The controversy, today, is no longer in what happened, but in what was not done. decided not to activate the maximum level of security for the annual dinner of the Casa Blanda correspondents, even though at the event the president and a good part of his government agreed. A decision that is now being questioned after learning the details of the deployed device.
As revealed by The Washington Post, the event held at the Hilton hotel in Washington was not designated as a “National Special Security Event” (NSSE), a category that allows the Secret Service to assume full control of protection and deploy a much stricter and more coordinated system.
A protocol that is applied in other events…
The absence of this designation is especially striking because it is a common procedure when the main figures of American political power are concentrated in the same space. This is what happens, for example, in the State of the Union address or at presidential inaugurations.
On this occasion, however, the Administration opted for a lower level of security, even though At the dinner were not only Trump, but also first lady Melania Trump, Vice President JD Vance and several key members of the cabinet such as Marco Rubio or Pete Hegseth.
The decision has surprised even within security circles, where it is considered that these types of events meet all the requirements to activate the reinforced protocol.
A more limited system than usual
By not declaring itself as an NSSE, the coordination of the device did not fall completely to the Secret Service and a less complex security scheme was chosen. Among other things, access to the event was organized with a centralized security check in the hotel lobby, instead of the usual multiple rings of protection.
This model, according to various sources, It can be effective in smaller acts, but it raises doubts when it comes to meetings where so many senior officials and thousands of attendees coincide, including journalists and institutional staff.
-and that was already news in itself-, What this episode has opened is an in-depth debate on the criteria followed to activate the highest levels of security.
Experts point out that the designation as a “Special National Security Event” is not automatic, but it does respond to a clear logic: avoid risks when the power structure can be concentrated in the same place. In this case, that logic did not apply.
The shadow of the “designated survivor”
The decision has also revived another classic debate in the United States: that of the so-called “designated survivor.” This mechanism, which is activated at events such as the State of the Union address, consists of keeping a member of the Government in a secret location to guarantee institutional continuity in the event of an attack.
This protocol was not applied at the correspondents’ dinner, despite the fact that practically the entire political leadership was gathered in the same building.
A decision under scrutiny… with an eye to the future
The episode has put Donald Trump’s Administration under scrutinywhich must now explain why a lower security level than usual was chosen for an event of these characteristics.
Meanwhile, pressure is growing so that in future editions, especially if it is repeated in the coming weeks, as the president himself has mentioned, the protocols are reviewed and the level of protection is raised.
Because the question is no longer what happened that night, but why everything possible was not done to avoid any risk.
