National Security

Home National Security Page 2

Mike Pence Smacks Trump’s Iran Deal ‘Smells Of Appeasement’

Mike Pence via Gage Skidmore Flickr

Former Vice President Mike Pence is blasting President Donald Trump’s controversial Iran agreement, warning that the deal looks less like a victory and more like a dangerous concession to a regime that was already on its knees.

In a scathing Wall Street Journal op-ed, Pence praised Trump’s military campaign against Tehran but argued the administration is now squandering the leverage won on the battlefield.

“The president deserves tremendous credit for taking the fight directly to Tehran,” Pence wrote. “But the memorandum of understanding with Iran signed last week falls well short of what is required to end the Iranian threat.”

His verdict was blunt.

“It smacks of the kind of appeasement the president rightly rejected during our first term,” Pence said. “It isn’t the deal a defeated Iran should be getting. It isn’t even a deal — it’s a plan to make a plan.”

The remarkable rebuke puts Pence at the forefront of a growing conservative revolt against the Trump administration’s newly signed 14-point memorandum of understanding with Iran.

The agreement, signed last week, commits both sides to negotiate a final settlement within 60 days while immediately easing pressure on Tehran. The framework includes the gradual lifting of the U.S. naval blockade, waivers for Iranian oil exports, and access to frozen Iranian assets while broader negotiations continue.

Critics argue the concessions come before Iran has verifiably dismantled its nuclear infrastructure or ended support for terrorist proxies throughout the Middle East.

Pence warned the agreement effectively rewards the regime before securing meaningful concessions.

“Maximum pressure worked. America’s military strength worked. The blockade worked,” Pence wrote. “Iran came to the table because the regime’s existence teetered on a knife’s edge.”

The former vice president said the administration should use the next 60 days to force Tehran into accepting far tougher terms, including the permanent elimination of its nuclear ambitions and support for regional terror groups.

“This 60-day period should be used to secure what this agreement doesn’t yet provide: an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, an end to Iranian-backed terror, and an end to its half-century of warfare against the U.S. and Israel,” Pence wrote.

“If those reasonable goals cannot be achieved, Mr. Trump should let the armed forces finish the job.”

Pence has doubled down on those concerns in television appearances this week, calling the agreement “much bigger than a mistake” and warning that sanctions relief could become “a lifeline to the Iranian regime.” He argued that the deal preserves the status quo on Iran’s nuclear program rather than forcing its dismantlement.

He’s not alone.

Republican lawmakers including Lindsey Graham, John Thune and other GOP hawks have demanded greater transparency about the agreement’s terms, while conservative commentators have compared the framework to the Obama-era nuclear deal that Trump famously abandoned during his first administration.

Even some Democrats have questioned whether Tehran is receiving significant economic relief without providing ironclad guarantees on nuclear compliance.

Supporters of the agreement, led by Vice President JD Vance, argue critics are mischaracterizing the deal. Vance has described the memorandum as a preliminary framework designed to stop the fighting and create conditions for a broader settlement. The White House insists sanctions relief and other benefits ultimately depend on Iranian compliance.

But for Pence, the issue is simple: America already holds the stronger hand.

The question now is whether Trump intends to play it.

Senator Accuses Trump’s New Intelligence Pick of Making America More Vulnerable to Terror Attacks

President Donald J. Trump is presented with a 10th Combat Aviation Brigade challenge coin following an air assault and gun rain demonstration at Fort Drum, New York, on August 13. The demonstration was part of President Trump's visit to the 10th Mountain Division (LI) to sign the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019, which increases the Army's authorized active-duty end strength by 4,000 enabling us to field critical capabilities in support of the National Defense Strategy. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Thomas Scaggs) 180813-A-TZ475-010

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) is sounding the alarm over President Donald Trump’s decision to install Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence, warning the move could leave the United States more vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

During an appearance Wednesday on MSNBC’s The Briefing with Jen Psaki, Ossoff blasted the appointment as one of the most dangerous personnel decisions of Trump’s presidency.

“The installation of a thug and a hack like Pulte as the acting director of national intelligence is maybe the most chilling and the most dangerous nomination or appointment that this president has made,” Ossoff said.

Trump announced earlier this month that Pulte would take over as acting DNI beginning Friday following the departure of Tulsi Gabbard. The move immediately drew criticism from Democrats, who argue Pulte lacks any meaningful background in intelligence, national security, or military affairs.

Ossoff, who serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused Trump of prioritizing political loyalty over national security.

