Defense attorneys for Cole Tomas Allen, the 31-year-old California man accused of opening fire outside the White House Correspondents' Association dinner on April 25, have formally asked a federal judge to disqualify U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche from prosecuting the case. The reason: both officials were inside the Washington Hilton ballroom when the shots rang out, making them potential witnesses and victims in the very case they are leading.
Pirro isn't budging. Asked earlier this month whether she plans to recuse herself, she answered with two words: "Absolutely not."
The filing, submitted May 7 by Allen's legal team, sets up what could become one of the most consequential pretrial fights in a case already freighted with national significance. At its core is a straightforward question the defense put bluntly in its motion, as reported by the Washington Examiner: "How can the American justice system permit a victim to prosecute a criminal defendant in a case involving them?"
Allen's lawyers contend that Pirro and Blanche face either an actual conflict of interest or, at minimum, the appearance of one. Both attended the dinner where President Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and roughly 2,500 other guests were present when Allen allegedly attempted to breach the event armed with a shotgun, a pistol, and six knives.
The filing zeroes in on Pirro's conduct after the incident. It states that she "made several media appearances since April 25, 2026 and has referenced her status as a potential victim." Within roughly thirty minutes of the attack, the filing says, Pirro posted a video on social media declaring, "I've been taken out of the ballroom after the sounds of shots fired."
Allen's attorneys also raised Pirro's longtime personal relationship with Trump as a separate ground for disqualification, stating the two have been friends "for decades." The motion argued that this relationship, layered on top of her presence at the scene, creates "at the very least, the appearance of partiality that necessitates the recusal of U.S. Attorney Pirro and Acting AG Blanche."
During Allen's arraignment on Monday, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden pressed the defense to elaborate on the scope of its request. Defense attorney Eugene Ohm indicated the team would likely seek to disqualify Pirro's entire office, though he acknowledged that disqualifying the entire Department of Justice would be a stretch. The Associated Press reported that the defense has suggested a special prosecutor may be warranted.
McFadden gave prosecutors until May 22 to respond in writing and to specify whether the government considers Pirro and Blanche victims in the case.
Pirro has shown no sign of stepping aside. In a statement to Newsweek, she said her office would "evaluate the motion and respond in court." She followed that with a broader declaration:
"We will not tolerate people who come to the District of Columbia to engage in antidemocratic acts of political violence; and we will prosecute all such acts to the fullest extent of the law."
Separately, Pirro dismissed the recusal argument on its merits. "There is no way," she said. "That would be like telling witnesses you can't testify at the trial because you were there. The truth is that there were 2,500 of us who were there, and my ability to prosecute this case has nothing to do with my being there."
The U.S. Attorney has been anything but quiet about the case. The New York Post reported that Pirro appeared on CNN to discuss the prosecution, stating that prosecutors are confident they can prove Allen intended to kill President Trump. "Clearly, the president is a target. And make no mistake, it is not just the manifesto. It is his actions," Pirro told the network. She also said video and forensic evidence show Allen, not friendly fire, wounded a Secret Service officer, declaring, "I can tell you, we will be able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt."
That kind of public commentary is precisely what the defense filing highlights as problematic. Pirro's media presence, her invocation of her own experience at the scene, and her willingness to discuss evidence publicly all feed the argument that she has crossed from prosecutor to participant.
Pirro's aggressive posture in the role of U.S. Attorney extends well beyond this case. She has moved to interview accusers in the Eric Swalwell matter, signaling a willingness to take on politically sensitive cases head-on.
The recusal question has drawn sharply divided opinion from former prosecutors and legal commentators, a split that reveals how much the answer depends on whether one prioritizes legal technicality or prosecutorial prudence.
Elie Honig, a legal analyst who discussed the case on CNN, called Pirro and Blanche "probably intended victims" and warned that staying on the case hands the defense a gift on appeal. "There are dozens, hundreds of other prosecutors in DOJ more than capable of trying this case and of supervising this case," Honig said. He added a pointed warning:
"There are federal courts of appeals in this country that have thrown out guilty verdicts because prosecutors refuse to recuse when they should have recused."
