Bombshell new details reveal the possible motivation of the suspected shooter who opened fire at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner on Saturday night.

The suspected gunman was apprehended in the Washington Hilton lobby after attempting to rush through security and shooting a Secret Serviceman who was wearing a bulletproof vest. Just moments after numerous loud shots rang out, President Donald Trump and other dignitaries were rushed out of the dinner by Secret Service.

‘What was supposed to be a fun night at the WHCA dinner … was hijacked by a depraved crazy person.’

The suspected assailant was later identified as 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen, a California resident who was staying at the hotel the night of the dinner. Agents fired back at the suspect, but he was not hit. The agent is expected to recover, and no other injuries were reported.

In the hours after the shooting, reports revealed that Allen had allegedly written a manifesto stating he wanted to target President Donald Trump and administration officials. Allen also allegedly had anti-Trump and anti-Christian rhetoric on his social media accounts.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the suspect “sought to assassinate” Trump, which would make Saturday the third assassination attempt on the president.

RELATED: Trump says suspect who shot Secret Serviceman at WHCD identified: ‘It’s always shocking’

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

“What was supposed to be a fun night at the WHCA dinner with President Trump delivering jokes and celebrating free speech was hijacked by a depraved crazy person who sought to assassinate the President and kill as many top Trump administration officials as possible,” Leavitt said in a statement.

“I was with President Trump and the First Lady back stage after we were quickly ushered to safety by Secret Service,” Leavitt added. “President Trump was truly fearless, but as he said last night, this political violence needs to end.”

Leavitt confirmed that a Secret Service agent was shot by the suspect, thanking the “brave agent who took a bullet to the chest and immediately moved to neutralize the shooter.”

Trump also confirmed the manifesto’s existence, saying it was clear from the writing that the suspect “hates Christians.”

“The guy is a sick guy, when you read his manifesto,” Trump said. “He hates Christians, that’s one thing for sure. … He was a very troubled guy.”

RELATED: Trump evacuated from White House Correspondents’ Dinner following possible gunfire

Andrew Leyden/Getty Images

The Secret Service reportedly interviewed Allen’s sister, who allegedly claimed her brother made radical statements and referred to a plan to do “something.” According to multiple reports, Allen was also confirmed to have purchased a shotgun and two handguns prior to the dinner.

Allen’s potential political affiliation is further reinforced by his reported participation in No Kings protests as well as a $25 donation to former Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris.

During a press briefing at the White House moments after the incident, President Trump insisted that the dinner will be rescheduled, saying, “We’re not going to let anybody take over our society.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Donald trump, Secret service, No kings protests, Cole thomas allen, Jd vance, Kash patel, Todd blanche, Markwayne mullin, Pete hegseth, Melania trump, Karoline leavitt, Trump assassination attempt, Assassination attempt, White house correspondents dinner, Whca, No kings, Act blue, Kamala harris, Political violence, Manifesto, Politics 

Mollie Hemingway is the editor in chief at the Federalist and is known for her in-depth reporting on the Supreme Court.

On a recent episode of “Relatable” with Allie Beth Stuckey, Hemingway shared insider information about the wild circumstances leading up to the Dobbs decision — the landmark U.S. case that overturned Roe v. Wade and pushed abortion back to the states — including the Supreme Court justice who threw an epic tantrum behind closed doors.

“Everyone knew that [Roe v. Wade] was a problem. Everyone knew from the moment it was decided,” Hemingway says. “Even people on the left admitted this case, this decision isn’t even trying to be constitutional law. … But then because the left so greatly wanted to believe that they had a right to kill unborn children, they just moved heaven and earth to keep that decision, even when it shouldn’t have really been lasting for one year, much less 50 years.”

When the Court finally decided to hear the long overdue case, five justices were in favor of overturning the ruling. Justice Samuel Alito was assigned by Clarence Thomas to write the majority opinion.

What Alito produced was a “masterpiece work” — so much so that the dissenting judges were “shocked by how exhaustive it was.”

“There was no argument left standing,” Hemingway says.

Three months after the initial distribution, however, Alito’s draft opinion was infamously leaked, igniting a furious uproar among the left.

“We know that immediately the justices faced death threats, serious threats on their lives. They all had to be moved or be under a great deal of protection, increase their security posture,” Hemingway says, “because if any one of them had been killed … that would have meant that the Dobbs decision would not have been handed down in the way it was. There would no longer have been a majority there.”