“He is putting the national security of the country at risk,” Ossoff said. “His handling of this is putting the United States at risk and making a terrorist attack more likely because he is destabilizing America’s intelligence capabilities.”

The Georgia senator also warned that Pulte could weaponize the intelligence community against Trump’s political opponents.

“He’s putting someone in who is a political hack who will abuse his authorities in the intelligence community,” Ossoff added.

Pulte, a longtime Trump ally and donor, has already generated controversy during his tenure at the FHFA. He has publicly pushed for investigations into alleged mortgage fraud involving several prominent Trump critics, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA).

The controversy surrounding Pulte’s appointment comes amid broader turmoil over leadership at the nation’s top intelligence agency.

Trump has nominated former SEC Chairman Jay Clayton to serve as permanent director of national intelligence. However, the nomination hit a roadblock Wednesday after Trump instructed Clayton not to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee for a scheduled confirmation hearing.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump said Clayton’s nomination process would remain on hold until Congress passes legislation combining a voter ID measure with an extension of federal surveillance authorities used to monitor foreign nationals.

The decision frustrated some Republicans, including Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton (R-AR), who called the delay “regrettable.”

“Mr. Clayton is a patriot and a highly qualified nominee, as the president has said repeatedly,” Cotton wrote on X. “While today’s hearing is now unfortunately postponed, I look forward to proceeding with his confirmation in the near future.”

Trump Celebrates 80th Birthday With Iran Deal

President Donald Trump got exactly what he wanted for his 80th birthday Sunday: a peace deal with Iran — and a massive UFC event on the White House lawn to celebrate it.

After weeks of promising that an agreement was just around the corner, Trump announced Sunday afternoon that the United States and Iran had finalized a deal to end the 108-day conflict that erupted after the U.S. and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury and killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all!” Trump declared on Truth Social.

The president initially announced that he was authorizing the immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and ending the U.S. naval blockade, telling the world: “Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!”

Less than an hour later, Trump clarified that the strategic waterway would officially reopen Friday after the agreement is signed, allowing time for mine-clearing operations.

“This Great Deal will bring Peace and Security to the whole Region,” Trump wrote. “Many presidents have tried to make Peace with Iran, and all have failed before me.”

The timing could not have been sweeter for Trump, who spent the day celebrating his milestone birthday while hosting the highly publicized “Freedom 250” UFC event on the White House grounds.

According to Mediaite, the president had hoped to announce the agreement Sunday, but those plans nearly unraveled after Hezbollah launched projectiles into northern Israel, prompting retaliatory Israeli strikes in Beirut.

Trump reportedly exploded behind the scenes when he learned of the Israeli response.

“Why did Bibi have to do a f’ing attack?” Trump told Axios. “I was so pissed off. I let him know. He has no f’ing judgement.”

The flare-up threatened to derail negotiations that Trump had repeatedly insisted were nearing completion. As Mediaite noted, the president has spent weeks predicting that a deal was imminent, at one point declaring in May that an announcement would come “shortly.”

The Hill reported that Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who helped mediate negotiations, announced that a formal signing ceremony will take place Friday in Geneva, Switzerland. Vice President JD Vance later told Fox News that he plans to attend and suggested Trump may join him.

Reports indicated the deal specifically says that Iran would agree not to produce or acquire nuclear weapons and would halt further uranium enrichment and expansion of nuclear facilities. In exchange, the United States would begin releasing up to $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets, although details remain unclear and administration officials have described the arrangement as “performance-based.”

Iran has not yet publicly confirmed the agreement, and the White House has released few specifics about the final terms.

Still, the announcement marks a dramatic political victory for Trump, whose administration has repeatedly stated that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon was its primary objective.

“They’ve taken a pounding,” Trump said last week while discussing renewed military pressure on Tehran. “They’ve taken a pounding like very few people could take. And they want to make a deal a lot more than I do.”

The agreement is already drawing scrutiny on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday that any nuclear-related agreement with Iran should be submitted to Congress for review.

“I am somewhat concerned that Iran’s view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming,” Graham wrote on X.

Democrats offered a more mixed reaction.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) welcomed the prospect of peace while arguing the reported terms resemble the Obama-era nuclear agreement that Trump withdrew from during his first term.

“The war was a costly lesson for the US,” Khanna wrote. “But today, we can be relieved that gas and food costs will start coming down for Americans. And that no more American or civilian lives will be lost.”

After months of war, weeks of tense negotiations, and a last-minute scare involving Israel and Hezbollah, the president finally got to make the announcement he had been teasing for weeks — on his birthday, with a UFC crowd cheering just steps from the Oval Office.

