The Insight: Why is Trump Targeted So Much?

Was this a security failure or success?

“This could have been a massacre,” Paul Eckloff, a retired Secret Service agent who served on President Donald Trump’s security detail during his first term, said.

However, according to Eckloff, people are asking the wrong question: “The question is not, how did he get close,” but rather, “why is everyone alive.” His answer to this question was “because the security plan worked.”

The New York Times (Lean Left bias) highlighted several experts besides Eckloff stating that security at the correspondents’ dinner worked as intended.

However, not everyone agreed with this sentiment.

The Washington Post (Lean Left), citing unnamed officials familiar with the security plan, said “The Trump administration provided a lower level of security for the White House correspondents’ dinner than it has for other gatherings of high-ranking officials.” The article explained that events such as this are “typically” designated as a “National Special Security Event,” adding that “there was no such designation on Saturday night.”

The New York Post (Lean Right) spoke with Timothy Miller, the CEO of LionHeart and former Secret Service agent, who broke down what he called a “security failure.” Miller explained that the heroism and immediate action of the agents on the ground was a “tremendous win,” but added that it was a “security failure in the planning aspect,” comparing it to the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania.

MS Now (Left) highlighted Trump’s praising of the Secret Service during a press conference after the event, along with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche saying it was “a massive security success story.” The article explained that while the gunman was ultimately apprehended, he also breached the perimeter before being taken into custody, stating that “It’s fair to ask what ‘success’ means in that context.”

Why do some think it was staged?

In the days following the assassination attempt, some conspiracy theories have populated social media spaces, particularly amongst those on the left.

The Guardian (Left) noted, “Conspiracy theories are a frequent response to significant political events,” and that public perception of Trump may heighten that. The Guardian quoted a professor from the University of Washington who has published on conspiracy theories and power, who said, “The administration does not have the best record of honesty and transparency when it comes to communicating with the public. People who already believe the worst about what Trump is capable of can easily tell a story about the latest event to conform to their existing views.”

The day after the shooting, both members of Trump’s administration and conservatives on social media cast the event as proof that Trump’s proposed but controversial White House ballroom is necessary for his security. The Guardian noted that “Trump’s quick pivot to claiming that the shooting incident confirms the need for a more secure ballroom” along with “rightwing pundits’ near-uniformity in messaging along the same lines” created an opening for “conspiracy framing.”
 

MAGA accounts tweet in unison about the need for a White House ballroom following WHCD incident pic.twitter.com/3acgko7qv3

— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) April 26, 2026

Washington Post (Lean Left) pointed to a clip of Fox News (Right) correspondent Aishah Hasnie, who was at the dinner and called into a segment on Fox to describe the events she witnessed. When her call abruptly ended, some viewers saw it “as evidence of the network attempting to stop her from exposing the incident as staged,” according to The Post.

Fox News highlighted two MS NOW (Left) hosts discussing “disturbing” conspiracy theories they’d seen online, and that more of it came from the left than in the past. Fox cited posts by Hasan Piker (Left) questioning whether Trump staged the assassination.

Robby Soave (Lean Right), writing an opinion for The Hill (Center), suggested that despite the fact that conservatives and MAGA-subscribers reportedly having the reputation of believing “crazy things,” it is Democrats who “are perfectly willing to believe all manner of crazy things, when partisan dislike and distrust of President Trump is involved.” Soave cited a Manhattan Institute study that showed 46% of Democrats believed a previous assassination attempt against Trump was staged.

The New York Times also highlighted that because conspiracy theories often become engaging and viral content, some users are motivated to share them even if they don’t agree with them. The Times highlighted influencer Mario Nawfal (Lean Right bias), who shared a post with seven different theories about the evening’s events, only to end the post saying, “I don't believe any of the theories, definitely don't think it was staged, and from my discussions with analysts, there doesn't seem to be any security failures.”

Why has Trump been targeted so much?

When asked by Fox News’ Peter Doocy, Trump suggested that the reason for successive attempts on his life is the impact he has had on the country. “The people that do the most, the people that make the biggest impact, they’re the ones that they go after.” Trump added that “I hate to say I’m honored by that, but we’ve done a lot.”

Karen Tumulty (Center), writing analysis for the Washington Post (Lean Left), said “There is no doubt that Trump has been impactful and historic, though the country is deeply divided over whether that has been for better or worse.” Tumulty stressed that while “Trump is a target of political violence,” he is “hardly its only cause,” adding that “social upheaval, deep polarization and social media are primary drivers of the phenomenon, which has touched Republicans and Democrats alike.”