Allie and Hemingway speculate that this could have been the sinister intention of the leaker — to either get a justice killed or “gin up” enough outrage to pressure the weaker judges to join the dissent and eliminate the majority.

But none of the majority justices relented, despite the threats on their lives.

After the leak and the subsequent threats, the dissenting justices still hadn’t written their dissent.

“They were delaying the dissemination of this,” Hemingway says.

This was problematic because the majority justices were facing death threats.

“Alito asks if they can wrap it up because left-wing activists have a motivation to kill them, and that’s a concern to the conservative justices, and they wouldn’t,” Hemingway recounts.

Justice Neil Gorsuch requested that the dissenting justices at least give them a date by which they’d have their dissent complete, but they refused.

Justice Stephen Breyer, however, while on the dissenting side, was “the person most likely” to write an opinion that would expedite the process, Hemingway says, because “he was a decent, nice guy who cared about his colleagues.”

“According to my sources, Kagan goes to his chambers and screams at him not to in any way accommodate this request. As one person put it, ‘The walls were shaking,’” Hemingway shares.

Eventually, the dissenting justices relented and agreed to have their dissent ready by June 1.

“Meaning that the [concurring] justices would only have their lives threatened on a continuous day-to-day basis for one month,” Hemingway says.

However, when they finally delivered their dissent, they included a “totally unnecessary” reference to “a New York State rifle decision.”

“So they put that in there just so that they could delay it even further,” Hemingway says, noting that the final Dobbs decision wasn’t released until June 24.

“This is day-to-day attacks on these justices’ lives. You have Amy Coney Barrett having to put on a bulletproof vest in front of her children. You have justices being moved to secure locations or having to greatly increase their security fencing,” she continues, “and it seemed to the justices and their staff that the left-wing justices really didn’t care about what they were going through.”

To hear more of the interview, watch the episode above.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Abortion, Allie beth stuckey, Clarence thomas, Conservative justices, Constitutional law, Dobbs decision, Kagan, Mollie hemingway, Neil gorsuch, Relatable, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Roe v wade, Stephen breyer, Supreme court, Supreme court justice, The federalist, Death threats, Amy coney barrett, Samuel alito, Blazetv, Blaze media 

Washington has a messaging problem on self-driving cars — and it’s becoming harder to ignore.

Regulators and politicians keep telling Americans that autonomous vehicles are the future. Safer roads. Fewer accidents. Smarter mobility. That’s the pitch. But at the same time, they’re turning up the heat on the one company that has already put the technology into millions of vehicles: Tesla.

Tesla has millions of vehicles generating data. Most competitors don’t. That raises a bigger question: control.

If this technology is so important, why does the most widely deployed system keep getting singled out?

Target: Tesla

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has escalated its probe into Tesla’s Full Self-Driving system, taking a closer look at incidents involving the technology. The focus is on low-visibility conditions — fog, glare, dust — where camera-based systems can struggle.

That’s a legitimate concern. But it’s not unique to Tesla. Every system on the road today — whether it’s Super Cruise, BlueCruise, or any lane-centering technology — faces similar limitations.

Yet Tesla remains under the most consistent scrutiny.

That’s where this starts to look less like routine safety oversight and more like selective pressure. Regulators are right about one thing: These systems are not fully autonomous. Drivers still need to stay engaged. That hasn’t changed. So why the escalation now?

Mixed messages

At the same time Washington is warning consumers to stay alert, it’s also pushing policies and funding that accelerate autonomous vehicle deployment. That’s the disconnect. You can’t fast-track a technology and undermine confidence in it at the same time.

And while U.S. regulators focus on Tesla, real-world issues elsewhere are raising broader questions.

In Wuhan, China, more than 100 robotaxis operated by Baidu’s Apollo Go reportedly stalled in traffic following a system-wide glitch, creating disruption across active lanes. No injuries were reported, but the incident highlighted the risks of systems operating without a human fallback.

Waymo problems

We’ve seen similar issues closer to home. In San Francisco, service disruptions — including outages and connectivity problems — have temporarily sidelined Waymo’s robotaxis. In China, Apollo Go vehicles have struggled in complex environments like construction zones — situations that still challenge autonomous systems more than human drivers.