Not a bad birthday present for President Trump.

Trump Abruptly Calls Off Planned Iran Strikes After Touting Major Diplomatic Breakthrough

Gage Skidmore Flickr

President Donald Trump announced Thursday that he has canceled planned U.S. military strikes against Iran just hours before they were reportedly set to begin, citing what he described as a major diplomatic breakthrough.

In a statement posted to Truth Social, Trump said negotiations with the Islamic Republic had been elevated to “the highest level of Iranian leadership” and had received approval from key regional powers.

“Based on the fact that discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran have been brought to the highest level of Iranian leadership and approved, I have, as President of the United States of America, cancelled the scheduled strikes and bombings against Iran this evening,” Trump wrote.

The announcement comes after a volatile 48-hour period that saw U.S. forces conduct strikes against Iranian targets on Tuesday and Wednesday, while Trump repeatedly warned that additional military action could follow as soon as Thursday night.

According to Trump, negotiators have reached an agreement “in both concept and great detail” on a framework that has been approved by multiple nations, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, and Egypt.

The president did not disclose specific terms of the proposed agreement but suggested a final accord could be signed in the near future.

“Time and place of the signing to be announced shortly,” Trump said.

Despite calling off the planned strikes, Trump emphasized that U.S. pressure on Iran is far from over. He announced that the naval blockade imposed in April will remain in place until an agreement is finalized.

“The Naval Blockade will remain in full force and effect until this Transaction is finalized,” he wrote.

The sudden reversal marks a dramatic shift from Trump’s earlier rhetoric. Just hours before announcing the cancellation, the president had threatened another round of military strikes against Iran, raising fears that the region was on the verge of a broader conflict.

READ NEXT: Trump Signals Additional Strikes on Iran, Renews Threat to Seize Key Oil Hub

Bolton Warns Trump Could Try to ‘Snatch’ Raúl Castro as Cuba Tensions Escalate

The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton is sounding alarms over growing speculation that the Trump administration could take dramatic action against Cuba’s communist leadership — warning officials not to repeat what he called the “Venezuela game plan.”

Bolton, who has long advocated for hardline policies against authoritarian governments in Latin America, said Thursday he fears the administration could use newly filed criminal charges against former Cuban leader Raúl Castro as justification for a high-risk operation targeting the aging strongman.

“I’m a little worried that they’re going to try and run the Venezuela game plan and kidnap or snatch Raúl Castro, who’s 94 years old, under this indictment, which is perfectly justified, but it won’t change anything in Cuba, as it really hasn’t changed anything politically in Venezuela,” Bolton said during an appearance on NewsNation’s On Balance.

His comments come as tensions surrounding Cuba have intensified after the Justice Department announced murder charges against Castro and five others tied to the 1996 shootdown of two civilian humanitarian aircraft over international waters.

Federal prosecutors allege Castro authorized the Cuban military operation that destroyed the planes, killing four men — including three American citizens. The aircraft were operated by Brothers to the Rescue, a Miami-based humanitarian group that searched for Cuban migrants attempting to flee the island.

The indictment represents one of the most aggressive legal moves taken against senior Cuban officials in decades and has fueled growing speculation about whether the Trump administration is preparing a broader strategy aimed at regime change.

Bolton, despite supporting political change in Cuba, argued that removing a single figure would do little to dismantle the country’s entrenched communist system.

“In Cuba, you need the top echelon of government to depart the island, maybe for exile in Mexico or wherever they want to go, and we have to have a way to bring the government back under the control of the people,” he said, adding that such a process would “take some time.”

The administration has steadily increased pressure on Havana in recent months through legal, diplomatic, and economic measures.

A U.S. oil embargo implemented earlier this year has reportedly worsened Cuba’s already severe energy shortages. The island nation of roughly 10 million people has faced repeated rolling blackouts, while shortages of food, fuel, and medicine continue to strain daily life.

President Donald Trump has also declined to rule out military action. Asked this week about possible intervention in Cuba, Trump told reporters he would “be happy to do it.”

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said diplomatic solutions remain the administration’s preferred option but suggested hopes for peaceful negotiations are fading.

“The president’s preference is always a negotiated agreement that’s peaceful. That’s always our preference. That remains our preference with Cuba,” Rubio said in Miami before departing on an overseas trip.

“I’m just being honest with you. You know, the likelihood of that happening, given who we’re dealing with right now, is not high.”

