Two Trump supporters gravely wounded at the Butler rally are now dragging the federal government into court, accusing the Secret Service of a “cascade of preventable failures” that nearly changed American history.
Story Snapshot
- Two men shot alongside Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, are suing the United States for alleged Secret Service negligence.
- The lawsuits claim the rally shooting was “entirely preventable” and that a key rooftop sniper perch was left unsecured.[2][4]
- Plaintiffs point to broken communications, unused security technology, and ignored warnings about the shooter as proof of systemic failure.[4]
- Congressional investigations and even Secret Service admissions of “mistakes” reinforce concerns that federal protection of conservatives fell dangerously short.[1][4]
Victims of Butler Rally Attack Take the Federal Government to Court
Two Pennsylvania men, David Dutch and James Copenhaver, who were shot when an assassin opened fire at then-candidate Donald Trump’s Butler rally on July 13, 2024, are now suing the United States government, alleging that their “life altering physical and emotional injuries” were the direct result of preventable security failures.[2] Filed in federal court, their complaints argue that the assassination attempt on Trump’s life was “entirely preventable” and caused by multiple lapses by the United States Secret Service in both planning and execution.[2][3]
The lawsuits, brought on behalf of the men and their wives, seek at least $150,000 in damages for each family, a figure that may grow as medical needs and long-term trauma become clearer.[1][2] According to reporting on the filings, Dutch and Copenhaver continue to face surgeries and lasting harm after being struck when twenty‑year‑old Thomas Matthew Crooks killed firefighter Corey Comperatore, wounded Trump, and sprayed the crowd with rifle fire before being shot dead seconds later by responding agents.[2][3]
Alleged “Cascade of Failures”: Unsecured Roof, Broken Comms, Ignored Warnings
Centrally, the complaints single out the AGR Complex roof, the very rooftop Crooks used as his sniper position, as a known vulnerability that federal planners failed to secure despite its clear line of sight to Trump’s stage.[1][4] Local television coverage summarizing the court documents notes that the AGR Complex “required special attention” because it overlooked the rally, yet no officers were placed on the roof, and neither the Secret Service nor local agencies assumed clear responsibility for locking it down.[4]
Reporting on the lawsuits says the Secret Service allegedly believed local law enforcement would provide additional presence around the AGR Complex, while local officers told federal agents they did not have the manpower to do so, leaving a critical gap that Crooks exploited.[4] The complaints further accuse the agency of setting up fragmented command posts and relying heavily on cell phones, which plaintiffs say led to splintered communication instead of a unified radio picture that could have pushed timely threat alerts to every protective detail and perimeter post.[1][4]
Drones, “Erratic” Behavior, and Threat Alerts That Never Reached Trump’s Detail
The plaintiffs also highlight technology failures, focusing on a Secret Service drone that was supposed to help detect other drones and potential aerial threats over the grounds.[4] According to coverage of court filings, the agent assigned to that system allegedly had limited experience and spent much of the day simply troubleshooting the drone, which was reportedly not fully operational until late afternoon, long after Crooks had already flown his own drone over the venue to scout his attack position.[4]
Local law enforcement, the lawsuits say, observed Crooks acting erratically prior to the shooting, including using a rangefinder near the site, and circulated an alert with his photograph. Because of communication breakdowns and policy limits inside the Secret Service, that warning allegedly was not pushed broadly across all agencies or even to agents directly tasked with protecting Trump on the stage, undermining the chance to intercept Crooks during the hours he spent moving toward the AGR roof.[4]
Congressional Findings, Secret Service Admissions, and What This Means Going Forward
These civil claims do not arise in a vacuum; they arrive after congressional reviews already flagged serious lapses in how the Butler rally was secured. The Senate Homeland Security Committee and a bipartisan House task force both concluded that there were significant failures in the Secret Service’s site security plan and in its response to the threat posed by Crooks, findings now being cited by the plaintiffs to buttress their negligence narrative.[1][4] Those investigations add institutional weight to concerns long voiced by Trump supporters about unequal protection of conservative events.
The two men who were shot at the Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, are suing the United States for "life altering physical and emotional injuries.”
David Dutch and James Copenhaver were shot at the rally on July 13, 2024. The men’s attorneys state that their injuries were a… pic.twitter.com/92hbzStjim
— The National Desk (@TND) June 3, 2026
Even within the agency, there has been acknowledgment that Butler was not handled correctly. Politico reports that a senior Secret Service official later admitted the agency “had a bad day” and “made a mistake,” specifically mentioning poor communication with local police and the failure to place an agent on the AGR roof from which Crooks fired.[1][4] At the same time, public evidence is still largely based on complaints and media summaries, not full trial-tested records, and the Secret Service has not formally commented on the pending lawsuits, leaving key operational details and accountability questions unresolved.[2]
Sources:
[1] Web – Two men shot at Trump’s Butler rally sue federal government over …
[2] Web – Two people shot during Trump’s Butler rally sue US for negligence
[3] Web – Trump Assassination Attempt Update!
[4] Web – 2 Trump supporters wounded at Butler sue federal government
