Tangle - The White House correspondents’ dinner shooting.

Episode Date: April 27, 2026

On Saturday, a gunman fired shots at the Washington Hilton Hotel, which was hosting the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) dinner. The Secret Service evacuated President Donald Trump and other senior leaders, and none of the guests were injured. One Secret Service officer was shot while engaging the suspect outside the ballroom, but he was wearing a bulletproof vest and was not seriously wounded. The gunman allegedly sent a manifesto to his family before the attack, suggesting that he intended to kill the president and other administration officials. He was charged with using a firearm during a crime of violence and assault on federal officers using a dangerous weapon.Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!How Christians think about their politics.I think Americans of various political and religious stripes often forget that we do live in a pluralistic society — one where Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, or atheists inevitably bring their theology to the ballot box or to the policy debate. And when that happens, those religious beliefs do inform our national identity — but that is not necessarily a bad thing.In last Friday’s edition, Associate Editor Audrey Moorehead explored some Americans’ concerns about the rising influence of “Christian nationalism” in the U.S. government, breaking down what this term means, the influence of Christian beliefs on both sides of the aisle, and how we should think about that influence. You can read it here.You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the radar” story ⁠here⁠ and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: Had you heard of the theories that Saturday’s incident was staged? Let us know.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Isaac Saul and audio edited and mixed by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Morning, good afternoon and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul. And on today's episode, we're going to be talking about the White House correspondence dinner over the weekend. There was another attempt on President Trump's life,

the third such assassination and attempt since 2024. We're going to break down what exactly we know about what happened, the shooting inside, and share some views from the left and the right, and then my take. It is Monday, April 27th, and before we jump in to today's episode, I want to give you a quick reminder that on Friday, our associate editor, Audrey Moore had explored. Some of America's concerns about the rising influence of Christian nationalism in the U.S. government,

breaking down what this term means, the influence of Christian beliefs on both sides of the aisle, and how we should think about that influence. You can read Audrey's piece with a link in today's episode description, or you can listen to it by just scrolling back a couple episodes in your podcast feed. A quick reminder that Friday editions like this one are for paid members only. So if you want add-free podcasts and members-only podcasts, you can become a Tangle podcast member with a link in the episode description or by going to our website, reetangle.com, and getting a podcast or bundle membership. All right, with that, I'm going to hand it over to John for today's main story, and I'll be back for my take. Thanks, Isaac, and welcome, everybody. Hope you'll have a wonderful weekend. We're going to get right

into it with today's quick hits. First up, Senator Tom Tillis, the Republican from North Carolina, said he will no longer block Kevin Warsh's nomination to be the next Federal Reserve Chair after the Justice Department said it is dropping its investigation into current chairman Jerome Powell. With Tillis' support, Warsh's nomination is expected to advance out of the Senate Banking Committee to a confirmation vote. Number two, President Donald Trump canceled plans for special envoy Steve Whitkoff and Jared Kushner to travel to Pakistan for peace talks with Iran, saying discussions could be held over the phone. Separately, Iran reportedly sent the United States a new peace proposal, offering to immediately

reopen the Strait of her moves but delay negotiations over the war. Iran's nuclear program until a future date. Number three, the U.S. Southern Command struck a boat allegedly operated by drug traffickers in the Eastern Pacific, killing three on board. The operation was the 55th confirmed strike on an alleged drug boat since the U.S. military began targeting vessels in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific in September 2025. Number four, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday in a case about whether law enforcement's use of geoffence searches, which collect cell phone location data,

from an area in which a crime occurred, violates the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. And number five, King Charles III arrives in the United States today for his first stateside visit as King. The King will meet with President Trump at the White House in addition to delivering

a joint address to Congress and visiting other locations in Washington, D.C., New York City, and Virginia. Chaotic scenes at this year's White House Correspondence dinner as U.S. President Donald Trump was rushed off stage after shots were fired in the hotel where the event was taking place. Trump and the cabinet members who attended are all safe and the suspect is in custody. On Saturday, a gunman fired shots at the Washington Hilton Hotel, which was hosting the White House Correspondents Association dinner. The Secret Service evacuated President Donald Trump and other senior leaders and none of the guests were injured.

One Secret Service officer was shot while engaging the suspect outside the ballroom, but he was a was wearing a bulletproof vest and was not seriously wounded. The gunman allegedly sent a manifesto to his family before the attack, suggesting he intended to kill the president and other administration officials. He was charged with using a firearm during a crime of violence and assault on federal officers using a dangerous weapon. A note that due to the well-documented contagion effect, Tangle does not name shooters or suspects in high-profile attacks.