Gene Rossi, a former federal prosecutor, told Newsweek he believes Pirro should step aside. "Even if you don't have an actual conflict, if you have an appearance of a conflict, you should recuse yourself," Rossi said. He described recusal as the "wisest course," noting it would "take away a potential argument from the defense if they need to file an appeal in the case."
Rossi put it more directly: "The US attorney is creating an issue that she could easily get rid of if she errs on the side of caution and acts purer than Caesar's wife. It's as simple as that."
But not everyone agrees the motion has teeth. Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek there is "little to no chance" Pirro will be disqualified, arguing the legal basis is thin. "She is not a material, necessary witness. Allen didn't even breach the perimeter, so I'm not even sure that she even witnessed anything, and she hasn't been named as a victim in the indictment," Rahmani said.
Rahmani framed the motion as standard defense gamesmanship, "part of the strategy of litigation." He acknowledged that good defense lawyers raise these motions to create potential appellate issues, but cautioned that prosecutors must think beyond a trial verdict to one that withstands appeal.
Former federal prosecutor Shanlon Wu offered a middle ground, telling Newsweek the outcome "depends heavily upon the discretion of the officials and the court." Wu said the issue could give the defense potential grounds for appeal but would not likely complicate a jury verdict on its own.
The charges Allen faces are severe. He pleaded not guilty on Monday to attempted assassination, assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon, and two firearm counts. The attempted assassination charge alone carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Authorities allege Allen opened fire during the April 25 WHCA dinner at the Washington Hilton. A Secret Service officer was struck in the chest, but a protective vest stopped the bullet. No one else was physically injured. Allen was subdued by law enforcement before reaching the ballroom where Trump, Vance, and other high-ranking officials were gathered.
Minutes before the attack, authorities said, Allen sent a message to family members invoking Christian theological traditions to justify the violence he was about to attempt. He was placed on suicide watch in the days that followed.
The conditions of Allen's confinement have already sparked their own controversy. Breitbart reported that U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui apologized to Allen over what the judge described as treatment "tantamount to solitary confinement", a remark that drew a sharp public rebuke from Pirro, who wrote on X that "a defendant armed to the teeth and attempting to assassinate the president" should not receive "preferential treatment in his confinement compared to every other defendant."
Allen, a Caltech graduate who earned a master's degree in computer science from Cal State Dominguez Hills in 2025, had worked as a tutor at C2 Education and was honored as "Teacher of the Month" at its Torrance location as recently as December 2024. Newsmax reported that authorities said Pirro was attending the event when Allen allegedly ran through a security checkpoint and fired.
The recusal debate matters beyond legal procedure. If Pirro stays on the case and Allen is convicted, the defense will almost certainly raise her involvement on appeal. Federal appellate courts have, as Honig noted, overturned guilty verdicts when prosecutors refused to recuse under comparable circumstances. In a case involving an alleged attempt on the life of the sitting president, a reversed conviction would be a catastrophic outcome, not just for the prosecution, but for public confidence in the justice system.
The Justice Department has handled high-profile prosecutions before, and the DOJ's recent track record on major criminal cases shows the department has no shortage of experienced prosecutors who could step in.
Pirro's argument, that being present at the scene among 2,500 other attendees does not create a disqualifying conflict, is not frivolous. Rahmani's point that Allen never breached the perimeter and that Pirro is not named as a victim in the indictment carries weight. But the stronger argument may be the practical one: why hand a defendant facing life in prison a ready-made appellate issue when the fix is straightforward?
The broader pattern of politically charged prosecutorial disputes across the federal system makes this question all the more pressing. When the public already doubts the impartiality of the justice system, even the appearance of a conflict can corrode trust.
Prosecutors have until May 22 to respond. Judge McFadden's order, requiring the government to state in writing whether it considers Pirro and Blanche victims, suggests the court takes the question seriously, even if the ultimate answer is no.
The evidence against Allen appears strong. Pirro herself has said so, publicly and repeatedly. The surest way to make that evidence stick is to let someone without a personal stake in the outcome present it to a jury.
