Trump’s ballroom ploy might work, security experts say
In the wake of the attempted shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner last Saturday, President Donald Trump and his allies immediately parlayed the shooting into a push for Trump’s pet project, the proposed $400 million White House ballroom, claiming that its construction is now an issue of national security. The question that’s been glossed over, however, is whether the ballroom would really patch up security for the president.
Coles Thomas Allen, 31, is accused of attempting to rush a staircase that led down to the ballroom where the White House Correspondents’ Dinner was taking place. He was immediately tackled by Secret Service agents, with law enforcement and Allen exchanging eight shots, one of which struck an agent in the chest, who was protected by their bulletproof vest. Trump and top White House officials were promptly evacuated.
Roughly two minutes into the ensuing press conference, Trump praised the Secret Service but then quickly brought up the ballroom. This was followed up by a slew of posts from the MAGA faithful, not to mention Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., the overarching theme being that the incident is proof that the country — or at least the president — needs the ballroom.
While Trump has already accomplished the demolition of the East Wing of the White House, the actual construction of the ballroom is tied up in court, in a case between the government and the National Trust for Historic Preservation and construction has been paused while it plays out. The trust’s claim rests on the requirement that the president receive congressional approval before making such drastic changes to the White House.
Trump has faced multiple other assassination attempts, the most serious of which happened in Butler, Pennsylvania, in July 2024. In September of that year, the Secret Service exchanged gunfire with a man at Trump’s estate, Mar-a-Lago, while Trump was golfing.
“I didn’t want to say this, but this is why we have to have all of the attributes of what we’re planning at the White House,” Trump said in his press conference after the dinner. “It’s actually a larger room, and it’s much more secure.”
“We have always acknowledged the utility of a larger meeting space at the White House. Building it lawfully requires the approval of Congress, which the administration could seek at any time.”
Critics were quick to point out the flaws in this argument. For one, the White House Correspondents’ Dinner has historically been held at the Washington Hilton, and members of the press have pointed out that holding it at the White House could cut against the independence of the event. Trump has never attended one of these dinners before Saturday, which have typically been hosted by comedians that roast the guest of honor.
Others questioned if a ballroom would mean Trump would not leave the White House complex for events, which was an argument leveled by his administration in a case over the ballroom’s construction. Others simply mocked the assertion that a new ballroom would sew up the president’s apparent security concerns.
“When the White House ballroom is complete, President Trump and his successors will no longer need to venture beyond the safety of the White House perimeter to attend large gatherings at the Washington Hilton,” Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate wrote in a letter to the attorney representing the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Conspiracy theorists also latched onto the post-shooting pro-ballroom campaign, suggesting that the whole event was a false flag operation aimed at stirring up pro-ballroom sentiment intended to pressure Congress into approving funding for it — or at least help the administration in its court case. This interest was deepened by the publication of the Allen’s alleged manifesto, first reported by the New York Post, in which Allen conspicuously remarks on the security at the Washington Hilton.
Spring savings are here!
“Like, I expected security cameras at every bend, bugged hotel rooms, armed agents every 10 feet, metal detectors out the wazoo. What I got (who knows, maybe they’re pranking me!) is nothing. No damn security. Not in transport. Not in the hotel. Not in the event. Like, the one thing that I immediately noticed walking into the hotel is the sense of arrogance,” Allen wrote.
Conspiracy theories aside, the White House has done little to push back on criticisms of its rationale for the ballroom and is instead attempting to use the recent shooting in its court case against the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
The administration argued in a brief filed April 27 that “Saturday’s narrow miss — which marks the third assassination attempt on President Trump since 2024 — confirms what should have already been obvious: Presidents need a secure space for large events, that currently does not exist in Washington, D.C.”
The National Trust for Historic Preservation responded, saying that the correspondence dinner incident doesn’t change their position, that the president must get congressional approval for his ballroom project.
Carol Quillen, the president and CEO of the trust, told Salon that they are “grateful to the Secret Service and D.C. law enforcement officers for keeping the president and all guests safe at this weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.”