For similar reasons, we also tried to share limited information about the shooter and their alleged motives where possible. For context, the White House Correspondents Association hosts an annual dinner that brings together journalists covering the White House, top government officials, celebrities, and often the president and first lady. The event is billed as a celebration of the First Amendment, with comedians roasting guests through humorous speeches. Traditionally, the president is treated as the guest of honor at the event

and gives a comedic keynote address. This year's dinner is the first one President Trump has attended as president. According to law enforcement, the suspect was armed with the shotgun, a handgun, and knives, and rushed past a security checkpoint while exchanging fire with authorities. He was then tackled and subdued. Videos taken from inside the event showed the Secret Service rapidly evacuating President Trump, First Lady Melania Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, Cabinet secretaries, and White House advisors as other attendees sheltered in place.

The suspect was identified as a graduate of the California Institute of Technology and a two living in Torrance, California. In his alleged manifesto, he wrote that he was attempting to target high-ranking administration officials and was surprised by how easy it was to bring weapons into the hotel where he had checked in as a guest the day prior. Later on Saturday night, President Trump delivered a statement from the White House praising law enforcement's response and describing the reaction inside the room as totally unified. He also said that the incident underscored the need for the planned White House ballroom, which is being designed to hold secure events with high-profile figures. Lawmakers in attendance expressed shock at the incident.

It's a horrible, horrible moment for our country to see somebody want to attack or disrupt the event, Representative Brian Jack, the Republican from Georgia said. It's insane that this is happening at the White House Correspondence Dinner. Security is supposed to be top-notch, Representative Nanette Baragon, the Democrat from California said. Today, we'll share responses to the shooting from the left and the right, and then Isaac's take. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right. First up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left condemns the attack and many connected to persisting gun violence in the U.S.

Some push back on conspiracy theories about the incident. Others say the suspect's manifesto highlighted real security vulnerabilities. The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board wrote, After a third attempt on his life, Trump could work to make America safer again. President Donald Trump has now been involved in what appears to be an unprecedented three attempts on his life. Sadly, the attack at the White House correspondence dinner on Saturday will likely come and go with little consequence or reflection, the board said. But just imagine if Trump said enough is enough and used his immense charisma to turn those searing acts of horror

into something positive by demanding common-sense gun reform. What if Trump told Congress he would like a package of common-sense gun reform bills on his desk before election day? We, like others of goodwill, condemn this attempt on his life in all acts of political violence. By using the power of the presidency to take steps that could have a meaningful impact on firearm deaths, Trump has a chance to be a hero, the board wrote. Regrettably, that opportunity grows more unlikely by the minute. Instead of seeking unity, the president will soon be back to posting insults, lies, threats, hate, vitriol, and late-night diatripes aimed at his perceived enemies, and giving no

thought to how his anger and hate over the past decade has fueled the belies. political divide. In Slate, Molly Olmsted explored the conspiracy theorist Bonanza after the shooting. We do not yet fully understand the suspect's motivations, but we have strong indications. He had donated to Kamala Harris's presidential campaign. He had attended an anti-Donald Trump protest, and he had sent messages to his family members before the attack denouncing the Trump administration, Olmstead said. These signposts seemingly paint a straightforward picture of this attack as a politically motivated assassination attempt against the president and members of his administration. But if you ask observers, and particularly observers on the left, there's something even more sinister

going on here. It's true that the attack will help change the subject at a time when his myriad policy failures, particularly the war in Iran, have been front and center. But none of that comes close to proving that the shooting was intentional. Additionally, the Trump officials may not have appeared as visibly shaken as people expected simply because the shooter wasn't actually anywhere near them, Olmsted wrote. The rapid impulse to insist the shooting was staged is further proof of just how deeply ventured into a post-truth era,

where anything that happens will be immediately engulfed in conspiracy theories. In the Atlantic, Graham Wood said, the most frightening shooters are the smart ones. The line, I experience rage thinking about everything this administration has done, could probably have been written in an email to friends by any number of the attendees at last night's White House school, Correspondents Association dinner. But the line was apparently written by a man who showed up with a shotgun and pistol

and was ready to kill most everyone there to get to Donald Trump and assassinate him and his cabinet, Woodrow. Random acts of violence by unstable individuals are unfortunately a feature of modern life. The most frightening shooters are not these Yahoo's, but the smart ones, those who carefully plan, train, and choose their settings to inflict maximum damage. The email attributed to the suspect as well as the skisket. biographical details known about him suggest that he had the capacity

