Donald Trump, but I don’t think assassination is justified, moral, or should be condoned. Further, I don’t think Trump’s death or injury would benefit the Trump opposition. The president is running the Republican Party into the ground. The GOP is at a very unpopular level and is about to get “shellacked” in the midterms. I don’t think most Democrats want to make him a martyr or a sympathetic figure. 

Second, I don’t think the attempts were fake. It would be very difficult to find patsies who would risk life and freedom so that Donald Trump could gain a few percentage points in the polls.

And these are real risks. Thomas Crooks was killed on top of a building in Butler, Pennsylvania, with an AR-15 that he used to shoot at Trump and with which he killed a rallygoer. Ryan Routh is serving life in prison for his attempt on Trump’s life in West Palm Beach in 2024. Cole Thomas Allen will probably spend the rest of his life behind bars as well. There are many reasons why someone might want to kill a president, this president in particular, but I can’t really think of a good reason why anyone would mortgage their future in a fake attack. 

Having said that, I do have a lot of questions about the attack last weekend. For starters, why was Trump there in the first place? Trump has never attended a White House Correspondents Association dinner as president. The last time he showed up to the event was in 2011 when he was roasted by Barack Obama. A theory that I have some sympathy for is that Trump was so humiliated by the incident that it inspired him to run for president as revenge against those who mocked him.

Further, why were so many members of the cabinet present? Of 16 people in the presidential line of succession, 11 have been confirmed in attendance at the dinner. This includes seven of the next 10 in line to be president, including Vice President Vance (first on the list of succession), Speaker Mike Johnson (second), and Secretary of State Marco Rubio (fourth). We very nearly experienced the emergency presidency of President Pro Tempore of the Senate Chuck Grassley (third). 

While it is not unheard of for cabinet members and congressmen to attend the dinner and there are no designated-survivor rules for the event, unlike the State of the Union, this seems like an extraordinarily top-heavy list of attendees. Of course, the simple explanation may be that this was Trump’s first time at the dinner as president, and the sycophants in the cabinet and congressional leadership know that Trump loves nothing more than to have his ego stroked. Not attending could have been viewed as professional suicide or at least a slap in the president’s face. 

The attempt also raises questions about security and the effectiveness of the Secret Service. This is especially true in light of security lapses that came to light following the Butler attempt, as well as older scandals about unprofessionalism, including partying and drunkenness of Secret Service agents. 

The dinner, which was not a state event, was being held at the Washington Hilton. Since it was not a state dinner, the argument that a gold-plated ballroom might have prevented the attack is a non sequitur, even though the White House was apparently pushing this pretty hard shortly after the incident. Trump himself plugged his ballroom project as a security solution in the aftermath of the attack. Ironically, the Washington Hilton was also the site of the 1981 assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan.

A dinner in a hotel ballroom can be a security nightmare. It would be difficult to screen every guest in the hotel, and Cole was reportedly checked into the Hilton as a guest. Much like the 2017 Las Vegas shooter, Cole probably took his weapons into the hotel several days before the attack. 

The BBC discusses the security measures at the hotel in detail, noting that the hotel was closed to the public hours before the event and that the heaviest security, including metal detectors, was around the ballroom where the banquet was to take place. Cole never penetrated the security cordon and never got close to the president. 

Nevertheless, there was criticism of the security plan. Gary O'Donoghue, a BBC correspondent at the dinner, said that security was not “particularly heavy” and noted, “The man on the door outside only took a cursory look at my ticket from what must have been six feet away.”

A newly unearthed clip of local Fox personalities talking on hot mics backs up that observation. They observe that “two random chicks” are holding the door open and joke that the Secret Service should “just get a doorstop.”

Former UK ambassador, Kim Darroch, criticized the lack of security in depth, noting, "If you were there [as a hotel guest] and you had bad intentions about breaking into this dinner, there's just one security thing you had to get past... and then you're in the ballroom.”

Even the perp criticized the lack of security in his manifesto, writing, “What the hell is the Secret Service doing… No damn security. Not in transport. Not in the hotel. Not in the event.”

Allen allegedly armed himself with a shotgun, pistol, and knives (no AR this time) and attempted to breach the security checkpoint going towards the hotel ballroom. He exchanged fire with law enforcement before being detained and captured without injury, but this brings up another question: With all the bullets that were flying, how did he survive without being hit? Did the Secret Service Agents attend the Star Wars Stormtrooper School of Marksmanship?

