(SeaPRwire) –   Following a California man’s shooting outside the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday, President Donald Trump doubled down on his push for a new White House ballroom, claiming that hosting the event at his proposed venue would have averted the incident. 

“This event would never have happened with the Militarily Top Secret Ballroom currently under construction at the White House. It cannot be built fast enough!” Trump said on Truth Social on Sunday. 

On Monday, Sen. Lindsey Graham threw his support behind the plan, teaming up with two other senators to unveil legislation seeking $400 million from Congress to fund the ballroom’s construction—work that’s already underway and set to include security enhancements. Trump had earlier pledged the ballroom would be funded privately by affluent donors.  

“We saw Saturday that America has a problem,” Graham told reporters on Monday. “That problem is, it is very difficult to have a bunch of important people in the same place unless it is really, really secure.”  

Democrats have labeled the ballroom a “vanity project” and a misuse of resources, and a judge recently halted its construction after the National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit. 

On Tuesday, a judge rejected the Department of Justice’s request to dismiss the lawsuit, aligning with Trump’s argument that the project is critical for safety. 

“This Court should never have enjoined this Project, but now, after the Saturday night attempted assassination, which could have never taken place in the new facility, reasonable minds can no longer differ — The injunction must be dissolved,” the Administration wrote. 

However, the incident has reignited discussions about the logistical and security hurdles of hosting major diplomatic and presidential events at Washington, D.C., hotels. Beyond the annual WHCA dinner, D.C. hotels host the National Prayer Breakfast, the Gridiron Dinner, and hundreds of foreign diplomats annually. 

Security experts interviewed by TIME noted that hosting such events at hotels poses distinct security challenges, and a dedicated space on White House grounds for presidential events has some validity. 

“I think it’s pretty obvious to me that having an event at the White House is always going to be safer than putting it anywhere else,” says Jason Russell, former U.S. Secret Service Special Agent. 

Russell, who has overseen security operations at the Washington Hilton ballroom where Trump attended the dinner, stated that the hardest aspect of protecting the president in a hotel is balancing minimal disruption to guests with maintaining a secure perimeter.

“There’s this little bit of a push and pull where we want to inconvenience people as little as possible to host these events,” Russell says. “So we try to do what we can to be secure, but we also don’t want to close down the three city blocks. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche reported that 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen—charged with attempting to assassinate the president—checked into a hotel room the day before the venue was set to host the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. The Secret Service, an agency under the Department of Homeland Security facing budget shortfalls due to a partial government shutdown, lacks the financial resources to search every guest’s room prior to the event; this could also trigger legal concerns regarding Fourth Amendment violations. 

“They don’t go room to room, and they don’t certainly eliminate the Fourth Amendment of unreasonable search and seizure on people to just check everybody, all the place, all the time, ” Michael de Geus, former Special Agent and CEO of security firm Shadow, says, noting that most hotels in the U.S. don’t have bag screenings prior to checking in their guests. 

Historical security incidents at hotels

On March 30, 1981, former President Ronald Reagan was shot by John Hinckley Jr. outside the Washington Hilton hotel following a speaking event. Hinckley Jr. had breached two of the three security layers the Secret Service had established. 

Forty-five years later, security protocols have evolved significantly, according to former agents. 

“Comparing 1981 to 2026 is kind of comparing apples and oranges,” Derek Mayer, former Secret Service Deputy Special Agent, says. “Hinckley just showed up like he was part of the press, and people who were able to get that close to President Reagan were not screened.”

Mayer elaborates that the Secret Service typically uses a three-tiered screening process for event attendees, with each tier separated by measures such as magnetometers or canine teams. The agents’ ability to stop the suspect from entering the ballroom indicates the system functioned effectively. 

“The magnetometers are a dangerous choke point, and that’s why we make sure our magnetometers are far enough away from not only where the protectees are going to be, but where the events are going to be held,” he adds. 

Prior to any event, Secret Service agents also inspect the venue for explosives, weapons, and listening devices, and require hotel and event staff to undergo screening to prevent internal threats to White House officials and their families. 

“They effectively have tactical control of that site, where the president will be, not the entire hotel,” de Geus says, which he describes as a “360 bubble” around the president.

Agents concur that, given the historical difficulties of protecting the president at the same hotel where Reagan was shot in 1981, it would be logistically safer for the president to attend events on White House grounds. However, the president—not the Secret Service agents—has the final say on where to attend events, and there will always be a security risk as long as he is outside the White House perimeter.

“It is nice when he’s in the White House,” Mayer said. “But in the real world, the President has to get out and see the people.”