Mom of 23-year-old shot dead by her dad in Texas after 'argument about Trump' gives major update on case
Lucy Harrison, 23, died after allegedly being shot by her father on January 10, 2025, after they got into a discussion about Donald Trump. Now, more than a year after her death, her mother has returned to the United States seeking answers about what happened and calling for the investigation into her daughter’s death to be reopened.
According to reports, Lucy was shot and killed while staying with her father, Kris Harrison, at his family home in Prosper, Texas. Lucy, from Warrington in the UK, had traveled to the US with her boyfriend, Sam Littler.
The couple were supposed to fly back to the UK on January 10, 2025, but the day of their intended departure took a tragic turn.
According to Littler, Lucy and her father got into an argument about politics. During the argument, Sky News reported that Lucy asked Kris how he would feel if she were sexually assaulted, to which he allegedly replied that he wouldn’t be that upset, reportedly referring to the fact that he has two other daughters who live with him.
His answer then caused Lucy to “run upstairs” as she was “upset,” according to Littler.
A while later, Littler heard a sudden bang and Kris shouting for his wife.
“I remember running into the room and Lucy was lying on the floor near the entrance to the bathroom, and Kris was just screaming, just sort of nonsense,” Littler said.
Lucy Harrison was shot after ‘argument’ about Trump
Kris later told police that the shooting had been an accident.
Bodycam footage taken by officers inside his home in Prosper recorded the moment the father told police he had been in the process of showing Lucy his gun when it “just went off”.
He claimed Lucy had asked to see his gun as she didn’t know he had one.
A UK inquest also heard how Kris had previously been to rehab for alcohol addiction, with the father himself admitting in a statement that he had relapsed on the day of the shooting.
After Lucy’s death, her father said in a statement: “There isn’t a day I don’t feel the weight of that loss – a weight I will carry for the rest of my life, and I know that nothing I say can ease the heartbreak this tragedy has caused.”
He concluded: “I am deeply sorry for the pain others feel from this tragedy. Lucy’s spirit – her warmth, her humour, her kindness – will live on in all of us who loved her.”
Investigations into Lucy’s death
Following Lucy’s death, Texas authorities initially investigated the case as a possible manslaughter. However, authorities ultimately found there was no criminal conduct, and a grand jury concluded there wasn’t enough evidence to bring criminal charges.
In the UK, meanwhile, a coroner reportedly concluded that Lucy had been unlawfully killed, despite no criminal conviction being pursued.
Her mother, Jane Coates, has said the UK finding gave the family some recognition of what they believe happened to Lucy, but did not resolve their concerns about the investigation in Texas.
“We had to wait until February 2026 before we felt that we could freely speak about what we felt had happened to Lucy and how let down we felt,” Jane explained, according to VT.
“Receiving the unlawful killing outcome was a day full of complete mixed emotions, but one where finally Lucy’s truth and voice has been heard in some capacity.
“But from then it still hasn’t moved things forward in terms of my request for a reopening of the investigation in Texas.”
Her mother has now returned to the US
Jane has now returned to the US after previously saying she intended to meet with the district attorney and call for the case to be reopened and investigated further. She has made the trip with the support of campaigner Radd Seiger.
The family has been sharing updates from their campaign online through “For Luce,” with Jane keeping supporters informed and recently confirming that she had arrived in Dallas.
But the family says their efforts to speak with officials have so far hit a roadblock, claiming that both Prosper Police and the District Attorney’s Office had “refused to meet” with them.
A statement released on behalf of the family said their “door remains open to them should they change their minds”.
“Jane is here because, 20 months after Lucy was shot and killed in Prosper, she still doesn’t have the answers she deserves.
“The case for now reopening the investigation into what happened to Lucy can no longer reasonably be ignored.
“We have come to Dallas to seek justice. Anyone in Jane’s position would do the same, including those in authority here if Lucy were their child. It is the right thing to do.”
“The case needs to be reopened”
The family said Jane intends to speak to the media and that the family is “putting our case to them”.
“In Lucy’s case, Harrison says the gun just went off. We are not prepared to simply accept that explanation without asking whether it was properly tested,” it said.
“We are going to keep putting the evidence and the questions in front of the people responsible and in front of the public in the United States.
“If this investigation really was thorough and complete, then show us why. If, however, as we strongly suspect, it was not thorough and complete, then the case needs to be reopened and independently reinvestigated. It is the only credible way forward.”
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has previously said it remains in contact with Lucy’s family, according to VT.
A spokesperson said: “Our thoughts remain with Jane and her family for the tragic loss they have suffered. We were in contact with the family and provided consular support.
“We will always look to learn lessons to improve the consular support we offer to other families in the future.”
NO SURRENDER — Ilhan Omar Fires Back at Donald Trump After Federal Agents Search Her Home
Ilhan Omar is refusing to back down after federal agents searched her Washington, D.C., home in a criminal investigation—an extraordinary development that has reignited her long-running confrontation with Donald Trump just weeks before the midterm elections.
The Minnesota Democrat responded with a defiant message: “I will not be silenced.” She accused the Trump administration of using federal law enforcement to target political opponents and described the search as another escalation in what she called a decade-long campaign of intimidation.
The statement immediately raised the political stakes. Omar is not simply disputing the circumstances surrounding the search; she is challenging the administration’s conduct and demanding that the public examine why federal agents took such a consequential step so close to an election.
But the central questions remain unresolved: What exactly are investigators looking for, what evidence supports the inquiry, and will the search trigger a broader confrontation between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration?