Fueling further speculation, the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and its strike group recently arrived in the Caribbean, leading some observers to question whether Washington could be positioning military assets closer to Cuba.

Trump has dismissed suggestions that the deployment was intended as intimidation.

Bolton, however, questioned whether the administration had fully thought through what comes next.

“Is the Nimitz carrier strike group really equipped to take military action?” Bolton asked. “I mean, we have a real advantage in Cuba we didn’t have in Venezuela, we have the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base right there on the island, so that’s a, that’s a step forward, but this is something clearly we need to be talking to key figures in the opposition in Cuba, the Cuban American community, I’m sure can be extremely helpful here.”

“Let’s just think this through before we force it into something that could be very detrimental to the people of Cuba, if the army and the police stick with the regime,” he added.

The escalating rhetoric comes as questions continue to swirl over whether Washington’s pressure campaign is designed primarily to force concessions from Havana — or whether the administration is laying groundwork for something much larger.

White House Counterterrorism Official Says Trump Left Instructions For VP In Case He’s Assassinated

Gage Skidmore Flickr

White House counterterrorism official Sebastian Gorka revealed Wednesday that President Donald Trump has already prepared written instructions for Vice President JD Vance in the event he is assassinated — a striking disclosure that underscores the persistent security threats surrounding the president during his second term.

Speaking on the New York Post’s “Pod Force One” podcast with host Miranda Devine, Gorka said Trump has contingency plans in place should the unthinkable happen.

“There is a letter in the drawer in the Resolute Desk that is addressed to the vice president should something happen to him,” Gorka said during the interview.

The revelation came as Devine raised concerns about Trump’s planned diplomatic travel and the dangers posed by hostile foreign powers, particularly Communist China.

Referring to Chinese President Xi Jinping and Beijing’s geopolitical ambitions, Devine described Trump as the one leader standing in the way of China’s global dominance.

“So they have every reason in the world to take him out,” she said.

Gorka, however, insisted the administration has extensive security precautions in place, even if he declined to discuss specifics publicly.

“We have protocols, trust me. Not ones I can discuss, but we have protocols,” he replied.

The comments offered a rare glimpse into the extraordinary security concerns surrounding Trump after surviving multiple assassination attempts and threats over the past several years.

Trump himself has previously acknowledged taking threats against his life seriously — particularly from Iran. In January, the president revealed he had left “very firm instructions” for how the United States should respond if Tehran successfully assassinated him.

“If they did that, they would be obliterated,” Trump said at the time. “I’ve left instructions — if they do it, they get blown up. There won’t be anything left.”

Federal officials have repeatedly warned of Iranian plots targeting Trump and former administration officials following the 2020 U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.

But the most immediate threats against Trump have come on American soil.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump narrowly survived an assassination attempt at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, when a gunman opened fire from a nearby rooftop. One bullet grazed Trump’s ear as Secret Service agents rushed him off stage, while rallygoer Corey Comperatore was killed shielding his family from the gunfire.

The shocking attack triggered widespread scrutiny of the Secret Service and led to multiple congressional investigations into security failures surrounding the event.

Just weeks later, authorities arrested another suspect after he allegedly camped near Trump’s golf course in West Palm Beach, Florida, armed with a rifle and tactical gear while reportedly waiting for the president.

Then in April, a separate would-be attacker allegedly attempted to breach security at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner at the Washington Hilton before being intercepted by federal agents.

The repeated threats have dramatically reshaped Trump’s security posture during his second term, with officials reportedly operating under heightened protective measures both domestically and abroad.

Gorka’s disclosure about the letter to Vance adds another layer to that reality — signaling that the White House is actively preparing for worst-case scenarios even as Trump continues to project confidence publicly.

Watch the full podcast:

Patel Reveals Secret FBI Room ‘Off the Map’ — Packed With Russiagate Files

Image via gage Skidmore Flickr

FBI Director Kash Patel says he uncovered something straight out of a spy novel — a hidden room inside FBI headquarters that wasn’t even on the building’s official blueprints, allegedly packed with sensitive documents tied to the Trump–Russia investigation.

Patel revealed the discovery during a Tuesday appearance on “Hang Out with Sean Hannity,” describing how the off-the-books room contained multiple “burn bags” — typically used to destroy classified materials — that, instead of being destroyed, were filled with thousands of untouched documents.

“They weren’t burned, but the room was also off the map,” Patel said. “It wasn’t on our blueprint, and nobody had access to it.”

According to Patel, the room was locked away inside the Hoover Building and functioned as a previously undisclosed secure facility. Even more striking: no one initially had the ability to access it.

