Nerd Prom's Last Dance? The WHCA Dinner History and Downfall
Tracing the White House Correspondents' Dinner's journey from noble origins to Hollywood-infused partisan pageant to its current state of abandonment.
The ballroom of the Washington Hilton erupts in laughter as President Barack Obama delivers biting jokes about Donald Trump, the real estate mogul and birther conspiracy advocate, seated uncomfortably in the audience. Comedian Seth Meyers follows, continuing the roast: "Donald Trump has been saying that he will run for president as a Republican, which is surprising, since I just assumed he was running as a joke."
The cameras pan to Trump's stone-faced reaction, capturing a moment that would later be cited as motivation for his political ambitions. This moment from the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner encapsulates the event's transformation from a modest journalistic gathering to Washington's premier celebrity spectacle, where the press corps reveals its true colors through gleeful laughter and cozy toasts with Democratic allies.
Loved this? Paid subscribers get exclusive deep dives, early articles, and insider notes—upgrade now!
As tonight’s annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner approaches, the event is a shell of its former self.
No comedian.
No President Trump.
Minimal administration attendance.
The glittering ballroom that once hosted Hollywood A-listers and media elites taking selfies with Democratic politicians now faces the harsh reality of its own irrelevance. The WHCA, stripped of briefing room control by Trump's team and awash in distrust, finds itself asking an existential question: what exactly is the purpose of a press dinner that half the country views as a partisan charade?
This dramatic rise and fall of "Washington's Nerd Prom" tells a larger story about the media's evolution from watchdogs to lapdogs and back to attack dogs—depending entirely on which party occupies the White House.
When Journalists Actually Covered the News | The WHCA's Forgotten Purpose
The White House Correspondents' Association wasn't always a stage for celebrity glitz and political posturing. Founded in 1914, it emerged as a practical response to President Woodrow Wilson's threat to end press conferences after complaints about off-the-record remarks being published. Journalists banded together to secure their access to the president, establishing an organization with a straightforward mission: ensure the press could do its job.
Initially, the WHCA concerned itself with mundane matters like credentialing and seating arrangements. These early journalists wouldn't recognize the glitzy spectacle it later became. During Watergate, the WHCA fought for access to Nixon's secretive administration, proving its watchdog role. Throughout pivotal historical moments, the association played a crucial role in ensuring robust coverage of the presidency, establishing itself as a cornerstone of government accountability rather than a celebration of media celebrity.
This original mission—facilitating access and defending press freedom without partisan agenda—laid the groundwork for what would eventually become the association's most visible and controversial public event: the annual dinner.
Before the Selfies | When the WHCA Dinner Was About Journalism, Not Instagram
The dinner debuted in 1921 as a modest gathering for journalists to network and build camaraderie with politicians—imagine that, a time when reporters and politicians could break bread without one side launching into self-righteous monologues about "democracy dying in darkness."
Early dinners featured performances that added touches of glamour: Bob Hope entertained in 1944 and 1953, Frank Sinatra performed in 1945, and Duke Ellington appeared in 1955 and 1964. These entertainers came to celebrate journalism rather than lecture the audience about political orthodoxy. Barbra Streisand's 1963 performance set a celebrity precedent, hinting at the glamour—and bias—to come.
Several milestones marked the dinner's evolution. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy insisted on women's inclusion, a change championed by pioneering journalist Helen Thomas. Then in 1983, comedians began headlining, setting the stage for a roast format that later skewed partisan.
The dinner wasn't immune to national crises. It was canceled in 1930 following the death of former President William Howard Taft, in 1942 after the U.S. entered World War II, and in 1951 due to global uncertainty.
Even when President Ronald Reagan couldn't attend in 1981 while recovering from an assassination attempt, he phoned in a joke about his recovery, charming reporters and demonstrating a good-natured relationship with the press that seems quaint by today's standards.
Mr. Evans. Well, you stay well, Mr. President, and we'll take care of the pressroom, Pierpoint and I and all of my colleagues. Stay well.
The President. Okay. If I could give you just one little bit of advice, when somebody tells you to get in a car quick, do it. [Laughter]
Mr. Pierpoint. Mr. President, we know now that you are really recovering. You sound terrific.
The President [laughing]. Well, I am. believe me, well on the road and feeling just fine.
Mr. Pierpoint. That's wonderful. Well, let me tell you, Mr. President, there are about -- well, over 1,800 people assembled in this room tonight listening to you. And I told the Vice President that they are actually here for him, but you know the truth. [Laughter] We all hoped that you would make it. We well understand that you could not.
Among these people are many of your Cabinet Secretaries. There's only really one that I think is very noticeable by his absence. I haven't seen Secretary Haig. I wondered if you've been watching television tonight. We are a little worried who's in the Situation Room and who's in control. [Laughter]
The President. Well, I'll tell you, wherever he is, I have every confidence in him. [Laughter]
Mr. Pierpoint. Very good, Mr. President. We really appreciate your call.