Here’s the part that often gets overlooked: Tesla’s system still requires a human in the loop. Robotaxi services are designed to operate without one.

When a driver-assist system makes a mistake, a person can step in. When a fully autonomous fleet runs into problems, those issues can scale quickly across the system.

That’s not just a technical issue. It’s a scalability risk.

So again — why does Tesla draw so much attention? Because it’s visible. Because it’s ahead in deployment. And because it took a different path.

Setting the pace

Tesla didn’t wait for perfect conditions or full regulatory alignment. It put its system into the real world and improved it through over-the-air updates, collecting large amounts of driving data along the way. That’s a lead competitors are still trying to close.

But that approach doesn’t fit neatly into traditional regulatory models. Regulators are used to slower, more predictable development cycles. Tesla operates more like a software company — iterating continuously and improving through real-world data. That forces regulators to react instead of setting the pace.

According to NHTSA findings, recent updates may not fully resolve visibility-related issues. That matters. It shows the technology is still evolving. But that’s true across the entire industry. Edge cases — weather, lighting, unpredictable road conditions — remain unresolved challenges for every system on the road today.

The difference is scale. Tesla has millions of vehicles generating data. Most competitors don’t. That raises a bigger question: control. Autonomous vehicles aren’t just about convenience. They’re about data, infrastructure, and who ultimately controls mobility.

RELATED: The great Chinese EV hype: What the media isn’t telling you

VCG/Getty Images

Backseat driver

Governments understand that. And they’re not just regulating for safety — they’re shaping the outcome.

That creates friction. Because innovation — especially software-driven innovation — moves faster than regulation ever will.

Tesla is pushing forward in real time. Washington is trying to catch up. And instead of offering clear, consistent rules, it’s sending mixed signals that confuse consumers and distort the market.

Meanwhile, global competition isn’t slowing down. China continues expanding robotaxi programs. U.S. companies like Waymo are scaling more cautiously. Partnerships involving Uber and Lyft are waiting in the wings. The race to define autonomous mobility is already underway — and it’s not just about technology. It’s about leadership.

If regulators are serious about safety, standards need to be applied evenly — not selectively against the most visible player. If autonomy is the future, policy should support innovation, not work against it. Right now, we’re getting mixed signals.

Until Washington decides what it actually wants, the future of self-driving cars won’t be shaped by technology alone — it will be shaped by policy.

​Tesla, Lifestyle, China, Self-driving cars, Robotaxis, Waymo, Ev, Align cars 

Sharing one’s testimony of faith feels intimidating for a lot of people. Many Christians, churches, and discipleship programs get their guidelines from the apostle Paul’s testimony in Acts 26 when he stood before King Agrippa and shared his coming-to-faith story — starting with his former life, moving to his encounter with Jesus, and concluding with his decision to repent and follow Christ.

While Acts 26 is one of the most commonly used biblical models for creating personal testimony templates in Christian discipleship, Jase Robertson says that people are overcomplicating what should be a simple task.

“There’s one point,” he says, that a testimony hinges on: We give our lives up because He gave his life up for us.

A testimony, Jase says, “should be 99.9% about what He did, and your 0.1% is, I gave my life to Him.”

“Your testimony is, you’re going to point to Jesus and say, ‘You want to define love? You want to define how my life turned around? It all started with God becoming a human and giving up His life,’” he says.

Al agrees and says that too many people when sharing their testimonies overfocus on the bad things they did before they knew Christ, but “those things don’t matter” in light of the redemption Christ freely offers.

“The good part of the testimony is: I finally relented. I finally submitted,” he says.

This submission, Al argues, shouldn’t be just the focus of our testimonies; it should be the focus of the entire Christian walk. He points to the marriage passage in Ephesians 5:21, which instructs married couples to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

“That’s the idea,” Al says. “It’s the giving up of yourself, and it’s not just for marriage, but of course, it’s for everything.”

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from the Robertsons?

To enjoy more on God, guns, ducks, and inspiring stories of faith and family, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Acts, Acts 26, Al robertson, Apostle paul, Christianity, Jase robertson, Marriage, Redemption, Sharing testimonies, Testimony, Unashamed, Unashamed with the robertsons, Christian walk, Blazetv, Blaze media