EXCLUSIVE: Accused Trump Assassin Suffers Major Court Blow After Trying to Ban Prez's Close Ally Jeanine Pirro From Prosecuting Case
The man accused of attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump suffered a major legal setback after a federal judge rejected his effort to remove U.S. Attorney.
June 23 2026, Published 7:23 p.m. ET
The man accused of attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump suffered a major legal setback after a federal judge rejected his effort to remove U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche from the high-profile criminal case, RadarOnline.com can reveal.
According to a newly filed order obtained by Radar, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden denied defendant Cole Tomas Allen's motion seeking to disqualify Pirro and Blanche from overseeing the prosecution stemming from the alleged April 25 attack at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington, D.C.
Allen Allegedly 'Intended to Kill The Prez'
Allen is accused of attempting to assassinate Trump after allegedly storming through a Secret Service security checkpoint at the Washington Hilton while armed with a shotgun.
As Radar previously reported, Allen is accused of attempting to assassinate Trump after allegedly storming through a Secret Service security checkpoint at the Washington Hilton while armed with a shotgun.
Prosecutors claim Allen intended to kill the president and potentially other administration officials attending the annual event. A Secret Service officer was wounded during the confrontation before Allen was subdued and arrested.
Allen's attorneys argued that Pirro and Blanche should be removed from the case because both attended the dinner and were present in the hotel when gunfire erupted.
Pirro and Blanche To Stay On Case
McFadden concluded that neither official qualifies as a legal victim of the alleged crimes and that there attendance at the event does not create a conflict requiring recusal.
The judge wasn’t persuaded.
In a strongly worded ruling, McFadden concluded neither official qualifies as a legal victim of the alleged crimes and their attendance at the event does not create a conflict requiring recusal.
"The only people directly and proximately harmed by those alleged crimes are the President and the wounded Secret Service officer," the judge wrote while rejecting Allen’s argument that Pirro and Blanche were victims because they could have potentially been harmed during the incident.
The court also dismissed Allen’s claim Pirro's close personal relationship with Trump should bar her from participating in the case.
Allen Remains At The Center of Attack
McFadden noted that presidents have historically appointed close friends, allies and trusted confidants to senior Justice Department positions.
McFadden noted that presidents have historically appointed close friends, allies and trusted confidants to senior Justice Department positions, citing examples ranging from President John F. Kennedy appointing his brother Robert Kennedy as attorney general.
The judge further observed that the Justice Department has routinely prosecuted presidential assassination cases without requiring special prosecutors, including the prosecution of John Hinckley Jr. following his attempt to kill Reagan.
As Radar previously reported, Allen has remained at the center of a growing legal battle since his arrest.
Allen Tracked Information Surrounding WHCD
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Prosecutors have maintained that the evidence shows Allen intended to target Trump and potentially other administration officials attending the event.
Court filings claim Allen tracked information surrounding the White House Correspondents’ Dinner before allegedly traveling to the Washington Hilton armed with a shotgun. Prosecutors have maintained that the evidence shows Allen intended to target Trump and potentially other administration officials attending the event.
Allen additionally argued that Pirro’s public comments about the attack and statements describing herself as being "in the line of fire" demonstrated bias.
The court rejected that claim as well, ruling that prosecutors are permitted to express their belief in a defendant’s guilt and remain zealous advocates on behalf of the government.
In the end, McFadden found no legal basis to remove either official from the case and denied the motion in its entirety, allowing Pirro’s office to continue leading the prosecution against Allen as he faces charges tied to the alleged attempt on Trump's life.
