Trump broke news of Brown’s shooting and Reiner’s killing before the details were known, echoing others who later took the fact-checking approach

This article originally appeared on PolitiFact.

On a weekend marked by tragedy, President Donald Trump was quick to share what he knew, even if his information was ultimately proven wrong.

He watches: Providence officials provide new videos of the suspect in the Brown University shooting

On December 13, after a gunman opened fire at Brown University, killing two people and wounding nine before evading capture, Trump posted on Truth Social that “FBI is on scene. Suspect is in custody.” But about 20 minutes later, Trump posted an update: “Brown University Police retracted their previous statement – ​​the suspect is not in custody.”

At the time, members of the Brown community in Providence, Rhode Island, were sheltering in place and seeking guidance on safety. A Brown University student responded to the president’s assertion: “I at Brown have not confirmed a shooter is in custody. Please don’t believe Trump and stay inside.”

On December 15, the morning after it was discovered that Hollywood director Rob Reiner and his wife, Michelle, had been murdered in their home, Trump posted on Truth Social that the killings were “reportedly due to the rage he (Rob Reiner) has inflicted on others through his massive, stubborn, and incurable suffering from a mental illness known as Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

He watches: Trump defends response to Rob Reiner’s killing despite GOP criticism

Shortly after, police arrested the couple’s son, Nick, on suspicion of murder. Nick Rayner has spoken in the past about his struggles with drug addiction and homelessness. The police did not say anything about the motive nor did they mention the director’s political ideology.

Trump’s posts echoed the sentiments of other senior government officials who similarly took a post-first, fact-later approach to recent high-profile breaking news.

• A few hours after conservative lawyer Charlie Kirk was assassinated in Utah on September 10, FBI Director Kash Patel posted on X that the suspect was “now in custody.” But less than two hours later, Patel, a Trump appointee, posted that the suspect had been released after questioning. The man ultimately accused of Kirk’s murder was not arrested until more than 24 hours later.
• About 45 minutes after an assailant shot two members of the West Virginia National Guard while on patrol in Washington, D.C., on November 26, West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey posted on X that a National Guard member had died. Ten minutes later, it was announced that they were both dead. About 20 minutes later, he backtracked, citing “conflicting reports.” One Guard member eventually died, but another survived.

Fast-moving investigations often wind up in unexpected ways, especially when a suspect is not immediately arrested, as was the case in all but the Washington, D.C., shootings.

He watches: A Brown University student says there is still “fear in the air” as the manhunt for the gunman continues

Law enforcement is trained to operate carefully and under chaotic conditions to minimize additional harm to bystanders and the public when investigations are still ongoing. That’s why law enforcement investigators historically speak through formal briefings, where they can distribute confirmed information and limit speculation.

A law enforcement officer walks with a police dog as the manhunt continues for the gunman responsible for the deadly shooting at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, on December 15, 2025. Photo by Taylor Koster/Reuters

But in a social media-driven era that rewards being first and foremost over accuracy, government officials like Trump and Patel are replacing the traditional filters of formal press events, fueling online speculation. The result is a media environment full of confusion and allegations, some of which prove false.

“Sometimes, the media publishes background leaks from law enforcement that turn out to be false and then have to respond to them,” said Mark Feldstein, a journalism professor at the University of Maryland and a former investigative reporter for media outlets including ABC News. “Never before have I been aware of a President of the United States or the Director of the FBI having his name publicly linked to information about a pending criminal case that turned out to be so grossly inaccurate.”

Feldstein said sharing such information “undermines trust in individuals and institutions that spread inaccurate information, especially in such high-profile cases that attract so much attention.”

Juliet Kaim, who worked at the Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration, said there was no public safety reason for the FBI director to tweet before the indictment.

“The FBI director is the bridge between a non-public investigation and the disclosure of a successful investigation,” she said. “There is no need to listen to the FBI Director between these two points. Stop tweeting.”

Luke Hunt, a former FBI agent who is now a philosophy professor at the University of Alabama, said the FBI director’s posts in the country are particularly troubling.

“The FBI director — unlike the president — is not supposed to be a politician,” Hunt said in an email. “We historically do not expect reckless, reckless statements from our senior law enforcement officials. We expect a careful search for evidence that leads to the truth. But now I think we are beginning to view the FBI Director’s posts as analogous to the president’s posts. We take what he says with a grain of salt because we have come to expect posts to be steeped in impatience and political expediency.”

Trump’s approach is not new to him, at least. In 2020, during his first term, Trump tweeted a baseless conspiracy theory that a 75-year-old man in Buffalo was recorded being shoved to the ground during a protest that was actually a plant by anti-fascist protesters.

Democrats also shared information prematurely. In 2021, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Mayor Dean Trantalis, a Democrat, called a car crash during the gay pride parade in nearby Wilton Manors a “terrorist attack against the LGBT community.” Police later said the incident was an accident, and Trantalis, the city’s first openly gay mayor, said he regretted calling it a terrorist attack but said he was horrified by the event.

Sometimes, officials gather investigators at the scene by sharing initial bits of information that are eventually supported by other evidence. Even this poses risks.

Hours after a shooter opened fire at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Dallas on September 24, killing two people and wounding another before killing himself, Patel posted a photo of five ammunition shells on the X, one of which bore the words “ANTI ICE.”

He watches: Patel defends investigation into Kirk’s killing in opening statement of Senate Judiciary hearing

“While the investigation remains ongoing, a preliminary review of the evidence shows a perfect motive behind this attack,” Patel wrote. The revelation came shortly after a local press conference in which the cover letters were not mentioned.

Although other evidence ultimately supported that motive, Patel deviated from the norm when he released preliminary evidence too early in the investigation — something experts say was risky.

When government officials release unconfirmed or inaccurate information prematurely, their actions can complicate subsequent prosecutions by providing jurors with alternative suspects and raising reasonable doubt. It can expose the government and the media to legal risks, including paying payments to wrongly accused people.

The most famous example is Richard Jewell, one of the early suspects in the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing. Jewell “was acquitted but suffered damages until the government declared his innocence,” said Stanley Brand, a distinguished fellow in law and government at Penn State Dickinson Law School. Then-Attorney General Janet Reno publicly apologized, and Jewell obtained settlements from several media outlets that reported on him in connection with the bombing.

While law enforcement officials investigating Brown’s shooting were interviewing a person they described as a “person of interest,” some media outlets quoted the person’s name, often citing unnamed law enforcement sources. After the person was released and the investigation went in a different direction, Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neroha told reporters during a news conference that “what’s really unfortunate is that this person’s name has been leaked to the public. It’s hard to put that back in the bottle.”

Days after Kirk’s murder, Patel told “Fox & Friends” that he did not regret his decision to reveal information about one of the suspects even though it was quickly proven incorrect.

“I have been as transparent in working with the public about our findings as I have,” he said. “I stated in that letter that we had a subject and that we were going to interview him, which we did, and he was released,” Patel said.

“Could have phrased it a little better in the heat of the moment, absolutely,” Patel said. “But do I regret publishing that? Absolutely not. I was telling the world what the FBI was doing as we were doing, and I continue to do so.”

PolitiFact News researcher Karen Byrd contributed to this report.