The line of succession vulnerability at the White House Correspondents’ Dinnner
I heard the news of the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shortly after it happened – hot off the press, as it were. First I saw photos of Trump, then Vance, and I thought “Oh wow; Vance was there too.” Almost immediately after that I saw a photo of Rubio, and thought with growing alarm: “Rubio too?”
So right at the outset I wondered how many people in the line of succession were there at once, and I found this:
At least twelve of the cabinet officers at the top of the line of succession for the presidency were reportedly in attendance at the 2026 White House Correspondents Dinner when shots rang out and President Trump was rushed from the stage.
The line of succession refers to who becomes responsible for carrying out the duties of the office of the president if the president is no longer able to serve. …
The line of succession is listed below along with the name of who currently holds the position and whether it is known if they were in attendance at the dinner.
1. Vice President – JD Vance – Was in attendance
2. Speaker of the House – Mike Johnson – Was in attendance
3. President Pro Tempore of the Senate – Chuck Grassley – Unknown
4. Secretary of State – Marco Rubio – Was in attendance
5. Secretary of the Treasury – Scott Bessent – Was in attendance
6. Secretary of Defense – Pete Hegseth – Was in attendance
7. Attorney General – Todd Blanche (acting) – Was in attendance
8. Secretary of the Interior – Doug Burgum – Was in attendance
9. Secretary of Agriculture – Brooke Rollins – Unknown
10. Secretary of Commerce – Howard Lutnick – Unknown
11. Secretary of Labor – Keith Sonderling (acting)- Unknown
12. Secretary of Health and Human Services – Robert Kennedy Jr. – Was in attendance
13. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development – Scott Turner – Unknown
14. Secretary of Transportation – Sean Duffy – Was in attendance
“>this one
15. Secretary of Energy – Chris Wright – Was in attendance16. Secretary of Education – Linda McMahon – Was in attendance
17. Secretary of Veterans Affairs – Douglas Collins – Unknown
18. Secretary of Homeland Security – Markwayne Mullin – Was in Attendance
So, had the shooter been far more successful, we might have had a 92-year-old President Grassley.
Fortunately no one was hurt and the incident will be only a footnote. But the attendance of so many high officials at one venue – particularly one that is public – dictated an extremely high level of security that was not met. This wasn’t business-as-usual even for a presidential appearance; this was of a higher level even than that.
When I say the security level was not met for such an event, I’m also relying on eyewitnesses. I’ve read several eyewitness accounts that very much agree with this one from attendee Stephen Moore, who is an economist:
I had anticipated a very long security line and about an hour wait to enter the hotel. I brought my paper ticket and my passport identification.
To my surprise the security was lax, to put it lightly. Wearing my tux, I walked in the front door by flashing the paper ticket. There was no code to be scanned and I never once was asked for my ID.
The room was packed at 7pm when President Trump entered to shallow applause. What shocked me was that, after the National Anthem and military color guard, Trump and the First Lady sat for dinner front and center in front of 2500 people. That didn’t strike me as safe or advisable. For a sniper, God forbid, it seemed he was a sitting duck.
It also struck me that the President, the VP and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson were all in attendance. I am told five of the six in succession to the presidency were there. …
Trump was right in praising the agents on site were amazing in keeping us safe and restoring order.
But this was clearly a major security breakdown on multiple levels. It was easier to get into the Hilton to see the president and to get 30 feet from him than to attend a Wizards basketball game down the street.
As I said, I’ve read very similar observations from others. I’ll also add something I’ve written before, which is that for quite a while after 9/11, when I stayed in hotels in a few big cities, there were stringent ID checks and metal detectors going in or out and only one or two entrances were even open. These were ordinary large hotels with no special functions going on.
The WH Correspondents’ Dinner was a one-night event, but it’s also obvious that anyone wanting to attack might come there earlier to check in. So the security would need not to just be the day of, but at least a day or two earlier. Obviously, security can’t be perfect and it’s a judgment call when the enhanced security would begin. But I continue to believe that some very obvious precautions were not taken, considering the unusual nature of the get-together.
