Listen to the article
O’Leary Endorses White House Ballroom Plan Following Correspondents’ Dinner Shooting
“Shark Tank” investor Kevin O’Leary has voiced strong support for President Donald Trump’s proposed White House ballroom, framing the project as a bipartisan initiative that would showcase the “American Dream” while enhancing security for high-profile events.
“I don’t think the ballroom’s a partisan issue. It’s bipartisan because one day there’ll be a Democratic president that’ll use the ballroom,” O’Leary told Fox News Digital in a recent interview.
His comments come in the wake of a shooting incident at the Washington Hilton during the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner, an event attended by hundreds of journalists and Cabinet officials. The suspect, identified as 31-year-old Cole Allen of Torrance, California, allegedly sent a manifesto to family members detailing plans to target President Trump and other officials.
Following the incident, congressional Republicans have intensified their push to approve the ballroom project, arguing it would provide a secure venue for future presidential events. The proposed 90,000-square-foot facility comes with an estimated price tag of $400 million.
“I want the ballroom because I believe in pomp and circumstance, the American brand,” O’Leary explained, adding that the nation’s image extends beyond its economic contributions. “People think it’s exporting technology or exporting energy. It’s not. It’s the American dream and so you want to showcase that.”
The ballroom project has faced significant hurdles. Construction was halted by a lawsuit and court-ordered injunction, with a federal court ruling in March that the project could not proceed without congressional approval. Though an appeal allowed limited below-ground work to continue, the project’s future remains uncertain.
While President Trump initially indicated the ballroom would be privately financed through personal contributions and outside donors, a new legislative proposal has emerged. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), and Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) introduced legislation this week that would fund the project using customs fees on imports.
O’Leary referenced this financing approach in his comments: “My lobbyist over here said the taxpayers are not paying for it. So, then, why not let them have a ballroom? I don’t get it.”
The security implications of the project have gained renewed attention following Saturday’s shooting at the Correspondents’ Dinner. President Trump addressed this aspect during a news conference that evening.
“We need the ballroom,” Trump stated. “That’s why the Secret Service, that’s why the military are demanding it. They’ve wanted the ballroom for 150 years for lots of different reasons. But today is a little bit different, because today we need levels of security that probably nobody’s ever seen before.”
O’Leary expressed concern about the challenges of securing large-scale events like the White House Correspondents’ Dinner moving forward. “I also wonder about long-term if that dinner’s going to survive, because providing the security for 2,600 people is next to impossible,” he noted.
The shooting suspect faces serious charges, including attempting to assassinate the president of the United States, transporting a gun across state lines, and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence.
The ballroom debate highlights ongoing tensions between security considerations and political priorities in Washington. While many Democrats have opposed the project, seeing it as unnecessary or extravagant, Republicans have emphasized its security benefits and symbolic value.
If completed, the ballroom would represent one of the most significant additions to the White House grounds in decades and potentially transform how presidential administrations host events and showcase American diplomacy to the world.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
18 Comments
The security issues highlighted are certainly valid, but the proposed $400 million price tag seems quite steep. I wonder if there are less expensive ways to enhance security for these types of events.
That’s a fair point. Exploring more cost-effective solutions that still address the security needs would be prudent before committing to such a large investment.
While I understand the desire for a secure venue, the high price tag gives me pause. I wonder if there are more cost-effective ways to address the security concerns without such a massive investment.
Agreed, the cost-effectiveness of this proposal is definitely worth scrutinizing further. Hopefully they can find a solution that balances security needs with fiscal responsibility.
While I appreciate the bipartisan framing, I’m not convinced a $400 million ballroom is the best use of taxpayer funds. Are there more cost-effective ways to address the security concerns raised?
That’s a fair point. Exploring alternative security solutions that are less financially burdensome could be a wise approach before committing to this expensive proposal.
The security concerns raised by the recent incident are valid. However, I’m not sure a new $400 million ballroom is the most effective solution. Are there other ways to enhance security for these types of events?
That’s a fair question. It would be good to see a thorough cost-benefit analysis of the proposed ballroom versus other security enhancement options.
Interesting proposal, though security concerns are understandable. A secure venue for high-profile events does seem valuable, but the cost is quite high. I wonder if there are more cost-effective options to explore.
You raise a fair point. Balancing security and cost will be key. Hopefully they can find a solution that works for everyone.
While I appreciate the bipartisan framing, I’m not convinced a new $400 million ballroom is the best use of taxpayer funds right now. There may be more pressing needs the government should prioritize.
I agree, the price tag is quite steep. Perhaps they could explore more budget-friendly options that still address the security concerns.
I’m curious to hear more about the specific security enhancements that would be provided by this new ballroom. Are there other options that could achieve similar goals at a lower cost?
Those are good questions to explore. Understanding the details and comparing alternatives will be important in evaluating this proposal.
While I appreciate the bipartisan intentions, I’m not convinced a $400 million ballroom is the best use of taxpayer funds. Are there more cost-effective ways to address the security concerns raised?
Absolutely, the high price tag is a major concern that warrants careful consideration of alternative options. Maximizing the value for taxpayers should be a key priority.
I can understand the desire for a secure venue, but the high cost of this proposal gives me pause. Are there alternative security measures that could be implemented at a lower price point?
Excellent question. Carefully evaluating the costs and benefits of this ballroom project compared to other security options is essential before making such a significant investment.