‘I Will Not Be Silenced’: Omar’s Defiant Response
On October 12, after news of the search emerged, Omar posted a response on social media that began with a brief reassurance: “I’m ok.”
She then delivered a much sharper political message, accusing the administration of targeting political enemies and weaponizing federal law enforcement.
“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns,” Omar wrote, describing the search as the latest escalation in what she characterized as political intimidation. She ended with a declaration that quickly became the defining line of her response: “I will not be silenced.”
Her congressional office issued a separate statement calling the search an “outrageous abuse of power” and an “unprecedented escalation” in the use of federal law enforcement against political opponents. The statement said Omar had done nothing wrong and argued that no president should be able to use the federal government to intimidate political adversaries.
Those are Omar’s allegations and her office’s position. The search itself was carried out under a judicially authorized warrant, according to the Justice Department. Whether investigators uncover evidence of wrongdoing—and whether the search was justified by the facts of the case—remains to be established.
What Happened at Omar’s Washington Home?
Federal agents with Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, searched Omar’s Washington residence early Monday, October 12.
The Justice Department confirmed that agents executed a search warrant authorized by a court as part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation. Officials did not publicly disclose a complete account of the evidence being sought or all the details of the inquiry.
Reporting by CBS News and The Washington Post indicated that investigators were examining immigration paperwork dating back to Omar’s childhood. The documents reportedly involved paperwork completed by her late father when the family came to the United States as refugees from Somalia.
The details remain limited, and the reported focus of the investigation should not be confused with a finding of guilt. A search warrant authorizes investigators to look for specified evidence; it does not establish that the person whose home is searched committed a crime.
Omar has repeatedly rejected allegations against her and portrayed the renewed scrutiny as politically motivated. Her office’s statement following the search reiterated that she had done nothing wrong.
As of the latest reports, authorities had not publicly laid out a complete evidentiary case against the congresswoman. That leaves a critical distinction at the center of the story: the investigation is real, but its ultimate findings are not yet known.
Why the Timing Has Become a Political Flashpoint
The search took place less than a month before the November midterm elections, when control of Congress is at stake. That timing has intensified questions from Democrats about whether the action could influence the political environment surrounding Omar’s reelection campaign.
House Judiciary Committee Democrats raised concerns about the search, while senior Democratic leaders condemned the action and questioned the use of federal power against a sitting member of Congress so close to an election.
The criticism centers on more than Omar’s personal dispute with Trump. It touches on a broader principle: federal law enforcement must be able to investigate potential crimes, but its decisions should be grounded in evidence and applied without improper political influence.
The Justice Department has confirmed the existence of a court-authorized search but has not publicly provided a full explanation of the investigative rationale. Without that information, it is not possible to establish from the public record alone whether the timing was politically motivated or driven by investigative necessities.
That uncertainty is likely to keep the controversy alive. Democrats are demanding answers about the decision and its timing, while the investigation itself remains ongoing.
A Long-Running Clash Between Omar and Trump
Omar has been one of Trump’s most prominent congressional critics. Their political conflict has repeatedly drawn national attention, with disputes involving immigration, national identity, federal enforcement and the congresswoman’s background.
Trump has frequently criticized Omar in public, while Omar has accused him of spreading false claims and using inflammatory rhetoric against her and the Somali American community.
In the days before the search, Omar had also criticized Trump’s rhetoric about Somali Americans. The latest federal action therefore arrived against the backdrop of an already bitter political relationship—not in isolation.
Still, a history of public hostility does not by itself prove that a federal investigation was politically directed. Establishing improper interference would require evidence about how the investigation was initiated, authorized and conducted.
That distinction matters because the controversy involves two separate questions: whether investigators have a legitimate basis to pursue the case, and whether the administration has handled the matter in a politically appropriate way.
Both questions deserve scrutiny, but neither should be treated as settled before the relevant evidence is available.
Democrats Demand Answers as the Investigation Continues
Omar’s response has been echoed by Democratic colleagues who say the search raises serious concerns about the use of federal power. Some have called for accountability and greater transparency about the investigation.
Their criticism is also shaped by the election calendar. A federal search involving a sitting member of Congress in the final weeks before voters head to the polls is certain to draw heightened political attention, even when authorities have a judicial warrant.
The administration’s position and the investigators’ evidence will be crucial to determining how the controversy develops. If officials disclose a clear evidentiary basis for the search, that information will help the public evaluate the government’s actions. If significant questions remain unanswered, pressure for congressional oversight may intensify.
For now, the public has only a partial picture of the investigation. Officials have confirmed a court-authorized search, but have not disclosed all the evidence or publicly established that Omar committed a crime.
What Happens Next for Ilhan Omar?
The immediate questions are whether investigators will release additional information, whether Omar or her representatives will provide further details, and whether congressional leaders will seek formal oversight of the search.
Omar has made her own position unmistakable: she intends to continue speaking out and views the search as an attempt to intimidate a political opponent. The Trump administration’s critics have embraced that interpretation, while the legal justification for the search must ultimately be evaluated through the evidence and applicable law.
The coming days could bring more details about the investigation, new statements from lawmakers and further debate over the role of federal law enforcement during an election season.
For now, the most defensible conclusion is also the most consequential: a federal search has triggered a major political confrontation, Omar has publicly challenged the administration’s motives, and key questions about the investigation remain unanswered.
Her “I will not be silenced” declaration has become a rallying cry for her response. Whether the dispute grows into a wider congressional battle will depend on what investigators reveal next—and whether the government can explain its actions in a way that withstands public and legal scrutiny.
