Mark Halperin:
I continue to be struck by how Americans view the attempted assassination of President Trump about a year ago. It feels longer because so much has happened, but it remains an incredible prism through which to understand how red and blue America view Donald Trump and his role in our lives.
What an extraordinary event—not just a former president, but the front-runner for the presidency, nearly killed on the eve of his convention. Donald Trump has dominated American life politically, culturally, symbolically, and emotionally like no one else in our lifetime. On that day, others were grievously wounded; Cory Comper lost his life, and Donald Trump himself almost died.
Nearly a year later, it’s clear that those on the left—who dislike Trump, disagree with him, and wish he weren’t president—didn’t treat this assassination attempt the way they would have if it had been Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, or Bill Clinton. They tried to dismiss it. Understanding their reaction helps us grasp the ongoing divide in America between those glad Trump was president and those deeply unhappy about it.
The shooting happened at a busy political time, shortly before Trump’s convention, his selection of running mate J.D. Vance, and Joe Biden dropping out of the race just eight days later. But even today, the shooter’s motive—Thomas Krooks, whose name you might barely recognize due to minimal scrutiny—remains unknown. Imagine: someone attempts to assassinate a former president and leading candidate, yet between the government and media, the motive is still an absolute mystery.
However, two critical aspects are clear. First, many Americans, particularly MAGA supporters, rallied dramatically around Trump after the attack. Notably, Elon Musk went from leaning Democrat to full-on supporting Trump due to Trump’s display of grit and heroism that day in Butler. Trump himself believes divine intervention saved him. Many supporters share this belief, citing how unusual it was that Trump happened to turn and pick up his famous immigration chart at precisely that moment, possibly saving his life. Millions viewed this as a rallying, divine moment.
Second, something far less uplifting is also clear: how this event exposed hostility towards Trump from certain individuals and institutions that oppose him and his movement. The corporate media’s response at the time—and ever since—highlights their deep-seated hostility and loss of credibility among Americans, even some who don’t support Trump. Major liberal institutions—corporate media, universities, nonprofits—lost credibility by failing to treat the assassination attempt with the seriousness they would have for a Democrat.
As with Biden’s mental acuity and the Russiagate investigation, there’s been no retraction, no accountability, and no self-reflection. Instead, media figures almost immediately blamed Trump’s rhetoric for provoking the attack—without knowing the shooter’s motive, which we still don’t know.
For instance, here’s Martha Raddatz of ABC News shortly after the attack, placing blame on Trump himself:
Martha Raddatz (ABC News):
President Trump and his supporters have contributed to this violent rhetoric. We looked at some of the things former President Trump has said—he warned last March of potential death and destruction if he were charged. He said, “If I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.” He later claimed he was joking, but those were indeed his words.
Mark Halperin:
Now, the “bloodbath” comment was about the auto industry, often taken out of context by the press. Regardless, Trump has said many divisive things, but to blame him in the immediate aftermath of his own near-murder is incredible.
Similarly, here’s Margaret Brennan from CBS News taking the same line:
Margaret Brennan (CBS News):
The language around this campaign has been us-versus-the-system. Trump claims all legal cases against him are politically motivated. By alleging a connection to this attempt on his life, that would escalate tensions further.
Mark Halperin:
Again, rather than waiting to learn the shooter’s motive—which remains unknown—they immediately blamed Trump himself. After events like this, people often jump to conclusions about motive. After the Oklahoma City bombing, many wrongly speculated foreign terrorists were involved; it turned out to be homegrown terrorism. In this case, with no clear motive, media immediately blamed Trump’s own words.
At Trump’s convention speech, media largely mocked his visible bandage and questioned whether he was actually shot. Here’s Michael Steele, former Republican National Committee chairman turned anti-Trump commentator, speculating openly on MSNBC:
Michael Steele (MSNBC):
It’s been several days since this horrific event occurred. Yet, we’ve not received a medical report detailing Trump’s injuries. If he was shot by a high-caliber bullet, there should be very little ear left. Was there cosmetic surgery involved? Were stitches needed? Was the damage from glass shards, as some reporters on the scene suggested, instead of the bullet? There are a lot of questions around that ear.
Mark Halperin:
Conspiracy theories exist on both left and right. But this skepticism came a week after doctors explained clearly what happened, after forensic evidence confirmed the shooting, after the weapon was recovered. Yet, the hostility persisted, underscoring again how profoundly this event demonstrates why so many Americans have lost faith in our institutions and media.