The discovery echoes claims made earlier by former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, who said he found what he described as the “mother lode” of documents tied to “Crossfire Hurricane,” the FBI’s probe into alleged Trump–Russia collusion.

“I’m reading this document, and I’m like, ‘I can’t believe this happened in the United States,’” Bongino said in a prior appearance. “It wasn’t just that it happened in the United States, it was that so many people knew about it. All you had to do was read it. This thing was bulls— from the start.”

Sources told Fox News Digital that the burn bags discovered by Patel’s team contained thousands of sensitive documents, including a classified annex to Special Counsel John Durham’s final report. That annex reportedly includes underlying intelligence reviewed during Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Russia probe.

The materials are now being reviewed and declassified in coordination with top intelligence officials, including CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Attorney General Pam Bondi. The annex is expected to be delivered to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, who will ultimately decide what is released publicly.

One source familiar with the annex told Fox News Digital that intelligence collected before the FBI launched Crossfire Hurricane suggested — with “alarming specificity” — that the bureau would play a role in advancing the Trump–Russia narrative.

“Mere days after this intelligence was collected, the FBI launched Crossfire Hurricane,” the source said. “It’s really hard to see how Brennan, Clapper and Comey are going to be able to explain this away.”

Patel has suggested the hidden room was deliberately concealed.

“Just think about this,” he said in a separate interview. “Me, as director of the FBI… found a room that Comey and others hid from the world in the Hoover Building, full of documents and computer hard drives that no one had ever seen or heard of.”

The documents have since been turned over to Grassley as part of an ongoing congressional push to uncover more details about the origins of the Russia investigation and any potential misconduct within the intelligence community.

For now, the biggest question remains: how did a secure room filled with highly sensitive materials exist inside FBI headquarters — completely off the books — without anyone knowing?

President And First Lady Call On ABC News To Fire Jimmy Kimmel

The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

First Lady Melania Trump is demanding consequences for late-night host Jimmy Kimmel after what she called “hateful” rhetoric—just days before a terrifying security breach at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

Kimmel sparked outrage last week during a parody segment in which he mocked the Trumps, referring to the first lady as “an expectant widow” while joking about their marriage.

“Our first lady, Melania, is here. Look at Melania, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow,” Kimmel said.

The remark drew fierce backlash after a suspected would-be assassin attempted to storm the Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday. Authorities say 31-year-old Cole Allen of Torrance, California, rushed a Secret Service checkpoint at the Washington Hilton armed with multiple weapons and opened fire, wounding an agent before being taken into custody.

In the aftermath, Melania Trump took to X with a blistering response.

“Kimmel’s hateful and violent rhetoric is intended to divide our country. His monologue about my family isn’t comedy—his words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America,” she wrote.

“People like Kimmel shouldn’t have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate. A coward, Kimmel hides behind ABC because he knows the network will keep running cover to protect him. Enough is enough,” the first lady continued. “It is time for ABC to take a stand. How many times will ABC’s leadership enable Kimmel’s atrocious behavior at the expense of our community.”

President Donald Trump echoed the call, demanding immediate action from the network.

“Wow, Jimmy Kimmel, who is in no way funny as attested to by his terrible Television Ratings, made a statement on his Show that is really shocking,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“He then stated, ‘Our First Lady, Melania, is here… you have a glow like an expectant widow.’ A day later a lunatic tried entering the ballroom of the White House Correspondents Dinner, loaded up with a shotgun, handgun, and many knives. He was there for a very obvious and sinister reason,” Trump continued.

“I appreciate that so many people are incensed by Kimmel’s despicable call to violence… this is something far beyond the pale. Jimmy Kimmel should be immediately fired by Disney and ABC.”

Kimmel, however, pushed back during his Monday night monologue, insisting the joke was harmless.

“It was a very light roast joke about the fact that he’s almost 80 and she’s younger than I am. It was not by any stretch of the definition a call to assassination. And they know that,” he said.

While expressing sympathy for those shaken by the incident, Kimmel rejected any suggestion his comments played a role.

“I am sorry that you and the president and everyone in that room on Saturday went through that. I really am,” he said. “Because no one got killed doesn’t mean it wasn’t traumatic and scary… But do you want us to believe that a joke I made three days before this dinner had any effect on anything that happened?”

He added, “I’ve been very vocal for many years speaking out against gun violence… and I think a great place to start to dial that back would be to have a conversation with your husband about it.”

Despite the backlash, ABC appears unmoved.

