Pellet Evidence Links Suspect to Attack at White House Correspondents' Dinner

On the evening of April 25, 2026, Cole Tomas Allen, a 31-year-old mechanical engineer and part-time tutor from Torrance, California, sprinted through a magnetometer checkpoint at the Washington Hilton, raised a Mossberg 12-gauge pump-action shotgun, and fired at a U.S. Secret Service officer standing between him and a ballroom where President Donald Trump was attending the annual White House Correspondents' Association Dinner [1][2]. The officer, wearing a ballistic vest, was struck in the chest and hospitalized but released the same night [3]. Secret Service agents returned fire, and Allen fell to the ground with minor injuries; he was not hit by any of the rounds fired at him [1].

Eight days later, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced that investigators had recovered a buckshot pellet "intertwined with the fiber of the vest" of the Secret Service officer and that it came "definitively" from Allen's Mossberg shotgun [4][5]. The announcement settled — at least in the government's view — a contested question that had hung over the case since the night of the shooting: whether the agent was struck by Allen's weapon or by friendly fire from fellow officers.

The Attack: 27 Minutes of Surveillance, 10 Seconds of Violence

According to the DOJ criminal complaint and surveillance footage released by prosecutors, Allen had been a guest at the Washington Hilton since April 24 [1]. On the evening of April 25, he used his phone to track the president's movements, searching for whether Trump had arrived at the ballroom and what time dinner would be served [6].

At approximately 8:03 p.m., Allen took a selfie in his hotel room mirror, showing a gun holster, sheathed knife, and ammunition bag strapped to his body beneath a long black coat [7][8]. At 8:40 p.m., he approached the Terrace Level security checkpoint — one floor above the ballroom entrance — carrying the shotgun along with a .38-caliber Rock Island Armory 1911 pistol, two knives, four daggers, pliers, wire cutters, and additional ammunition [1][9].

Allen charged through the magnetometer and fired. The Secret Service officer at the checkpoint was hit once in the chest. The officer drew his service weapon and returned fire multiple times. Other agents also fired. Allen fell but was not struck by any bullets, and was taken into custody at the scene [1][3].

President Trump, First Lady Melania Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and members of the Cabinet were evacuated by Secret Service [2]. No other individuals were injured [3].

The Pellet Evidence: What It Shows and What It Doesn't

The buckshot pellet is now the prosecution's primary physical link between Allen's weapon and the shooting of the Secret Service officer. Pirro told CNN on May 3 that "a pellet that came from the buckshot from the defendant's Mossberg pump-action shotgun was intertwined with the fiber of the vest of the Secret Service officer. It is definitively his bullet" [4][5].

This matters because for nearly a week after the shooting, it was unclear who had actually shot the officer. On April 28, the FBI acknowledged it was still trying to determine whether the agent was hit by Allen's weapon or by rounds from fellow officers [10]. The Daily Beast reported that investigators were examining the possibility of friendly fire [11]. Allen's defense attorneys — Assistant Federal Public Defenders Tezira Abe and Eugene Ohm — seized on this ambiguity, noting in a court filing that prosecutors had "apparently retreated from the theory" that Allen shot the officer "by not mentioning the alleged officer at all in its memorandum" [12].

The pellet announcement was Pirro's response to that defense argument, and it came through a CNN interview rather than a formal DOJ press release or charging document supplement [4]. The DOJ's original April 27 press release described the officer being "shot once in the chest" but did not detail the forensic basis for that claim [1]. As of May 4, no updated charging document reflecting the pellet evidence has been filed publicly.

The Limits of Shotgun Forensics

The forensic reliability of matching a buckshot pellet to a specific weapon is significantly more limited than matching a bullet fired from a rifled firearm. Unlike rifles and handguns, which impart unique lands-and-grooves markings on projectiles, shotguns have smooth bores that leave no rifling marks on pellets [13][14].

Forensic examiners can sometimes match shotshell components — wadding, hull markings, primer impressions — to a particular weapon. But pellet-to-gun matching relies primarily on ammunition type identification rather than individualized weapon identification [13]. A 2020 study by Itiel Dror and Nicholas Scurich found that different forensic experts examining the same ballistic evidence frequently reached conflicting conclusions, with some declaring a "definite match" while others found the same evidence "inconclusive" [14].

The 2009 National Academy of Sciences report and the 2016 President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report both raised concerns about the empirical foundations of forensic ballistics generally [14]. Defense attorneys in cases involving shotgun evidence have used these reports to challenge the admissibility of ballistic matching under the Daubert standard, which requires scientific reliability rather than mere general acceptance [14].

Whether Allen's defense team will challenge the pellet evidence on these grounds remains to be seen. Their initial strategy focused on questioning whether Allen fired his weapon at all — a position that the video evidence released on April 30 and May 1 appears to undermine [15][16].

The Charges: Attempted Assassination and What Comes Next

Allen faces three federal charges [1]:

• Attempted assassination of the President of the United States (18 U.S.C. § 1751)
• Discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c))
• Transportation of a firearm and ammunition in interstate commerce with intent to commit a felony (18 U.S.C. § 924(b))

He faces life in prison if convicted on the attempted assassination charge [2]. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said on May 4 that additional charges are expected, with a formal indictment "forthcoming" [6].

The charges bypass the more typical 18 U.S.C. § 111, which covers assault on federal officers and carries a maximum of 20 years when a dangerous weapon is used and bodily injury occurs [17]. The attempted assassination statute carries far more severe penalties and requires prosecutors to prove not just that Allen assaulted a federal officer, but that the president was his intended target.

