what’s at stake
A gunman’s attack on the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington last week initially gave Republicans a new security-focused pitch for President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom.
They argued that the episode showed the need for a large, secure space at the White House to protect Trump — and future presidents — at enormous indoor gatherings like the dinner, which is held annually at the Washington Hilton.
But there are real divides over whether Trump’s ballroom could even hold an event of that size (the dinner draws about 2,500 attendees). And within the Republican Party, lawmakers who support the ballroom can’t agree on whether private or taxpayer funds should be used to pay for it.
In this article:
who’s making the case
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., argued during a press conference that the ballroom should have security infrastructure built with public funds — his bill would authorize $400 million for the project — not private money that Trump has raised:
“Private donations can be used, but I think they should be used for buying china and stuff like that. Underneath this ballroom will be infrastructure that is national security-centric. The ballroom itself will avoid the dilemma of having to leave the White House grounds, with future presidents and this president, to go downtown in a place that’s less secure.”
Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., doubted that public money would be needed for the project — but indicated he was open to it:
“I think what happened over the weekend showed another reason why it’s very valuable to have a ballroom at the White House and, remember, that’s going to serve future presidents and administrations, Republican and Democrat.”
“I think it’s great that President Trump raised the money to do it. I think that’s great. It’s like a gift to the taxpayers and the country. But if Lindsey’s got some reason, I’m willing to listen to it.”
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said it’s too early to discuss whether the ballroom is the technically the right solution:
“Saturday night was a security failure. It was also a success that no one was injured. Thank God. But we have got to understand what the glitches were and what led that to happen. And so before, ‘Oh, this thing happened, let’s just throw a whole bunch of public money at the ballroom,’ let’s get an investigation about what happened and what went wrong, and then we can decide, do we have to invest more to keep the president safe? Is the ballroom the right answer? Are there other things that are the right answer?”
Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., said he doesn’t “think” a ballroom would fit the dinner — and called the conversation about the project “ridiculous”:
“I don’t think so. I don’t know. I haven’t looked at it. There are so many issues that we’re dealing with right now, the fact that we’re even talking about a ballroom is ridiculous.”
Notable
- Despite Graham’s push, Congress is unlikely to fast-track the ballroom after Saturday’s dinner attack, Semafor’s Burgess Everett reported.