An officer fires (bottom L) as White House Correspondents' Association Dinner shooting suspect Cole Tomas Allen Washington D.C., U.S., April 25, 2026. (Photo: U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro via X/Handout)
WIRED reported Thursday that the right and the left are coming together around conspiracy theories that President Donald Trump's assassination attempts were staged. But one lawyer is flagging a false claim that there is "zero evidence" of such theories.
The report is titled "There Is No Evidence the Trump Assassination Attempts Were Staged. People Still Believe They Were." But even the text of the report doesn't quite verify the headline's claim, said John Castiglione.
The night a gunman rushed the Secret Service at the White House Correspondents' dinner (WHCD), the term "STAGED" began trending quickly on social media, including the Trump-friendly platform X.
The article walks through some of the evidence that has popped up in theories about the Butler, Pennsylvania, attempt, such as the gunshot Trump endured. Critics have posted images of Trump's right ear in the weeks after the incident showing no noticeable damage.
"Trump’s former physician Ronny Jackson wrote that the president had suffered a 2-centimeter-wide gunshot wound in the right ear from a high-powered rifle 'that extended down to the cartilaginous surface of the ear' but added that 'no sutures were required,'" the report recalled.
At the WHCD, critics point to lax security, though some reporters maintain that the security was obviously enough to stop the gunman. A video of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed "shots will be fired," which some later said she meant literally.
While some people challenge the information, Castiglione clarified that it doesn't add up to there being "zero evidence." It isn't great evidence, but it's still evidence.
"Lawyer here," began Castiglione in a BlueSky thread. "The WIRED article literally presents 'evidence' that it [the assassination attempt] was not what it appeared to be. Now that evidence is thin, circumstantial, and not particularly compelling. But it is literally evidence. So to say there is zero evidence is just wrong."
He complained: "This happens all the time in media, and this WIRED article is a good example. They undermine their own point by saying there’s zero evidence. Anyone with their eyes can see there is some evidence. Whether any of it is compelling or not is an entire entirely different point."
Castiglione closed his thread by comparing it to a witness in a court proceeding. "Trump guys have absolutely zero credibility, so every single thing they say can and should be discounted if you are trying to determine the truth. Again, that doesn’t necessarily point to any given outcome."