A network source told Page Six that executives are standing by their late-night host and have no plans to discipline him.

“It’s back to taping per usual. They’re moving on,” the insider said.

Kimmel has faced controversy before. Last year, ABC parent company Disney briefly suspended “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” after comments related to the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk triggered outrage and drew scrutiny from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who called the remarks “some of the sickest conduct.”

Kimmel later returned to air, saying he never intended to make light of the tragedy.

For now, despite renewed calls for his removal, it appears Kimmel’s job is safe—leaving critics fuming and the broader debate over media rhetoric once again front and center.

WHCA Dinner Shooting Prompts New Discussion Surrounding White House Ballroom

The attempted shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner is rapidly reshaping the debate over President Donald Trump’s long-controversial plan to build a new White House ballroom — with even some Democrats signaling a shift in tone.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), who had previously opposed aspects of the project, acknowledged Monday that lawmakers may now need to reconsider it — not as a political issue, but as a security necessity.

“Do we need a ballroom? Well, that we can discuss that,” Rosen said in an interview. “This isn’t about Donald Trump. It is really about safety. It’s really about safety.”

The $400 million, 90,000-square-foot ballroom proposal — which would replace the demolished East Wing — has drawn criticism for months over cost, transparency, and historical preservation concerns. But Saturday night’s attack, in which an armed suspect attempted to storm the event before being stopped, has injected new urgency into the conversation.

President Trump wasted little time connecting the incident to his long-standing push.

“I didn’t want to say this but this is why we have to have all of the attributes of what we’re planning at the White House,” Trump told reporters shortly after the shooting. “It’s actually a larger room, and it’s much more secure.”

Security concerns take center stage

Trump allies argue the incident underscores a glaring vulnerability: Washington lacks a truly secure venue capable of hosting large gatherings of top officials.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is now moving quickly to capitalize on that argument, pushing legislation that would fund the project and include additional security infrastructure beneath the ballroom, including a Secret Service annex.

“It’s very difficult to have a bunch of important people in the same place unless it’s really, really secure,” Graham said. “The times in which we live are unusual… I’ve never felt the sense of threat that exists today.”

The Justice Department echoed that urgency in a late-night court filing, arguing that the shooting should end legal delays blocking the project.

“This Court should never have enjoined this Project, but now, after the Saturday night attempted assassination… reasonable minds can no longer differ — The injunction must be dissolved,” the administration wrote.

The DOJ went even further, warning that halting the project “greatly endangers the lives of all Presidents, current and future.”

Democrats show signs of movement — with caveats

While many Democrats remain skeptical, Rosen’s comments suggest cracks in the previously unified opposition.

She emphasized that large events inherently carry risk and that stronger protections may be necessary.

“You can’t harden each and every [event],” she said, “but you want to try to be sure that they’re as safe as possible.”

Still, Rosen cautioned that the ballroom alone is not a silver bullet.

“One ballroom isn’t the answer to this,” she said.

She also criticized how the project has been handled, particularly the demolition of the East Wing — which housed the first lady’s office and other staff — without what she described as proper congressional process.

“What I object to is it didn’t go through any of those processes before the demolition,” Rosen said. “What was lost… that should have been preserved for history?”

Other Democrats, including Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), have gone further, openly urging their party to reconsider outright opposition to the project.

GOP divisions emerge over funding

Despite broad Republican support for the concept, divisions are emerging over how to pay for it.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), a longtime Trump ally, pushed back against using taxpayer dollars, insisting the project should remain privately funded.

“We have $39 trillion of debt,” Scott said. “Maybe we ought to stop spending money.”

Trump has previously maintained that private donors would cover the ballroom’s cost, though critics have raised questions about transparency.

Legal battle intensifies

The project remains tied up in court after a federal judge ruled the administration lacked proper congressional approval, limiting construction to below-ground work while the case proceeds.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued last year after the East Wing was torn down, arguing the project violated preservation laws.

Now, in the wake of the shooting, the administration is urging the court to reverse course — or at least signal it would do so — calling the lawsuit “frivolous” and “dangerous.”

A turning point?

Saturday’s attack — the third assassination attempt against Trump since 2024, according to the administration — may prove to be a pivotal moment in the debate.

What was once dismissed by critics as an expensive and unnecessary expansion is now being reframed by supporters as a critical national security upgrade.

And with even some Democrats beginning to acknowledge the security argument, the political battle over the ballroom may be entering a new phase.