“We are not planning to voluntarily dismiss our lawsuit, which endangers no one and which respectfully asks the administration to follow the law. Ballroom construction is continuing unabated until June 5th at the earliest because the injunction is on hold,” Quillen said. “We have always acknowledged the utility of a larger meeting space at the White House. Building it lawfully requires the approval of Congress, which the administration could seek at any time.”
“If it were up to the Secret Service, they would put the president in a bomb-proof nuclear shelter hundreds of feet below the White House and bring him up once a year in a bulletproof glass bubble to wave to the American public.”
As it stands, Republicans are preparing a legislative pro-ballroom push in Congress, spearheaded by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-Ga., a close ally of the president, who said that “I’d like the vote as soon as possible to accelerate what America needs: A secure facility for the president and others to meet in, to have a good time, to enjoy themselves without putting the nation at risk.”
Graham also acknowledged the significant amount of military equipment planned for underneath the ballroom, including a newly constructed presidential bunker, which would replace the existing bunker built in the 1940s and most recently renovated in the 2000s.
For congressional Republicans, part of the problem in their pro-ballroom push is that the ballroom has transitioned from being funded by private donations to being funded largely by taxpayer dollars, which some Republicans oppose.
Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., for example, balked at the idea of the government footing the bulk of the $400 million bill, saying “I don’t know why you would do it.” Similarly, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said that “I am always conservative and he already has the money,” referencing the donations Trump had previously planned to use to fund the ballroom.
“And I’m not against putting in reconciliation and doing a nominal amount. I’m not for funding the whole $400 million. I think he’s already raised the money through private means,” Paul said.
Importantly, the funding and congressional approval of the ballroom have been key sticking points in the project, with few disputing the utility of an event space at the White House, or even the bunker that’s to sit beneath it. And, despite the fact that historical preservation organizations have helped stimulate its construction, the die is already cast on that front, given the fact that Trump in October 2025 ordered the demolition of the historic East Wing of the White House to pave the way for his gilded ballroom.
Bill Gage, a former Secret Service agent who now runs a private security firm, told Salon that from a security perspective, he supports the building of a highly secure event space on the White House grounds, but he also said that “several things can be true at once.”
“It could be true that Trump wants this ballroom because he wants his name all over it. But it could also be true that the Secret Service really needs a ballroom to host these formal activities, so they don’t have to go to other places like the Hilton,” Gage said. “I think that the threat environment has changed tremendously, and even in the last couple of months.”
Gage highlighted the ongoing war with Iran that Trump started with Israel as an issue that has heightened the security risk for the president, as well as the age of current facilities, like the White House bunker, which he grew familiar with during his time in the Secret Service and which he described as shockingly outdated.
Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.
He added that at large venues like the Washington Hilton, the Secret Service is generally at odds with the venue, with the hotel in this instance wanting to maintain relatively normal operations and the Secret Service pushing for maximum security. This dynamic, he said, explains the relatively lax security at the Hilton on Saturday night.
At the same time, Gage said, the construction of the ballroom wouldn’t mean that the president would never leave the White House grounds, yet that is the future described by the administration in their court case over the ballroom’s construction.
“I get the point about what they’re saying that, ‘Well, the president’s going to have to leave the White House at some point.’ And that is 100% true,” Gage said. “If it were up to the Secret Service, they would put the president in a bomb-proof nuclear shelter hundreds of feet below the White House and bring him up once a year in a bulletproof glass bubble to wave to the American public.”
As a security professional, Gage said that he does believe that the most recent attempt on Trump’s life changes the calculation in favor of building the ballroom, whether or not courts look favorably upon that argument.
“At what point would they change their position?” Gage asked. “I just thought that was kind of head scratching to me that this event happens — a lot of potential there for some serious security implications for the country — and then they still think that this basically doesn’t change our opinion or lawsuit.”
Read more
about politics
The post Trump’s ballroom ploy might work, security experts say appeared first on Salon.com.