Why Trump’s new ballroom ploy just might work: security experts

U.S. President Donald Trump talks holding up renderings of the planned White House ballroom, aboard Air Force One, March 29, 2026. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz

On Saturday, April 25, U.S. President Donald Trump survived a third assassination attempt when a gunman invaded the 2026 White House Correspondents Association Dinner at the Washington Hilton. Shots were exchanged, but U.S. Secret Service (USSS) agents tackled and disarmed the gunman.

Trump is arguing that the shooting makes a strong case for his proposed White House ballroom, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) calling for the project to be funded by taxpayers. Critics of the ballroom, including Never Trump conservative and former GOP strategist Rick Wilson, are countering that Trump and his allies are exploiting the shooting to promote a "vanity project."

But Salon's Russell Payne, in an article published on May 1, reports that according to security officials, Trump's ploy might work.

Former Secret Service agent Bill Gage told Salon, "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. I think that the threat environment has changed tremendously, and even in the last couple of months…. 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."

The ballroom's construction, Gage notes, remains "tied up in court in a case between the government and the National Trust for Historic Preservation." Payne reports that 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."

Gage told Salon, "At what point would they change their position? 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."

From Your Site Articles