In previous years, of course, it had occurred without incident. But Trump had never attended as president during his first term, and it is Trump and his aides who are targets even more than previous administrations. That is obvious.
The Executive Branch won’t make that mistake again.
Years ago, during the administration of George W. Bush, the President was going to speak at my daughter’s college graduation. There was a very long line to get into the auditorium, and a screening process for every single person attending. And the President was the only administration member there. Sounds as if standards have seriously declined since then.
Could have been a much more dangerous crowd, could have been The Oscars; that’s where the fanatical haters hang.
That does sound shockingly bad.
huxley expressed doubt on an earlier post about whether people on the left will continue or double down on the toxic rhetoric that helped incite this attempt. I think maybe he was suggesting that the Dem leadership people may not do so.
But I worry that the sort of mob mentality that’s out there among the populace might have a life of its own at this point.
Administration leaders need to be more cognizant of the danger and avoid big gatherings of this type which have no particular purpose. The level of hatred being fomented among about half of the public is toxic.
Also, the Executive branch desperately needs a large gathering venue which is not a public hotel (i.e., the White House ballroom).
@TommyJay: huxley expressed doubt on an earlier post about whether people on the left will continue or double down on the toxic rhetoric
More specifically, I was doubting that Cole Allen would become a hero to some Democrats and the Left as Luigi Mangione did. I argued that this time the D and Left leadership might downplay such assassination celebration out of self-interest.
This is the thrid attempt on Trump. It might be getting a bit rich for them to go too blatantly in on their violent Trump fantasies.
Obama and Bernie Sanders have spoken on the WHCD attack. While their comments rolled my eyes some, both were steadfast in saying that political violence has no place in America — with no nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
So far I have seen the usual TDS wishing Trump had been killed and the usual sick jokes about the shooter being more competent, but so far no one is heroizing Allen.
Maybe he’s not cute enough. 🙂
And he did fail to kill his target.
We might also amend the Presidential Succession Law. There’s no good reason to have the Speaker of the House or the President Pro Tempore of the Senate in the line of succession. The latter is usually ancient and you’d have to scrounge to locate anyone who had held either position during the last century who had ever held an executive position. Ideally, you have a fairly long list of confirmed executive branch officials on the roster – the cabinet secretaries, the chiefs of consequential stand-alone agencies, and the chiefs of consequential subcabinet agencies – and a second list of officials outside the executive branch (e.g. the Librarian of Congress) who might be tapped when you had a failed succession as defined by the 20th Amendment.
==
Eugene McCarthy was of the view that a succeeding vice president should only hold the office for a modest period of time and we re-convene the electoral college to choose a successor. The trouble with that is that electors are usually random party hacks. Might be a better idea to have the state legislatures elect a new president.
Oh, thanks be Obama hasn’t Trayvon’d the guy already with a “Hold on, he could be my son.”
Why in the name of someone/something do these administration muckety mucks show up at a convention of tuxedoed and gowned feral [insert plural noun here] who utterly and uncompromisingly detest them? — and if the feeling isn’t mutual, it ought to be.
Why can’t these people just stand back and let the [insert plural noun here] play their game, do their hackneyed, stale thing, and go home feeling all sorts of good about themselves, having virtue-signalled (and visceral-hated) their evening away?
Surely they don’t fancy they’ll catch a mini-whiff of goodwill. What do they have in mind?
Yes, they need to be confronted (and much worse than that), but why in this venue and in this format?? Someone please help me out here . . .
Administration leaders need to be more cognizant of the danger and avoid big gatherings of this type which have no particular purpose.
==
Or any gatherings which have no particular purpose.
==
Cannot help but note that in nearly eight years in office, Harry Truman left the country 3x – once for a courtesy visit to Canada, once for a courtesy visit to Mexico, and once for the Potsdam Conference. It often seems people at the apex of the federal government spin their wheels a great deal.
@huxley,
The canonization of Allen has begun. Here’s a quote from one Sidney Merritt,
“Mr Allen sounds much more sane and reasonable than almost our entire government, and infinitely more brave.”