With Butler and the other recent plots against Trump, there are legitimate questions about whether security was too light or perhaps whether the Trump Administration’s lack of competence has infected the agency. The current director of the Secret Service is Sean Curran, who was appointed by Trump in January 2025 and has been with the agency since 2001. I don’t see any obvious red flags with Curran, but the investigation into what went wrong should include a look at the morale and culture within the Secret Service. 

One thing that has been mentioned that was demonstrably not a factor is the ongoing DHS shutdown. Secret Service agents are among the DHS employees who are being paid through Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” ICE, CBP, Coast Guard, and TSA are also being paid. 

There are also questions about the alleged shooter. Cole Thomas Allen (maybe we should be suspicious of people named Thomas) is a 31-year-old resident of Torrance, California, near LA. Allen is reportedly very intelligent, graduating from Caltech with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering in 2017 and a master’s in computer science from California State University, Dominguez Hills, in 2025. Per NBC News, he donated $25 to ActBlue, a Democratic organization, in 2024, and was a member of a Christian fellowship at Caltech. 

Prior to the attack, he sent a manifesto to members of his family (read it in full here), who forwarded it to police. Despite claims by Trump and others that the manifesto was “anti-Christian,” Allen specifically tried to explain and rationalize his actions to Christians in the manifesto, arguing that “Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes,” citing “yield unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” as an objection to his plan, and thanking his church for its love. What little we know of his religious beliefs comes across like a liberal version of right-wing Christian Nationalism, although he probably sees himself more as a latter-day Dietrich Bonhoeffer. 

I suspect that we may eventually learn that Allen has a high-functioning form of some mental illness or disorder. The manifesto, in which Allen called himself “Friendly Federal Assassin,” presents a very odd picture of the shooter and his thought processes. 

Mental illness is a common factor in many similar cases, perhaps more so than the always-assumed trope that to shoot a political figure, you must be radically political from the opposite end of the spectrum. Often, there is no coherent political ideology or evidence of strong political views, although, in this case, the manifesto does allude to a “pedophile, rapist, and traitor” that even the president assumes to be a reference to Trump, an adjudicated rapist and friend of Jeffrey Epstein (463 days into Trump’s second term, the Epstein files have still not been released). The manifesto also notes that other cabinet members, “not including Mr. Patel,” for reasons unknown, were targets. 

Alternatively, it may be that Allen was influenced by both Trump’s corrupt and authoritarian behavior and the very online world we all inhabit. Again, I’m not going to justify or condone any act of political violence, but I think it is fair to point out that Trump’s rhetoric and actions have likely had the result of inciting violence against him. Again, that does not justify the violence, but it is an explanation. 

As to the possibility that Trump and MAGA manufactured the whole incident (or incidents) as a public relations stunt, while I wouldn’t say that Trump is ethically above such behavior (or above possibly wearing a bandage on his ear for far longer than was medically necessary), the logistics make it very unlikely. It is far more likely that the attempt was real and that the president will use it to his political advantage. That is one reason among many why there should be no more violence against Donald Trump. 

Thanks for reading The Racket News ™! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

LINKS YOU CAN USE A lot of pundits are claiming that the left is more accepting of political violence than the right. That claim does not stand up to scrutiny. Numerous polls, such this Marist poll from 2025 and this PRRI poll from January 2026, show that support for violence is higher among Republicans. Further, in recent years, deaths from right-wing political violence have exceeded those from left-wing violence. Both sides tend to blame the other for violence, but the good news is that majorities on both sides reject violence.

From the Racket News

MAGA FAs and FOs

 

Let me start off by saying that this is not an aviation post. If you clicked here to read about MAGA flight attendants and first officers, I’m sorry to disappoint you, but stick around because I’ve got some interesting thoughts on other subjects. 

The FA and FO that I had in mind is a common phrase these days. If you don’t know what it means, it’s an acronym containing the same, not suitable for family values voters word that was in the “Let’s go, Brandon” chant. To clean it up a little, I’ll say it means “Fart Around, Find Out.” Essentially, it means that when something bad happens to someone, they had it coming. 

Photo credit: Dan Burton/Unsplash.com

Share

MAGA’s FAFO moment came on Tuesday when Virginia voters decided that they wanted to cast aside the state’s fair and balanced congressional districts and replace them with a new map that will likely net Democrats a total of 10 seats and leave Republicans with one. When the votes were counted on Tuesday, there was much weeping, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments from the MAGA set.

Ironically, most of the people who were upset on Tuesday were cheering last year when Texas redrew its congressional map. To hear the MAGA crowd talk about it, Virginia’s referendum was a shot fired out of the blue at constitutional democracy. 