to do much more harm than he did. Excerpts from the email do not sound at all like the mad ranting that characterizes many of the encyclicals sent out by attempted assassins before their act. And the suspect's complaints, though too vague to assess individually, are indeed the sorts of things

one might reasonably get worked up about, what said. The suspect is right to note that a competent assassination squad would find the job easier than one might hope. He was thankfully wrong to that he was such a squad all by himself. All right, that is it for what the left is saying,

which brings us to what the right is saying. The right also condemns the attack, and many connected to increasingly dehumanizing political rhetoric. Some criticized the Secret Service after another apparent close call. Others praised Trump's demeanor and remarks after the shooting. The free press's editors argued, The American Way is under fire. It's impossible to ignore the fiery pitch of the current political climate.

Just outside the hotel, protesters held placards that read, Death to Tyrants and Death to All of Them. They waved these signs in the faces of shaken attendees even after the thwarted attack. Hatred toward public officials and ideological opponents abounds in American politics today and has too often turned violent, the editors said.

It struck us as they waved these placards in the events aftermath that it was the perfect emblem of our present moment, one in which calls for violence against people on the other side can be stated flagrantly in public. One can find examples of ugly, violent rhetoric being used across the political spectrum in America today, but the animosity aimed at Trump is on a level of its own. That fixation is the symptom of a broken politics, the editors wrote. The shooting is a reminder that the First Amendment alone cannot uphold free speech.

Its legal protections for private individuals are essential, but the entire American system of expression, elections, and debate is also built on a shared culture, on the assumption that, the elected representatives of the people will never lack the power to speak freely. Today, that can no longer be taken for granted. In the Federalist, Brianna Lyman said, the Secret Service failed Trump again. The question everyone should be asking is, how did an armed suspect get that far in the first place? It's a question that should sound familiar. Less than two years ago, Americans watched in horror as a would-be assassin climbed onto an open rooftop, overlooking Trump's rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, Lyman wrote. Here, we are at the

the Washington Hilton Hotel left asking the same question. How did another armed man get this close to the precedent at what should be a secure location? How is it that there was no meaningful vetting of guests of the hotel in the days leading up to the event? How is it that a man was able to rent a room in the hotel and allegedly bring weapons with him? Why wasn't there a hardened perimeter blocks long, checking bags and persons before they made it near the hotel, Lyman asked? Sure, the suspect was ultimately stopped, but that isn't proof that the system worked. In fact, it's evidence that every decision made leading up to the moment didn't. In the Wall Street Journal, Faith Bottom wrote,

Trump stands tall under fire. Donald Trump looked presidential on Saturday night. He proved again that he is at his best when faced with physical danger, bottom said. We can talk, we should talk, about political violence in America, especially against conservatives who are still shaken by the murder of Charlie Kirk. Political violence has become too common and too normalized, but a word should be said about the bravery of men.

Mr. Trump and those who protected him. Whether or not one likes him or supports his policies, courage is one of the virtues we want and need in our leaders. When asked why assassins keep targeting him, he answered, I studied assassinations and suggested that the people that make the biggest impact, such as Abraham Lincoln, tend to be the targets. They don't go after the ones that don't do much. I hate to say I'm honored by that, but I've done a lot.

We've done a lot, bottom wrote. The comparison to Lincoln may seem immodest, but Mr. Trump stood with presidential stature on Saturday. We should all be relieved he survived the attack. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. All right, that is it for the left and the writer saying, which brings us to my take. Charlie Kirk, Brian Thompson, Melissa Hortman, John Hoffman, Josh Shapiro, Iran Lashinsky, Sarah Lynn Milgram, Brett Kavanaugh, and Sonia Sotomayor.

A conservative activist, a healthcare CEO, two Democratic state lawmakers, a Democratic, a governor to Israeli embassy officials, a Republican, and a Democrat-appointed Supreme Court Justice. Each of these people just in the last several years has been killed, targeted, or the subject of a credible assassination plot. They are just a small subset of the people who work in or with the government whose lives have been at risk or actually taken. And now, for the third time since 24, that list includes President Donald Trump. This story has so many potential angles. Unfortunately, we've been able to explore a lot of them already. How does moving on so quickly from an assassination attempt against Trump show that we've almost normalized political violence as a society?