@physicsguy:
That is still a long way from “canonization” or even “folk hero” status:
____________________________________
Mangione has drawn international support through graffiti, social media, and local court hearings, transforming him into a folk hero for those critical of the U.S. health insurance industry and its claim denial practices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Mangione
____________________________________
I don’t think Allen will get the Mangione treatment. We’ll see.
For a bunch that just decapitated another government, this does seem a trifle imprudent.
Arcana: In the Dominican Republic, the next in line after the VP is the CJ of the Supreme Court. Can you imagine?
Starting at the top, heads should roll at the Secret Service. Either incompetent negligence or intentional laxity are the only possible explanations for the shooter getting through the front door. Given the laxity in the attack that nearly killed Trump in Pennsylvania and now this, I’m leaning toward the latter explanation. The stakes are too high to simply assume that DEI alone has led to the lack of professionalism on display.
M J R (5:47 pm) asked, “why in this venue and in this format??”
Upon reflection, I can figure that that dinner should be a very good place to get stuff off his chest, to speak truth to people watching videos after the fact, and finally, to throw just a smidgen of manure back at them. Maybe many smidgens. Maybe a sh!tload.
But all those muckety mucks should not have been there. Okay, maybe a couple of well-spoken ones who are good at handing it back when the media accost them afterwards.
For the most part, the attendees at an affair like this are not introverts who would have preferred a quiet evening with a book or a blogger.
And the opportunity to snag some high quality wine? What’s not to like?!
Since Trump still wants to hold the meeting in full, he must really have had a lot to get off his chest! Remember how many of these he attended when Obama had the chance to roast him!
I understand the criticism of Trump attending the WHC dinner. On the other hand, I think choosing to attend the dinner is typical of the happy warrior Trump engaging with his opponents, and is good for the country, fostering public engagement. Perhaps his speech included language meant to unify the country, and not simply to shoot slings and arrows at his opponents. I’m guessing that he will deliver his speech at a later date, with revisions.
It seems to me that President Trump wants to unify the country of he can. Otherwise the country will devolve and fail.
PS – Talk show host Chris Plante says that Trump was motivated to run for President because of nasty remarks Obama made about him while speaking at an earlier WHC dinner.
@ Neo > “That is obvious.”
Obviously, it was not.
Wow. Whenever I vote, I need to show my photo ID, then they check my name and address off the register and hand me a ballot. It sounds like it would be harder to vote than to crash this party. All you had to do was grab a computer print out invite and they waved you in, no photo ID, no list, no nothing.
Doubt the ballroom would help, though. For 1, the WHCD isn’t run by the White House. For 2, the Hilton ballroom seats 2500, while the ballroom (even if it ever gets built) would only seat 999. For 3, the ballroom wouldn’t be big enough to play 18 holes of golf, and that’s where the POTUS is in the most danger.
Expecting competence in the American Ruling Class and amongst its minions in this Year of Our Lord 2026…
Puhleeeeese! You’re killing me!
Best get used to it. There’s plenty more retardation where this came from. And forget the partisan BS. It’s endemic.
250 years was a good, long run.
Selfy:
I’ve read that idea about Trump being motivated to run for the presidency by Obama’s 2011 remarks at the dinner. I think it’s an absurd claim, although Obama’s remarks may have increased his desire to run. But he ran in 2016 because of the state into which the country had fallen.
If you look at Trump’s history, he’d been talking for decades about perhaps running and had even run before.He ran for president in 2000 (Reform Party), and also seriously considered running in 1988, 2004, and 2012, but ultimately decided not to do so.
@Steve Sailer
Obviously not enough, given your bigoted anti-American trolling.
Oh, I have gotten used to far worse. Remember Biden? Obama?
It is but it is hardly equally applied, or evenly. Though perhaps you might serve as an expert on it.
But we can do better.
@ Geoffrey > “Given the laxity in the attack that nearly killed Trump in Pennsylvania and now this, I’m leaning toward the latter explanation.”
Mark Steyn agrees with your comment in all particulars, but at much greater length.
https://www.steynonline.com/16171/the-secret-service-makes-me-nervous
Is Steve Sailer “The Return of Zaphod”?
Pingback:Speech And Debate