Even before Donald Trump appeared before the press at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner after the attack, the online right had already decided on its message: The shooting proves why Trump’s possibly illegal ballroom project in the White House absolutely must be completed.
An absurd logic. First, the White House Correspondents’ Dinner is not a White House event – the president attends as an invited guest. In addition, the planned ballroom only holds about half as many guests as the dinner, which can accommodate a good 2,000 visitors. Even amid reports that the Secret Service had less stringent security measures this year than in previous years, the agency’s protocols worked and the shooter was neutralized. And it goes without saying that the President regularly leaves the White House to attend public events – permanently entrenching himself in the complex is simply not an option.
Still, dozens of prominent conservative commentators responded to the shooting by calling for the ballroom to finally be enforced.
Conservative voices in lockstep
They included Meghan McCain, daughter of former Arizona senator and presidential candidate John McCain; Jack Posobiec, a well-known ethno-nationalist conspiracy theorist who now acts as a kind of White House court chronicler; Libs of TikTok, Chaya Raichik’s anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ hate speech account – as well as a whole series of other accounts with millions of followers that spread the same message almost word for word.
A few hours after the shooting, Trump appeared in the White House press briefing room, making the spin all but official. “I didn’t mean to say this, but that’s exactly why we need everything we’re planning on doing in the White House. It’s actually a bigger room and a lot safer. Drone proof. Bulletproof glass. We need the Ballroom,” Trump said. “That’s why the Secret Service and the military demand it. They’ve wanted the ballroom for 150 years, for a variety of reasons.”
In a subsequent Truth Social post, the president wrote that “this event would never have happened if the top-secret military ballroom currently under construction at the White House was finished. It can’t be finished fast enough” — and called for an ongoing lawsuit challenging the building’s construction to be dropped.
Illegal construction as a security argument
And that’s exactly where the crux of the matter lies. Trump’s Ballroom – and much of the self-aggrandizing renovations and projects he wants to force on Washington, DC – violates federal laws and regulations governing construction of public buildings.
Trump demolished the East Wing of the White House after initially claiming his ballroom project would not affect it. The demolition occurred without approval or review by the National Capital Planning Commission, the federal agency authorized by Congress to oversee federal construction projects. The National Trust for Historic Preservation then sued the government twice.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon temporarily halted construction and wrote that the president could resume his plans as soon as Congress “clears this project by legislative authorization.”
Ministry of Justice under pressure
“The President may go to Congress at any time to obtain express authorization to build a ballroom and to do so with private funds,” Leon wrote, since the legislature retains “sovereignty over government property and control over government spending.” A D.C. appeals court allowed construction to resume while the government challenges the ruling – but in the wake of the attack, Trump’s Justice Department is now blatantly trying to pressure the National Trust for Historic Preservation to drop the lawsuit. The accusation: The organization is putting the president’s life in danger by challenging him.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche wrote in a letter Sunday to the trust’s attorneys, “The White House Ballroom is essential to the security of the President, his family, his Cabinet and his staff. When the Ballroom is completed, President Trump and his successors will no longer be required to leave the secure confines of the White House to attend large events in the Washington Hilton Ballroom.”
“In short, your lawsuit severely endangers the lives of the president, his family and his staff,” Blanche added. “I hope that yesterday’s narrow outcome finally drives home to you the futility of a lawsuit that serves literally no purpose other than to stop President Trump at all costs.”
Coordinated campaign?
Apparently MPs and influencers are also involved. Several social media users and media outlets pointed out that within minutes, a swarm of right-wing influencers posted almost word-for-word demands for the ballroom’s completion. Allegations of a coordinated media campaign between these accounts and the White House circulated online.
Prominent lawmakers on Capitol Hill have also joined the chorus. House Speaker Mike Johnson told Fox News on Monday that the ballroom will be “a solution” to the problem the president believes he is solving. “It will have seven-inch thick glass, so it will be a very safe environment for events like this. We need a place like this, and the president keeps pointing that out.” The speaker of the House of Representatives appears to have little interest in actually exercising Congress’ authorization authority – because that would mean acknowledging that the president has been operating unlawfully on this and a half-dozen other projects for months.
There are many reasons why claims about the need for the ballroom are exaggerated – but in the context of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the implications for press freedom cannot be ignored. The dinner takes place outside the White House because it is supposed to embody – at least in spirit – the independence of the press. The journalists decide on the venue, guest list, speakers, and the president attends and (ideally) undergoes a bit of good-natured ridicule. Bringing the dinner and similar events within the walls of the White House would inevitably give the president and his staff far more control over who can attend, what can be said — and whether it takes place at all.
For a government already obsessed with controlling press coverage and punishing those whose reports it doesn’t like, this would be a dream come true.
