I’m starting to be sold on the wisdom of Donald Trump’s new White House ballroom.
I was appalled when the president began demolishing the facade of the historic White House East Wing, without an OK from Congress, to make way for the 90,000 sq. ft. ballroom addition. I was certain what Trump envisioned was another gold-plated monument to his ego.
That’s still a legitimate worry. Trump doesn’t exactly share the refined tastes of Dolly Madison, whose vision for the presidential residence turned it into both a center of political power and an architectural and cultural focal point.
But after Saturday night’s gunplay at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner inside the Washington Hilton, Trump made what I believe is a convincing case for the need for presidents and their administrations to have a dedicated venue for such large public events that demand their presence.
Hotels are nearly impossible to secure. The conflict between hospitality and security is enormous.
Designed to make the guest experience as hassle-free as possible, hotels must balance the need to be open and welcoming to their guests with keeping them safe.
Most have numerous street-level access points where guests and non-guests alike can move freely in and out. Stationing armed guards, or even metal detectors, at every door is not conducive to a relaxing stay.
Hotels also tend to lag in security technology. Their key cards are hackable. A large hotel such as the Washington Hilton may have several events underway at the same time, each requiring varying levels of security. Guests are constantly checking in and out.
The procedure for the arrival and departure of high-profile visitors, such as presidents, is inconsistent and often involves exposing them to hard-to-secure spaces. President Ronald Reagan was shot on the sidewalk of that same Washington Hilton in 1981. A gunman failed in an attempt on President Gerald Ford’s life outside San Francisco’s St. Francis Hotel in 1975.
Hotel employees aren’t screened as carefully as they would be if employed by a venue attached to the White House, and staff turnover is high. Sirhan Sirhan was able to blend in with kitchen workers before bursting into the packed ballroom of L.A.’s Ambassador Hotel to assassinate Sen. Robert F. Kennedy in 1968.
The White House ballroom will have more consistent and well-practiced safeguards. It will be designed with security as a top priority. And it will employ state-of-the-art technology to identify threats before they unfold.
Security equipment, including bulletproof glass and a drone-proof roof, will be thoroughly tested and permanently installed. Secret Service and other protection personnel will be intimately familiar with the space. The vulnerable tents that are now erected to handle the overflow at White House events can be scrapped.
Presidential protection may not have been the motivating factor when Trump first tore into the East Wing for a ballroom that will sit atop a new underground Presidential Emergency Operations Center. But it is a vital side benefit.
Cost estimates have already ballooned to $400 million from $200 million. Trump insists private donors will pay the tab.
If that’s true, the East Wing ballroom addition is justifiable and should get the OK from Congress to proceed. It stands apart from Trump’s renovation and renaming of the Trump Kennedy Center and his proposed Trump arch at Arlington Cemetery, which were largely ego plays,
It’s understandable that a president who has now dodged three bullets might stay up at night thinking about how to shield himself from a fourth.
Nolan Finley’s columns appear in The Detroit News. Reach him at nfinley@detroitnews.com and follow him on X @NolanFinleyDN.
This article originally appeared on The Detroit News: Finley: Trump’s case for a White House ballroom gets stronger
Reporting by Nolan Finley, The Detroit News / The Detroit News
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