We've discussed. How should we talk about the role of the president, who is both the victim of another plot, but also someone who regularly employs violent rhetoric? We've discussed. How should we way someone's rhetoric after they've been the victim of a violent crime, we've discussed. How do we relate the accessibility of guns to other relevant issues? We've discussed. Who is more extreme between Democrats and Republicans? We've discussed. Here's something we haven't touched on, though. The increasing belief among the American public that these events are staged, manufactured, or otherwise unfolding in coordinated ways. Trust in the media continues to fall. And in some cases that distrust is well earned. I built an entire media business based on my view that news

consumers were living in bubbles and that major media organizations and social media platforms were part of the problem. Journalists, too, often inject their own bias into stories sold as neutral reporting, advertising first models, incentivized sensational headlines, and Americans are desperate to see a more diverse set of views when they open their phones or computers. I think those criticisms are valid. In many ways, I bet my career that they are. Yet I don't believe, and have never believed, that these stories are all performances, which would require all reporters down to the last one ignore the most incredible stories of our lifetimes. There's a difference between thinking the New York Times has a left-leaning bias and thinking reporters of the New York Times are so bad at their jobs

they can't accurately report on an event they were all in the room for. Legacy news outlets with reporters who are often doing the real work of bearing witness to these events, now have every sentence of their work scrutinized, challenged, and sometimes outright manipulated by people who mistrust the official narrative. A chorus of internet sleuths who watch people like Candice Owens think that Charlie Kirk's murder was an inside job, maybe even a setup by Israel or his own wife. 15% of Democrats don't think Trump was actually shot in the ear when a shooter tried to kill him in Butler, Pennsylvania.

And last night, the term staged immediately skyrocketed in use on social media, according to Wired. As the theory goes, the shooter was some kind of government plant who was paid or otherwise coerced into making an attempt on Trump's life so Trump could push forward his bunker ballroom or enjoy some kind of bounce back in the polls. The many reporters in the room reporting on what they saw were apparently all deceived or merely parroting the official government story. Representative Jasmine Crockett, the Democrat from Texas, who mercifully just lost her Senate primary race, joined the chorus. Maybe it's fake. Who knows? Who knows? Well, for one, the room full of journalists who heard the gunshots and saw the shooter apprehended on the ground are incentivized to find and share the truth. If you don't believe that reporting, you can always watch the security camera footage of the shooter running through a group of very clearly unsuspecting federal agents yourself. or you can read characterizations about the shooter from people who went to school with him.

It really stretches the imagination to believe the government concocted all these things and that a complicit press reported the details without confirming them with no exceptions. But this kind of witness testimony and corroborating evidence is no longer enough. It doesn't matter how many people in the crowd in Butler, Pennsylvania, heard the gunshots ring out or saw a man get killed directly behind Trump. It only matters that Trump could have activated some kind of fake blood packet in one moment on the ground to make it look like he'd been hit. Some people are just out here creating all manner of confusion consequences be damned. For instance, one random account on X has gone viral for posting the alleged shooter's name in December of 2023 with zero context.

It's the only post the accountant has ever made and it immediately sparked rampant speculation. Was the shooting plan for three years? someone powerful behind it? Who was this account and how did they see into the future? The likely explanation is more boring and simple. As journalist and fact checker David Puente explained, a spam poster probably created a private account to tweet out all manner of names and places that might become relevant in the future and then deleted all but one of the posts and made the account public. The alleged shooter has a very common name one he shares with an actor who has an IMDB page. The account could have rolled through a portion of common names or the movie database trying to hit

on something. This kind of conspiracy bait is everywhere now, and in an environment designed for conspiracism to thrive, it's thriving. No silver bullet will solve this problem. It requires a holistic approach, teaching anyone with internet access about cons like this, holding liars and snake oil salesmen accountable when their misdeeds become obvious, and figuring out ways for newsrooms with journalists who are tethered to reality to win in an attention economy stacked against them. The situation is now dire. Despite desperate attempts to limit their growth theories like QAnon are getting more popular, not less. Quarantining or silencing these movements doesn't work, but neither just totally unregulated speech on social media platforms. Real historical statements like

the CIA has killed foreign leaders get chalked up as conspiracy theories, effectively diminishing the meaning of the term so that fewer people are dissuaded by the label when it's used to describe belief in a Satan-worshipping sex cult directing the highest reaches of power. And our leaders aren't helping. I genuinely hate to say it, just 36 hours after another person tried to take his life, but no understanding of this issue is complete without this admission. Trump himself is a purveyor of a huge amount of absolute nonsense. Don't take my word for it. One look at his truth social account will send you down all manner of fringe, easily debunkable absurdities. But while Trump gets a lot of blame, he is far from the root cause of