The evidence of intent appears substantial. Allen's pre-attack email to family members, sent approximately 10 minutes before the shooting, stated: "I wish I could have said anything earlier, but doing so would have made none of this possible" [1]. He signed the email "Cole 'coldForce' 'Friendly Federal Assassin' Allen" [1]. The FBI affidavit references grievances against Trump administration policies including immigration detention practices, military strikes, and what Allen described as "a pedophile, rapist, and traitor" [18].

Who Is Cole Tomas Allen?

Allen graduated from Caltech with a degree in mechanical engineering in 2017 and earned a master's in computer science from California State University, Dominguez Hills, in 2025 [7][19]. He worked part-time at C2 Education, a tutoring firm in Torrance, where he received a "Teacher of the Month" award in December 2024 [7].

His social media footprint, primarily a Bluesky account verified by NBC News, contained posts critical of Trump and his administration's policies [7]. Federal Election Commission records show a $25 donation to ActBlue for Kamala Harris's presidential campaign in October 2024 [7].

Researcher Jared Holt, who analyzed Allen's attributed social media profiles, described the content as "quite centrist, pretty moderate left wing, if anything," noting the absence of radical positioning typically associated with violent extremists [18]. Allen's postings reflected what Holt characterized as "hopelessness about democracy's effectiveness" rather than ideological radicalization or conspiratorial thinking [18].

Allen's sister reportedly told authorities he had made "radical" statements, but experts found little corroborating evidence in his public-facing digital record [18]. He had no known criminal record and no identified affiliation with extremist groups [7][19].

After his arrest, Allen was placed on suicide watch at the D.C. jail. He has since been moved off suicide status and agreed to remain jailed pending trial [20][21].

Security Failures: A Pattern Under Scrutiny

The WHCD shooting exposed multiple layers of security breakdown at the Washington Hilton. Unlike national special security events (NSSEs) such as political conventions or inaugurations, the Correspondents' Dinner does not receive the highest tier of Secret Service protection. No specially trained counterassault agents were on standby [22][23].

Several specific failures have been identified [22][23][24]:

• No hotel-wide screening: The Washington Hilton is a functioning hotel. Allen was a registered guest, giving him access to the building's interior without passing through any security checkpoint. There were "no checkpoints to get into the hotel" itself.
• Checkpoint staffing lapses: The dinner began at 8 p.m. By the time Allen approached the checkpoint at 8:40 p.m., screening staff were not expecting additional guests and were not closely monitoring the magnetometer.
• Unsecured stairwell: No officers or agents were stationed in the stairwell Allen used to reach the Terrace Level checkpoint from the hotel's lower floors.
• K-9 detection: A police K-9 unit flagged Allen seconds before he sprinted past the checkpoint, but the alert came too late for agents to intervene [25].

FBI Director Kash Patel said security protocols for any future rescheduling of the dinner would "look completely different" [26].

Source: Axios / DOJ records

Data as of May 3, 2026CSV

The WHCD shooting marks the fourth known security incident involving Trump since 2024. The July 13, 2024, rally shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania, resulted in Trump being struck in the ear and attendee Corey Comperatore being killed [27]. A congressional investigation subsequently found "extremely poor planning" and communication failures by the Secret Service at that event [28]. Nine weeks later, a gunman was discovered with an AK-style rifle near Trump's golf club in Florida [27].

Source: DHS Budget-in-Brief

Data as of Mar 1, 2026CSV

The Secret Service budget has grown from $2.28 billion in FY2020 to a requested $3.45 billion for FY2026, yet the agency has faced persistent staffing shortages [22]. A CNN investigation published April 29 described the agency as "stretched thin," with resources divided across an expanding number of protectees and high-profile events [22].

Pirro's Dual Role: Prosecutor and Public Messenger

The pellet evidence entered the public record through Pirro's television appearance on CNN, not through a court filing or official DOJ statement [4]. This has drawn attention for several reasons.

Pirro, the former Westchester County district attorney and Fox News host, was appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia by President Trump. Her role as both the lead prosecutor and the primary public communicator in the case has attracted scrutiny. During Allen's detention hearing on April 30, a federal judge admonished prosecutors for what the judge described as "grandstanding" in their public statements about the case [16].

Defense attorneys have not publicly commented on the pellet evidence announcement specifically, but their earlier filings suggest they view the prosecution's public statements as exceeding the evidentiary record presented in court [12].

Legal analysts note that prosecutors routinely present forensic evidence at trial or in grand jury proceedings rather than through media interviews. Whether the pellet evidence will be presented through expert testimony and subjected to cross-examination — the standard test of forensic reliability — will depend on the trial timeline, which has not yet been set.

What Remains Unresolved

Several questions remain open as the case moves toward a formal indictment:

• Whether additional charges will be filed, as Acting AG Blanche indicated [6]
• Whether the defense will mount a Daubert challenge to the shotgun pellet evidence
• Whether the Secret Service will release an independent after-action report on security failures at the dinner
• What, specifically, radicalized a man with no criminal record, no extremist affiliations, and what researchers describe as moderate political views, to attempt an assassination

The case sits at the intersection of presidential security, forensic science, and the politics of domestic extremism. The pellet in the vest may prove to be the physical evidence that anchors the prosecution's case — or, under the scrutiny of adversarial proceedings, it may prove less definitive than Pirro's "definitively" suggests.