After Charlie Kirk’s assassination last year, the Trump administration immediately set about citing the tragedy to justify a major crackdown of left-leaning groups. (This despite no evidence that such groups played any role.)
After a suspected gunman targeted the White House Correspondents’ Dinner this weekend, President Donald Trump and some of his allies have focused on a much more quotidian political aim.
It’s all about the ballroom.
The president, the White House and the Justice Department quickly argued the shooting at the Washington Hilton demonstrates the need to build Trump’s White House ballroom, which is stuck in court proceedings. And it’s not just an aside; this appears to be the major point of emphasis for much of MAGA.
There is no question that the security at the hotel and around the dinner is worth revisiting. But there are multiple reasons Trump’s planned ballroom isn’t a particularly suitable alternative.
And perhaps more than that, it seems a questionable — and somewhat bizarre — move to focus attention on a $400 million construction project that has been a political albatross for Trump, even though he insists it’s being privately funded.
It looks a lot like those around the president are trying to capitalize on this weekend’s scare to sell something that’s of great personal importance to Trump. But, like the effort to target left-leaning groups after Kirk’s assassination, this pitch doesn’t necessarily deal with the problem.
The calls for the ballroom
The calls for the ballroom began among Trump and pro-Trump influencers shortly after the suspected gunman was apprehended Saturday night a floor above the dinner. Many of the messages were remarkably similar.
“We need the ballroom,” Trump said at a press conference that night.
By Sunday, the idea was pushed by Trump, the White House, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, former Attorney General Pam Bondi and scores of lawmakers — including at least one Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, who often sides with the Trump administration these days.
That push continued Monday, with the issue on the tips of many Republicans’ tongues during TV interviews.
“The ballroom will be a solution for this,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told Fox News, citing the proposed project’s windows being half a foot thick.
“A ballroom is imperative,” Rep. Mike Lawler of New York said on Fox Business.
“We’ve got to build that ballroom as soon as possible,” Rep. Michael Rulli of Ohio added on the same show.
Blanche, meanwhile, asked the group suing to stop the ballroom to dismiss its lawsuit so construction can move forward. A judge recently halted the construction, citing the lack of congressional authorization.
And some lawmakers like GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado are calling for Congress to authorize the building of the ballroom to get around that issue. Congress this far has shown no interest in voting on the ballroom, which would need some Democratic votes to pass.
Trump’s ballroom isn’t a great alternative, though
But it’s a curious initiative, for a series of practical reasons.
One is that the dinner hosts more than 2,000 people, while Trump’s ballroom is expected to seat about 1,000, according to the architect.
Another is that the dinner is not a government event; it’s a private function hosted by the White House Correspondents’ Association. While presidents typically attend, Saturday was the first time Trump attended the dinner as president. Would an event that doesn’t feature the president and his Cabinet even be appropriate to hold on White House grounds?
And finally, to the extent the Washington Hilton — where anyone can book a hotel room — is deemed not secure enough to hold the dinner, there is already a logical alternative in DC. The 2.3 million-square-foot Walter E. Washington Convention Center has plenty of capacity and is accustomed to securing high-profile events with foreign diplomats and the like.
Trump’s ballroom is remarkably unpopular
But as much as anything, the focus on Trump’s ballroom is politically strange.
That’s because it’s really unpopular. That could seemingly change after this weekend’s events — maybe people will be convinced of the need for it despite the above points — but it would seem to take a lot to change how Americans feel.
The ballroom has polled poorly ever since Trump suddenly bulldozed the East Wing last year with little warning and without going through typical approval processes. Likely contributing to its unpopularity, Trump has gone back on some of the promises he’s made about the ballroom, including that the East Wing wouldn’t be demolished.
Polling last fall, for example, showed Americans opposed Trump’s ballroom by between 18 points (59%-41% in a Marquette Law School poll) and 2-to-1 margins (56%-28% in a Yahoo News-YouGov poll and 61%-25% in a Washington Post-ABC News poll).
And importantly, the issue appears to have ignited much more passion on the “anti” side than the “pro.” To wit:
- Strong opponents of the new ballroom outnumbered strong supporters by around 3-to-1 margins in the Yahoo and Post-ABC polls.
- A CNN poll that asked people to react to the ballroom showed 54% offered negative emotions, compared with just 10% who offered positive ones.
- The National Capital Planning Commission was inundated with negative feedback about the project, with a CNN analysis finding more than 97% of comments critical of the project.
It might seem logical that people disliked the sudden demolition of the East Wing but would be more OK with the new ballroom. But the Yahoo poll showed slightly more actually opposed Trump’s plans for a new ballroom (61%) than the demolition of the East Wing (57%).
As I wrote last year, that might suggest that people have big problems not just with the process, but also with building a monstrous ballroom in a time of economic hardship.
Of course, that hasn’t seemed to matter much to Trump. In fact, he seems positively preoccupied with the ballroom. He’s brought it up dozens of times in recent months, even when the issue has faded from the news.
During an interview with The New York Times in January, shortly after the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Trump interrupted a discussion of the operation to talk about his ballroom. He also proudly displayed a rendering of it last month on Air Force One.
“I’m so busy that I don’t have time to do this, but — I’m fighting wars and other things — but this is very important, because this is going to be with us for a long time,” Trump said.
So you could understand why he might want to use the moment to push for the outcome he’s quite invested in.
But the window for action after events like this is limited, and Trump’s ballroom would seem a strange choice to move to the front of the line.
Of course, it’s not terribly surprising that the president would prioritize it.