the problem. His core delusions that the election was stolen or President Obama was born in Kenya, they don't originate with him, but with a broader culture that is fertilizing them to thrive. The most popular YouTube channels, podcasts, and social media accounts on the planet will spend hours on end wondering about whether President Emmanuel Macron's wife has a penis, or if the Artemis II mission was faked because you can't see stars and pictures of Earth. Two theories, by the way, that have thrived despite the president himself contradicting them. As a society, we've adopted a believe-nothing mentality, unless the story already has a sprinkle of collusion, deceit, and conspiracy. Then we'll believe anything. Saturday night's events were no exception. And in a myriad of

important debates about political violence, guns, our president, and mental health, the incredible gravitational force of a conspiracy claiming the whole thing was staged is just as important. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answer. This one is from Micah and Chandler, Arizona. Micah said, the first time I saw the video of Alex Prattie's previous encounter with ICE was on social media, and the folks in the comments were discussing whether it was AI generated. I think enough reputable organizations, the Associated Press, the New York Times, Tangle, have credulously reported that the video is likely genuine. However, it got me wondering, what is Tangle's policy or process for vetting whether a piece

of media is AI generated? So in a straightforward sense, we collaborate to try to identify AI generated content, but also rely on other experts with more resources to confirm genuine video. We included a link to the video you mentioned in today's newsletter, which we posted on our Instagram of Alex Preddy, the man killed by Department of Homeland Security agents in Minneapolis in January. It shows Prattie 11 days before his death and an altercation with immigration agents after he kicked their vehicle. As we noted in our caption accompanying the post, the video sparked significant debate about whether part or all of it was AI generated. It was later confirmed to be authentic. Behind the scenes, we had an extended discussion about posting the video.

I flagged it on Slack and noted that it was being widely shared on social media, suggesting we also posted if we could verify its legitimacy. Social media manager, Russell Nystrom, began scouring different news sites and flagged other outlets that had run the video. C.O. Magdalena Bikova and head of product Candida Hall highlighted a few frames that appeared strange, and we collectively zeroed in on them. While we were looking at the clips, the BBC, confirmed earlier reports that it had verified the video was real, and the man was almost certainly pretty. At that point, we were comfortable posting it. This example is emblematic of our editorial approach. We collaborate to screen videos that obviously appear to be fake, which are often easier to spot

than AI-generated text. Body parts move in unnatural ways. Features change from shot to shot, and background images are oddly defined. However, we need to rely on other outlets to validate real videos too, as we don't have the tools in-house to do so. Instead, we use a similar process to how we authenticate breaking news stories, doing a deep search to confirm its original source and looking for verification from multiple trusted professionals. We're not a breaking news service, so we prioritize taking our time over rushing to get something out. And if we're really unsure, we just won't publish it. This process has served us well. Entangles nearly seven-year history we've never, to our knowledge, published a fabricated image, video, or news story as genuine.

All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod, and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your under-the-radar story for today, folks. On Monday, jury selection will begin in a civil trial pitting Tesla CEO Elon Musk against OpenAI CEO, Sam Altman.

Musk is suing Altman over OpenAI's recent restructuring from a nonprofit research or organization to a for-profit entity, which he claims violated the terms of his investment in OpenAI in its early days. Altman says that Musk failed to invest the amount he committed to and was frustrated by OpenAI's refusal to fold itself into Tesla. In addition to requesting a larger financial penalty, Musk has asked the judge to order Altman and co-founder Greg Brockman to be fired. NBC News has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. On April 14th, after five years of scanning the sky with 5,000 fiber optic eyes,

the dark energy spectroscopic instrument, or DESE, completed its planned survey goals. The Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has already used DESE to map out more than 47 million galaxies and quasars, producing the largest ever high-resolution 3D map of the universe, and it will continue to collect data through 2028. We've built a remarkable piece of equipment that met all of our expectations. and then some, DESE Director Michael Levi said. Now we're pushing beyond our original plan. We don't know what we'll find, but we think it'll be pretty exciting.

Berkeley Lab has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to reetangle.com, where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law, signing off. a great day, y'all.

Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Wall. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kback and associate editor's Audrey Moorhead, Lindsay Canuth, and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at Retangle. com.