An anonymous donor paid for the cremation of Thomas Crooks, the man who tried to kill President Trump at a rally in Butler, Pa., according to federal records reviewed by The New York Post. The information was included in a trove of documents provided to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) as part of his ongoing inquiry into the first Trump assassination attempt.
The note appears at the end of a summary of an interview conducted with Crooks’ father, Matthew, by federal investigators. It reads simply: “Anonymous donor paid for cremation.” The document suggests the information came from a lawyer representing the family.
Who Paid for the Cremation
Matthew was described in the records as “retired,” while his wife was noted to be on leave from work. The addendum suggested the family could not come up with the money for Thomas’ funeral arrangements. Matthew also explained in other parts of the records that he was “unemployed” at the time of the shooting.
The Post’s attempts to reach Matthew for comment were unsuccessful.
The FBI released Crooks’ body for cremation just 10 days after the July 13 shooting, according to Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.). He revealed the details in a letter to the bipartisan congressional task force investigating the security failures around the incident.
“My effort to examine Crooks’ body on Monday, August 5 [2024], caused quite a stir and revealed a disturbing fact… the FBI released the body for cremation 10 days after (July 13),” Higgins wrote.
The Records Provided to Grassley
The documents containing the information were handed over to Grassley as part of his inquiry into the assassination attempt. They include the interview summary with Matthew, the note about the anonymous donor, and details about the family’s financial situation.
The note about the cremation payment is brief and factual. It does not identify the donor or explain why the family needed outside help. It simply states that the cremation was paid for by an anonymous source.
Higgins was visibly disturbed by the timeline, writing that his request to examine the body caused a stir.
What the Family Said
Matthew told investigators that he was unemployed at the time of the shooting. His wife was on leave from work. The records suggest the family struggled to cover funeral costs.
The anonymous donor stepped in to pay for the cremation. That arrangement spared the family the expense of a funeral, though it left the question of who arranged it unanswered.
The records do not say whether the family agreed to the cremation. They do not say whether the family was consulted before the decision was made. They simply record the fact that the cremation was paid for and that the body was released.
Questions Raised by the Payment
The revelation raises questions about who wanted Crooks’ remains destroyed quickly and whether the family could afford the arrangement on their own. The fact that an anonymous donor stepped in suggests the family may have lacked the means to handle the costs themselves.
Higgins was disturbed by the timeline, writing that his request to examine the body caused a stir.
The task force is examining security failures around the incident, and the handling of the body is part of that broader picture.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 13 | Shooting occurs |
| August 5 | Higgins examines the body |
| 10 days after July 13 | Body released for cremation |
The records reviewed by The Post provide a window into how the family handled the aftermath. They show a retired father, an unemployed husband, and a wife on leave from work, struggling to manage the costs of a funeral for their son.
The anonymous donor stepped in to pay for the cremation. That is the full extent of what the records show. The story ends there, with the body gone.
The Post’s reporting has reached Matthew without response. The family’s lawyer spoke to investigators, and the records reflect what that lawyer reported. No further statement has been made publicly.
The story of the anonymous donor is now part of the public record. It will likely be discussed as Grassley’s committee continues its work. For now, the question of who paid remains open.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.