Top Department of Justice officials should not be involved in prosecuting the man accused of attempting to carry out a deadly attack at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner because they themselves were allegedly among the intended targets, defense attorneys argued Monday in federal court.
Lawyers for accused gunman Cole Allen are seeking the recusal of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and interim D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro from the case, claiming both officials have direct personal interests because they attended the annual gala where the alleged attack unfolded on April 25.
Allen, 31, pleaded not guilty Monday in Washington federal court to charges that include attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump, assaulting law enforcement officers, transporting a firearm across state lines to commit a felony, and discharging a weapon during a violent crime. If convicted, he faces a potential life sentence.
Defense attorney Eugene Ohm argued that Blanche and Pirro should not be overseeing prosecutorial decisions in a case where they were potentially among the victims.
“It’s wholly inappropriate” for either official “to be making the primary prosecutorial decisions in the case,” Ohm told the court.
The White House Correspondents’ Dinner was attended by numerous senior Trump administration officials in addition to the president, placing several top DOJ figures inside the event venue at the time prosecutors say Allen planned to attack.
In a May 7 filing, Allen’s attorneys argued Blanche and Pirro “were potential victims and targets in what they have described as an attempted ‘mass shooting.’”
U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden questioned how far such a recusal would extend if the court accepted the argument.
“It sounds like you’d be out too,” McFadden told Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles Jones, suggesting the logic could potentially disqualify broader portions of the Washington prosecutor’s office.
Allen’s legal team argued Pirro’s supervisory authority alone should disqualify the entire D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office from handling the prosecution. They further claimed Blanche’s oversight role created what they described as a “structural appearance of impropriety.”
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani described the defense motion as a long-shot legal strategy unlikely to succeed.
“This is a Hail Mary,” Rahmani said, noting that prosecutors and DOJ officials regularly comment publicly on high-profile criminal cases without triggering automatic disqualification.
The defense has already mounted aggressive challenges to the government’s narrative surrounding the alleged attack.
Earlier filings argued Allen was not carrying “an automatic or even semi-automatic weapon,” undermining prosecutors’ assertions that he intended to carry out a mass casualty event.
Attorneys have also disputed claims that Allen specifically intended to assassinate President Trump, despite prosecutors pointing to a manifesto allegedly sent shortly before the incident.
“While the government may be able to say that the letter expresses an intent to target administration officials, it falls well short of narrowing those officials to President Trump,” the defense argued in an April 30 filing.
Rahmani noted the defense appears to be making contradictory arguments.
“If Pirro was a target, she would potentially be a victim and then the chance of her being disqualified would increase significantly,” he said. “But obviously the defense doesn’t want the government to add additional charges.”
Allen, a former teacher from Torrance, California, appeared in court Monday wearing an orange jail jumpsuit with his arms and legs shackled. He had reportedly been placed on suicide watch following his arrest due to concerns he posed a danger to himself.
The handling of Allen’s detention has already sparked controversy.
During a May 4 hearing, Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui apologized to Allen over his 24-hour lockdown conditions following the shooting incident. Pirro later publicly criticized the judge for what she described as “preferential treatment” toward the defendant.
Allen’s lawyers seized on those remarks in their motion seeking Pirro’s removal from the case, arguing her comments demonstrated personal bias.
“Pirro’s emotional response was inflammatory, inappropriate, and inaccurate,” defense attorneys wrote, adding that her statements revealed “the depths of her personal interest in this case.”
Judge McFadden ordered prosecutors to formally respond to the recusal motion by May 22. Allen’s defense team must file its reply by May 29.
The next pre-trial hearing is scheduled for June 29.