Whether that shift is enough to overcome legal hurdles and funding disputes remains to be seen — but after this weekend, the question is no longer just whether the White House needs a ballroom.

It’s whether Washington can afford not to have one.

Inside The White House Correspondents’ Dinner Suspect’s ‘Manifesto’

The man accused of opening fire outside the White House Correspondents’ Dinner left behind a detailed “manifesto” describing his intent to target members of the Trump administration, “prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest,” according to a copy obtained by CBS News.

Cole Allen, 31, allegedly sent the writing to family members before the attack. In it, he stated that while law enforcement, hotel employees, and guests were not his intended targets, he was willing to harm them if necessary to reach administration officials. “I really hope it doesn’t come to that,” he wrote.

Authorities say Allen charged a security checkpoint outside the Washington Hilton on Saturday night armed with a shotgun, a handgun, and knives. President Donald Trump and other officials were quickly escorted from the event, which was later canceled. A Secret Service agent who was shot during the incident, while wearing a bulletproof vest, has since been released from the hospital.

The suspect’s brother reportedly alerted police in Connecticut after receiving the email, prompting law enforcement to intervene. Investigators later recovered additional writings from Allen’s home in Torrance, California, and his hotel room at the Hilton.

A chilling and ironic tone

Throughout the message, Allen adopted a matter-of-fact tone, at times veering into irony.

“Hello everybody!” he began. “So I may have given a lot of people a surprise today.”

He apologized to his parents “for saying I had an interview without specifying it was for ‘Most Wanted,’” and to colleagues and students for claiming he had a personal emergency. He suggested that by the time the email was read, he might already require medical attention, referring to potential injuries as “self-inflicted status.”

Declared targets — with one exception

Allen wrote that he chose to act because he did not want the administration’s alleged “crimes” to “coat [his] hands.” While he did not explicitly name Trump or the event, he described a plan to target officials in descending order of rank.

He made one notable exception: “not including Mr. Patel,” he wrote, referencing the FBI director, who was also in attendance.

Allen added that he would avoid targeting Secret Service, Capitol Police, or National Guard personnel unless necessary. “I hope they are wearing body armor,” he wrote.

He also detailed tactical decisions, claiming, “In order to minimize casualties, I will also be using buckshot rather than slugs (less penetration through walls).”

Anticipating criticism

The manifesto included a section addressing hypothetical objections to his actions, along with rebuttals.

“As a half-black, half-white person, you shouldn’t be the one doing this,” he wrote as a potential criticism. “Rebuttal: I don’t see anyone else picking up the slack.”

He also referenced his Christian faith, writing that some might argue he should “turn the other cheek.”

“Rebuttal,” he continued, “Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed.”

Allen then described various unnamed individuals experiencing hardship, in some cases attributing their struggles to the administration.

“I don’t expect forgiveness, but if I could have seen any other way to get this close, I would have taken it,” he added.

Criticism of security

In a postscript, Allen sharply criticized security measures at the event.

“PS… what the hell is the Secret Service doing? … No damn security. Not in transport. Not in the hotel. Not in the event,” he wrote.

He claimed that if he had been a foreign agent, he could have brought in heavier weaponry without detection. Officials note that while the Washington Hilton hosted the event, it remained an operational hotel with public access, and only specific areas were secured.

Family warnings and prior behavior

Allen’s sister reportedly told investigators that he frequently used “radical” rhetoric and had previously discussed doing “something” to address what he saw as problems in society and government.

She also revealed her brother was a regular visitor to the shooting range, was a member of a group called “The Wide Awakes” and had previously attended a “No Kings” rally in California. 

Political reaction and unanswered questions

The motive behind the attack remains under investigation.

Former President Barack Obama emphasized the lack of confirmed details while condemning political violence broadly.

“Although we don’t yet have the details about the motives behind last night’s shooting… it’s incumbent upon all of us to reject the idea that violence has any place in our democracy,” Obama wrote. He also praised the Secret Service, calling their work “a sobering reminder of the courage and sacrifice” they show.

During a “60 Minutes” interview, Trump reacted angrily after host Norah O’Donnell read excerpts from the alleged manifesto.

“You read that crap from some sick person? I got associated with all stuff that has nothing to do with me,” Trump said, adding, “You should be ashamed of yourself… You’re a disgrace.”

More than 2,500 people had gathered for the annual dinner, which celebrates the First Amendment. Trump, who has typically declined to attend during his presidency, had made a historic appearance this year and has since said he hopes to reschedule the event within 30 days.

