The White House Correspondents' Association dinner remains unscheduled more than three weeks after a gunman stormed the Washington Hilton lobby and opened fire in what prosecutors say was an attempt to kill President Donald Trump, raising questions about both the event's future and its escalating security costs. The association continues to weigh options for rescheduling the event, its president, Weijia Jiang of CBS News, said from China last week where she was covering Trump. Jiang said, "We will do this again." Trump said on social media the dinner would be rescheduled within 30 days, though it is not up to him, which would bring it to late this month. That appears unlikely for an event that would accommodate close to 3,000 people.
Security and Financial Concerns
WHCA board members are scoping out smaller venues, a person familiar with the situation said, with the understanding that, if rescheduled, it would necessarily be a pared-down event because of financial and security concerns. A return to the Washington Hilton, or a full-scale dinner anywhere, is not foreseen. The attack, which occurred less than 1 month ago, left a Secret Service officer shot and recovering. Suspect Cole Tomas Allen of Torrance, California was staying in the hotel at the time.
Security experts offered differing assessments of the event's viability. Jeff James, a retired Secret Service officer who now runs a security company, said, "Can it be done safely? I would argue that it was done safely the first time." He said, "The gunman never even got to the same floor as the president. He was stopped within about 30 feet of reaching the middle perimeter." He called the response a clear success for the Secret Service. Anthony Cangelosi, a former Secret Service agent and lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, also said the response was successful and that the Secret Service was prepared for a "lone wolf" scenario like the one that occurred. Cangelosi said, "Obviously the optimal venue is one where there is nobody (else) there, like an arena, where the only people are the attendees and the protectees. But you have to work with what you have, and they did a very good job."
Questions About the Event's Purpose
Kelly McBride, an ethics expert at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank, said she had written before the event that it was a "bad look," and still feels the same way. She said, "It undermines the public faith in how the press does its work, and it makes it looks like we are pals with the people we cover." McBride said the attack was "deeply unfortunate" and noted that a Secret Service officer was shot and is recovering. She said the challenge now is managing optics and that security concerns could complicate that. "You'd have to make the Secret Service happy," she said. "I don't know you do that unless it is in a government facility. But it can't be in a government facility." She said the event's stated purpose has been overshadowed by the presence of the U.S. president. "I can't imagine how they can possibly redo this event this year in a way that would accomplish everything they need," she said. "It sure would be easier just to call the whole thing off."
Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive officer of the Committee to Protect Journalists, said she attended the dinner to keep reminding people of the importance of press freedom, but she has been struck by how little emphasis there usually is on that subject. She said, "It's a big, extremely expensive social event at a time when journalists are being laid off in continuing high numbers." She added, "It sticks in my craw that at a time when journalists are under threat like never before — last year was the deadliest year ever in CPJ's history for journalists — more journalists being harassed online, more journalists are in jail than ever before, journalists in the U.S. are being raided by the FBI, arrested covering protests, knocked to the ground by ICE," and said, "And none of that is really reflected at all in those four days of parties." She said, "We're still sort of raising a toast to press freedom, yet often without having the courage to stand up in its defense when it actually gets threatened."
Practical Considerations
Former CBS News executive Marcy McGinnis, co-founder of Exact Communication, said she does not think the dinner should be rescheduled for a practical reason: the money raised for scholarships had already been raised. She said, "I am troubled by the optics, for sure," and added, "But I believe journalists who believe in true journalism, and holding power to account, will and are able to do their job when they have to cover someone — even if they hobnobbed at the dinner."
Trump raised one scenario after the attack that is not on the table: holding the dinner in his yet-to-be finished White House ballroom. He said, "We need the ballroom," and his Justice Department has used the issue to try to pressure preservationists to drop their lawsuit over the $400 million project on the site of the former East Wing. McBride said, "It can never be in the ballroom," for the WHCA to maintain any credibility. Ginsberg said she will not attend another dinner. "I'm never going to another," she said. "I've had this conversation with a few colleagues from different organizations. I think the time has come to think about how we spotlight the importance of the First Amendment, of a free press, of the importance of journalism in a different way. I don't think that this is it."
Why This Matters:
The uncertain future of the White House Correspondents' dinner highlights fundamental questions about fiscal responsibility and institutional priorities in journalism. With the event facing escalating security costs and logistical challenges following the attack, the association must weigh whether the substantial resources required justify a scaled-down event when scholarship funds have already been raised. The criticism that the dinner has become an expensive social gathering at a time of widespread newsroom layoffs raises legitimate concerns about resource allocation in an industry facing financial pressures. The security assessment by former Secret Service professionals suggests the event can be conducted safely with proper protocols, but the financial burden of enhanced security measures and venue limitations may ultimately make cancellation the most prudent course. The debate reflects broader questions about whether traditional institutional events serve their stated missions or have evolved into expensive exercises that divert resources from core journalistic functions.