When an active shooter threat disrupted the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the president and members of his cabinet were evacuated swiftly and efficiently. The threat ended with a shooter apprehended and a Truth Social post. Then President Trump returned to the podium, bypassing the persistence of gun violence in this country to make the case for his long-sought $400 million White House ballroom, one that would supposedly prevent criminals from entering the space. The solution to a potential mass killing was a bulletproof ballroom.
I was an elementary student when Columbine made school shootings a national emergency. The safe haven of school became a potential war zone overnight, and the fear that settled into children that year never fully left. But how could it? The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting happened when I was a new high school teacher. Parkland when I was a doctoral student. Uvalde during my first faculty position. The shooting at Brown University happened during my fifteenth year working in education. Gun violence has followed me the entire length of my educational career, from K-12 student to high school teacher to university professor. Nearly three decades later, I am still waiting for the final straw, the moment that produces gun reform and makes school feel safe again. Instead, I have more thoughts and prayers than ever, and no gun reform in sight.
What struck me watching footage from the Correspondents’ Dinner wasn’t the chaos, but the normalcy within it. In the videos, I heard the clinks and clanks of wait staff collecting plates while journalists knelt on the floor. The familiar sound of dinner being cleared became the soundtrack for cowering humans. Attendees drifted toward the floor as if unsure whether to be alarmed, as if violence was something that happened to other people, in other rooms. Those sounds and slow movements told me everything I needed to know: the people in that room had no idea what to do.
And I knew that because I’ve spent years learning exactly what to do in those situations. Active shooter drills are now standard in schools across the country, with approximately 92% of schools drilling students and teachers on lockdown procedures. We learn to lock and barricade classroom doors. We learn to cut the lights and stay still so the shooter believes the room is empty. We learn to jump out of windows and fight back against an attacker by throwing objects. We learn to play dead in order to live. We learn that silence is survival and that even when violence surrounds us, we should not make a sound.
Part of that training is also making sure no one is left without information. Every drill I’ve been a part of has a formal or informal alert system to ensure everyone stays informed about what’s happening. Even the Department of Education recommends planning how “the school community will be notified that there is an active shooter on school grounds” through “the use of familiar terms, sounds, lights, and electronic communications such as text messages.” In a K-12 classroom, no one gets left without direction. We learn together, we shelter together, we survive together.
The drills, alongside metal detectors and clear backpack policies, are Band-Aids on a wound that policy could have closed long ago. We know what to do because we have spent decades trying and failing to do it. After San Bernardino, after Pulse, after Sutherland Springs, and after Las Vegas, numerous policy proposals existed: background checks at gun shows; bans on bump stocks; laws preventing domestic abusers from purchasing firearms. Some never made it out of committee, and others were defeated along party lines. But the knowledge of what to do has never been the problem. It’s the will to change that eludes us.
We have to want to protect children more than gun rights. We have to want to redirect the urgency and funding that would build a $400 million ballroom toward making schools safe. We have to want reform over platitudes.
But right now, even if our leadership openly states that they want safety and the protection of young people, their actions prove otherwise. President Trump had a microphone, a shaken room, and a country watching. He could have discussed how easily the shooter entered that space and shared how that same ease exists at the doors of our schools every day. He could have called for policy reform rather than a ballroom renovation. He could have praised the bipartisan unity in that room and asked us to unify in our goal to end gun violence. That didn’t happen this time. But I have to hold onto hope that one day, we’ll care enough to protect children as much as we protect the spaces where the powerful gather—that we’ll stop building ballrooms and start building policy.
Stephanie Toliver is a Public Voices Fellow and a member of the OpEd Alumni Project sponsored by the University of Illinois.




















image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.