Stephen A. Smith, a frequent critic of President Trump, acknowledged that a White House ballroom proposal has merit when it comes to security and preventing the kind of chaos at events held off-campus.
ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith conceded on his show that President Trump “may have a point” about the need for a dedicated White House ballroom, arguing that the presidential residence is simply a more secure venue than “some damn hotel in D.C.” That admission from a prominent Democrat and media figure cuts against the usual instinct to dismiss everything the president says outright.
Smith framed his view around a very practical concern: safety. He pointed to recent frightening moments at off-site events where attendees feared for their lives and had to seek shelter, and he urged people to be honest about the risk differences between private White House grounds and public hotels.
“But I don’t think it’s beyond the pale for the president of the United States to point out that the White House correspondents’ dinner should be at the White House because that is clearly a more secure location than the Washington Hilton Hotel,” Smith said. “It’s just a fact. So let’s just keep it a buck, be real about it, and understand that even when you disagree with a lot of what somebody does in this administration, it doesn’t make every syllable coming out of their mouth wrong. Let’s be honest about that and understand he kind of has a point because I got news for you, being one of those individuals there.”
“I didn’t like being a grown a** adult at a White House Correspondents’ Dinner with the presidents of networks and beyond all in the same room and watching thousands of people literally forced to duck for cover under tables and chairs, praying that a shooter wasn’t in the room, just looking to spray gunfire in our direction,” he continued. “That was not a good feeling. Let’s just be honest about it and understand that at times, even from people we dislike, or we don’t approve of, particularly when it comes to their verbiage, their antagonistic tendencies, their narcissism, their belligerence, and juvenile tendencies. It doesn’t mean that everything they say is wrong. A dead clock is right twice a day.”
From a conservative perspective, Smith’s comments are an overdue nod to common sense. Building a secure, purpose-built facility on White House grounds for official functions isn’t about ego, it is about preventing the avoidable risks that come with packing dignitaries, journalists, and staff into public hotel ballrooms.
Security planners know the difference between controlling access on federal property and trying to police a large urban hotel. Hotels host tourists, conferences, and walk-ins; the White House can be hardened, monitored, and restricted in ways a commercial venue simply cannot match. That practical reality is what Smith seemed to recognize even as he criticized other aspects of the administration.
His personal account of ducking under tables and watching a roomful of industry heavyweights scramble underlines why this debate is not abstract. People who attend high-profile events see the weak points up close, and they know how quickly a celebration can become a deadly scramble if a bad actor gets in.
“Remember that and understand that whether we like it or not, whether you want to think it’s a conspiracy and it was rigged or not or whatever, the president has a point,” Smith added. “Stuff like this should be on the grounds of the White House. It shouldn’t be at some damn hotel in D.C. that just anybody could get into.”
The comments follow a recent incident where a gunman tried to breach a Secret Service checkpoint near the White House Correspondents’ Dinner and was allegedly targeting senior Trump administration figures. The shooter did not gain entry, but a Secret Service agent was hit in his bulletproof vest during the attempt, underscoring how close events can come to tragedy.
It’s reasonable for elected leaders to use such near-misses to push for practical changes to protect officials and the press. The argument for a White House ballroom is not universally popular in every political circle, but Smith’s admission shows the debate can cut across partisan lines when safety is on the table.
The broader point is simple: security solutions that reduce risk deserve attention, even — maybe especially — when they come from political opponents. Accepting that does not erase political disagreements, but it does put the safety of people on the ground first, which is what voters should expect from any administration.