“Virginia is about 55 percent Democrats, and they want to force by majority vote that the state send 91 percent Democratic representation to Congress,” Republicans argue, but what they conveniently forget to mention is that Virginia was a response to Texas. Some probably really have forgotten about Texas, because I’ve seen several people online threatening to have Texas reconfigure its districts yet again.

For those who don’t remember, let me bring you up to speed. States typically redraw congressional districts after a census, which occurs every 10 years. After Republicans saw gains in Hispanic voters in 2024, Donald Trump urged Texas Republicans to redraw their lines again to gerrymander the state’s congressional seats in an attempt to blunt expected Democratic gains elsewhere in the midterms. It was abnormal, but not unconstitutional. The Texas legislature approved the new map in August 2025, and Gov. Gregg Abbott signed the measure into law. 

In response, California Democrats put Proposition 50 on the ballot to draw new congressional districts that would gerrymander away several Republican seats. That measure passed in November and is expected to erase many of the extra seats Republicans hope to gain in Texas.

But it didn’t end there. Other states, including Maryland and New York, also considered action. Virginia actually put it to the voters, and the voters said, “Go for it.” 

The redistricting war did not begin in New York in 2024, as some claim, by the way. New York’s map was approved in 2024, but the process started years earlier and was delayed by litigation. It was not a mid-decade redistricting attempt. 

So the Republicans may (more on that later) get a handful of seats from Texas, but they will lose them in California, where redistricting used to be based on maps drawn by an independent commission, and Virginia, which formerly had one of the fairest maps in the country. 

Republicans may have awakened a sleeping beast. Both states take advantage of gerrymandering, but of the states that try to draw fair maps, most are Democrat-leaning, while quite a few red states have only one or two congressional districts. 

The Texas mid-decade gerrymandering war has moved us backwards from what I’d like to see: nonpartisan districts everywhere and a national gerrymandering ban. I think that gerrymandering is to blame for a lot of the extremism in both wings of American politics because politicians who don’t have a viable opposition party have no reason not to be as extreme as possible to win the primary. 

But that dream is going to have to come from the legislatures because, as I said earlier, gerrymandering is not unconstitutional. As recently as 2023, the Supreme Court held that gerrymandering is permissible with the exception of drawing districts that are racially discriminatory, except to the extent that racial discrimination is required by the Voting Rights Act. If that sounds like a tight line to haul, it really isn’t because, to a great extent, racial lines are also political lines, at least for some groups. Gerrymandering usually faces a low bar for lawfulness. 

So don’t fret about the recent injunction from a state judge that seeks to invalidate the results of Tuesday’s election. Remember that both Texas and California had legal challenges to their new maps. The Supreme Court affirmed both redistricting plans. In Virginia’s case, the state supreme court overturned previous rulings that would have killed the referendum.

I can also point out that both California and Virginia put their gerrymandered maps to the voters; Texas did not. If there are any complaints to be made about the lack of democracy in gerrymandered maps, they should be directed towards the Texas statehouse in Austin, but newfound Republican critics of gerrymandering never seem to have problems with the Texan casus belli.

And that brings us to the potential fly in Texas’s ointment, namely the looming possibility of a blue wave election amid what is turning out to be Republican unpopularity of historic proportions. You see, gerrymandering is often accomplished in a way that gives districts a lopsided partisan majority, making them safe for the party in power. However, Trump’s Texas redistricting did the opposite. Republicans assumed that Hispanic voters who voted Republican in 2024 were part of a new permanent majority and redrew lines to encompass their new red Hispanic voters. If that is a bad assumption, then Republicans may have just diluted their strength. turning safe districts into battlegrounds. 

And it looks extremely doubtful that Hispanics will stay red. A recent AP-NORC poll found that Trump’s approval among Hispanics had fallen to about 25 percent after an estimated 42 percent voted Trump in 2024. Who could have imagined that treating Hispanics and immigrants like criminals who were presumed guilty would backfire at the polls?

The cratering among Hispanics is only part of public opinion turning against Trump and the Republicans nationwide. Trump’s overall approval is only 43 percent in Texas, and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick recently said that Republicans will have a “tough time” keeping their majority in the state House. 

When the full story of the redistricting war is written, it may be said that Trump broke norms to try to pick up a few seats and ended up losing several states, including Texas. People say that Texas will never go blue, but Trump may have found a way.

One of many lessons to be learned, both in Texas and Iran, is that bullying only gets you so far. When you make people angry enough that they start fighting back, things can go south pretty quickly. 

FAFO.

From the Racket News