Jawad Iqbal, opinion writer for The Spectator (Right), echoed this sentiment, saying, “No American leader in modern history has been as polarising: hated and adored in equal measure.” However, Iqbal added that “the targeting of Trump tells its own tale,” explaining that many public figures and political opponents “appear to get off on calling Trump a fascist, the most dangerous person in the country,” asking if “his critics ever wonder about their own heated rhetoric and the dangers of making Trump out to be evil personified.”

Nicole Russell (Lean Right) said the “would-be assassin echoed Democrats’ dangerous rhetoric.” While conceding that “political violence is not confined to one ideology,” Russell said it has been “high-profile conservatives” being targeted in recent months “for who they are and what they believe,” referencing the assassination of Charlie Kirk seven months ago.

Russell also highlighted alleged gunman Cole Allen’s manifesto, in which he said he was “no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crime.” Russell asserted that “the claims are false,” but added that “they are also common liberal talking points that Democrats, former presidents and mainstream outlets use on a regular basis.” Russell stressed that “The left must learn to live with a conservative leader without reaching for violence, or for rhetoric that turns political opponents into enemies and makes violence feel thinkable.”

Does the president need a White House ballroom for security?

Last October, the Trump administration demolished the East Wing of the White House to make room for a larger event space, in the form of a ballroom. A federal judge later ruled in favor of a historical preservation group that sued to halt construction of the ballroom, but the administration continued construction activity, interpreting an exception in the ruling allowing any construction that’s essential to national security as applying to the whole project. The judge later issued another ruling to clarify that he did not intend the national security exception to apply to the whole project.

If not the judge, is anyone else buying it?

After the assassination attempt, some members of Congress backed the ballroom but didn’t offer security as the main rationale for it. Representative Carlos Jimenez (R-FL) told Fox News, “The White House, which is a site of many official functions, and especially state dinners, when we're bringing in dignitaries and heads of states from around the world, needs a ballroom" and attributed opposition to the plan to “TDS,” an acronym for Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Separately, Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) told Fox, “Let’s just build this thing, and we move on,” and that the Democratic Party “can’t be defined by just being the exact opposite of whatever the president puts in front of us now.” Washington Times (Lean Right) presented Fetterman’s comments alongside arguments for the security rationale, which could give the impression to a less careful reader that he’d voiced agreement with it.

Meanwhile, pushback on the idea of ballroom-as-security abounded in left spaces. Several journalists expressed doubt that the White House Correspondents’ dinner would take place in the ballroom even if it existed. CNBC (Lean Left) interviewed a Poynter Institute executive who said hypothetically hosting the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in the ballroom “solves the security problem, but it creates a bigger problem for journalists,” whose independence and integrity could be threatened by the president hosting them on his own turf.

For The Nation (Left), Elie Mystal (Left) noted that even if some events moved into the ballroom, presidents including Trump would probably continue to make public appearances anyway, writing bluntly: “The idea that Trump needs a top secret (that everybody knows about) ballroom for presidential security is like saying JFK needed a faster convertible.”

Will political violence get worse? 

Unfortunately, many Americans think so. But many also see signs of hope.

According to Pew Research Center (Center), 85% of Americans think political violence is increasing. CNN (Lean Left) cited a PRRI poll showing 44% of people think right-wing groups are responsible for more political violence compared to 41% who said left-wing groups. A recent study also found that extremists were exploiting political violence online to recruit people to their causes. 

Despite these fears, most Americans agree that violence isn’t the solution to polarization. 

More than 9 in 10 Americans said they oppose election violence in a Nov. 2024 YouGov survey, including 91% of both Republicans and Democrats and 86% of independents. A year later, in a similar YouGov study, 87% of respondents said political violence is a problem.

People who celebrate political violence can seem like the loudest voices, but they remain outliers: “YouGov's polling shows that Americans overall are far more likely to say it's always or usually unacceptable to be happy about the death of a public figure they oppose, than they are to say this is acceptable (77% vs. 8%).”

Last November, AllSides conducted a national deliberative study on how Americans understand political violence, what they believe drives it, and how they think it can be prevented. In addition to a wealth of findings on how Americans across divides see the problem, we issued several recommendations for how people can work toward solving it:

• Hold “My Side” Accountable for Harmful Patterns. When emotions run hot, you can help deescalate the situation. It can be difficult to call out harmful behavior, especially among friends, but having the courage to do so will help further your shared goal.
• Create Space for Dialogue. Host a group conversation with family, friends, or your community using guides anyone can follow from Living Room Conversations.
• Seek out Different Perspectives. Intentionally explore opinions and ideas that are different from your own.
• Foster Healthy Debates. Attend an event or support movements to bridge the partisan divide and strengthen our democratic republic.

Read the full report here.