The Full Manifesto

To read Allen’s full 1,052-word manifesto as published by The New York Post, with minor edits to improve profanity, see below:

Hello everybody!

So I may have given a lot of people a surprise today. Let me start off by apologizing to everyone whose trust I abused.

I apologize to my parents for saying I had an interview without specifying it was for “Most Wanted.”

I apologize to my colleagues and students for saying I had a personal emergency (by the time anyone reads this, I probably most certainly DO need to go to the ER, but can hardly call that not a self-inflicted status.)

I apologize to all of the people I traveled next to, all the workers who handled my luggage, and all the other non-targeted people at the hotel who I put in danger simply by being near.

I apologize to everyone who was abused and/or murdered before this, to all those who suffered before I was able to attempt this, to all who may still suffer after, regardless of my success or failure.

I don’t expect forgiveness, but if I could have seen any other way to get this close, I would have taken it. Again, my sincere apologies.

On to why I did any of this:

I am a citizen of the United States of America.

What my representatives do reflects on me.

And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.

(Well, to be completely honest, I was no longer willing a long time ago, but this is the first real opportunity I’ve had to do something about it.)

While I’m discussing this, I’ll also go over my expected rules of engagement (probably in a terrible format, but I’m not military so too bad.)

Administration officials (not including Mr. Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest

Secret Service: they are targets only if necessary, and to be incapacitated non-lethally if possible (aka, I hope they’re wearing body armor because center mass with shotguns messes up people who *aren’t*

Hotel Security: not targets if at all possible (aka unless they shoot at me)

Capitol Police: same as Hotel Security

National Guard: same as Hotel Security

Hotel Employees: not targets at all

Guests: not targets at all

In order to minimize casualties I will also be using buckshot rather than slugs (less penetration through walls)

I would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people *chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that.

Rebuttals to objections:

Objection 1: As a Christian, you should turn the other cheek.

Rebuttal: Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed. I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. I’m not the fisherman executed without trial. I’m not a schoolkid blown up or a child starved or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration.

Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.

Objection 2: This is not a convenient time for you to do this.

Rebuttal: I need whoever thinks this way to take a couple minutes and realize that the world isn’t about them. Do you think that when I see someone raped or murdered or abused, I should walk on by because it would be “inconvenient” for people who aren’t the victim?

This was the best timing and chance of success I could come up with.

Objection 3: You didn’t get them all.

Rebuttal: Gotta start somewhere.

Objection 4: As a half-black, half-white person, you shouldn’t be the one doing this.

Rebuttal: I don’t see anyone else picking up the slack

Objection 5: Yield unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

Rebuttal: The United States of America are ruled by the law, not by any one or several people. In so far as representatives and judges do not follow the law, no one is required to yield them anything so unlawfully ordered.

I would also like to extend my appreciation to a great many people since I will not be likely to be able to talk with them again (unless the Secret Service is *astoundingly* incompetent.)

Thank you to my family, both personal and church, for your love over these 31 years.

Thank you to my friends, for your companionship over many years.

Thank you to my colleagues over many jobs, for your positivity and professionalism.

Thank you to my students for your enthusiasm and love of learning.

Thank you to the many acquaintances I’ve met, in person and online, for short interactions and long-term relationships, for your perspectives and inspiration.

Thank you all for everything.

Sincerely,

Cole “coldForce” “Friendly Federal Assassin” Allen

PS: Ok now that all the sappy stuff is done, what the hell is the Secret Service doing? Sorry, gonna rant a bit here and drop the formal tone.

Like, I expected security cameras at every bend, bugged hotel rooms, armed agents every 10 feet, metal detectors out the wazoo.

What I got (who knows, maybe they’re pranking me!) is nothing.

No damn security.

Not in transport.

Not in the hotel.

Not in the event.

Like, the one thing that I immediately noticed walking into the hotel is the sense of arrogance.

I walk in with multiple weapons and not a single person there considers the possibility that I could be a threat.

The security at the event is all outside, focused on protestors and current arrivals, because apparently no one thought about what happens if someone checks in the day before.

Like, this level of incompetence is insane, and I very sincerely hope it’s corrected by the time this country gets actually competent leadership again.

Like, if I was an Iranian agent, instead of an American citizen, I could have brought a damn Ma Deuce in here and no one would have noticed s**t.

Actually insane.

Oh and if anyone is curious is how doing something like feels: it’s awful. I want to throw up; I want to cry for all the things I wanted to do and never will, for all the people whose trust this betrays; I experience rage thinking about everything this administration has done.

Can’t really recommend it! Stay in school, kids.