This bipartisan spirit held through the 1980s, until Clinton's Hollywood flair reshaped the dinner's future, beginning its transformation from journalistic tradition to progressive gala.
Clinton Administration (1993–2001) | How a Saxophone Playing President Seduced the Press Corps
The transformation of the WHCA dinner from a journalists' gathering to a star-studded gala began during Bill Clinton's presidency. The charismatic saxophone-playing president's Hollywood connections drew unprecedented celebrity attendance, building the foundation for what would become an annual celebration of media-Democratic party alliance.
Stars like Barbra Streisand, a top Democratic donor who headlined Clinton's 1993 fundraiser, graced the 1993 dinner, creating a buzz among the media elite who suddenly found themselves rubbing shoulders with Hollywood royalty. Tom Hanks in 1994, Sharon Stone in 1996, Steven Spielberg in 1998 and Aretha Franklin in 1999 added to the growing glamour. For journalists accustomed to drab press briefings, the chance to hobnob with celebrities while balancing their watchdog role with newfound star power was irresistible.
The Clinton-era dinners still maintained some journalistic veneer, but the writing was on the wall. The growing presence of liberal-leaning celebrities, coupled with Clinton's warm media relations, started fueling perceptions that perhaps—just perhaps—the supposedly objective press corps might harbor some political preferences after all.
These seeds planted during the Clinton years would flourish into full bloom under Obama, as the Hollywood-Washington connection established by the saxophone-playing president created the perfect foundation for his successor's transformation of the dinner into a full-fledged celebrity gala.
Obama Administration (2009–2017) | The Peak of "Nerd Prom" and Autograph Books
What Clinton started with traditional celebrity power, Obama supercharged with digital savvy and cultural cachet. The dinner reached its apex during Barack Obama's presidency, transforming into what Washington insiders dubbed "Nerd Prom"—though the only nerdy thing about it was journalists' awkward selfies with Beyoncé.
Obama's youth and media savvy drew A-listers like Clooney (2009) and Beyoncé (2014). Social media supercharged the spectacle, with viral tweets of Johansson's 2010 red-carpet strut trending globally. The dinner became a must-attend event where entertainment royalty could virtue-signal their political affiliations while journalists pretended they weren't starstruck.
Media coverage expanded beyond political outlets to include entertainment publications like Vanity Fair, transforming a once-insider Washington event into a global spectacle. Attendance swelled to around 2,600 guests, with the Washington Hilton ballroom resembling the Golden Globes after-party more than a gathering of working journalists.
This media-Democrat synergy, rooted in Clinton's era, peaked under Obama's star-studded reign—and the height of what critics saw as the "incestuous" relationship between the press and Democratic politicians. Watching journalists turned cheerleaders, as Politico gushed over Obama's 2012 roast, one could be forgiven for wondering if this was the same press corps that prided itself on speaking truth to power.
This celebrity-media-Democratic alliance would eventually produce moments that transcended the dinner itself, creating viral incidents that would dramatically reshape the event's future trajectory.
Roasts That Burned Down the House | The Moments That Exposed Media's True Colors
Throughout its history, the dinner has produced moments that range from genuinely funny to cringe-inducing, each reflecting the shifting relationship between press and presidency.
Stephen Colbert's 2006 roast of George W. Bush stands as one of the dinner's most controversial performances. Delivering his remarks in character as his conservative pundit persona from "The Colbert Report," Colbert skewered Bush so aggressively that some aides reportedly walked out. The performance divided the room but became an early viral sensation—and a preview of how the dinner would increasingly comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted, at least when Republicans were in charge.
The 2011 dinner produced what may be the event's most consequential moment when President Obama and Seth Meyers mercilessly mocked Donald Trump. Their jokes about Trump's presidential ambitions, a moment some link to his 2015 candidacy, created a visibly awkward moment. The press corps' uproarious laughter at Trump's expense revealed just how comfortable they had become picking sides, a fact they would later deny with indignation when accused of bias.
In 2018, comedian Michelle Wolf's jokes about Sarah Huckabee Sanders, including references to her "smoky eye" makeup, provoked intense backlash. Conservatives decried the Sanders joke as sexist, while liberals like Samantha Bee defended it, exposing the dinner's partisan rift. The routine—which the assembled journalists first laughed at before claiming outrage once public opinion turned—led publications like The Hill to withdraw from future dinners.
These viral moments didn't just generate headlines—they fundamentally altered the dinner's trajectory, exposing the media's partisan preferences while eroding any pretense that this was an event celebrating objective journalism rather than progressive politics. They also created lingering resentments that would come back to haunt the WHCA when Trump took office, setting the stage for the organization's stunning fall from grace.
The Downfall of the WHCA and Its Dinner
Trump's First Term (2017–2021) | When Trump Realized the Media Was the Real Joke
Having last attended the dinner in 2011 as a guest who endured Obama and Meyers' mockery, Trump broke with tradition by boycotting the event throughout his first presidency. In 2019, he even ordered administration officials to skip the event, holding a campaign rally in Wisconsin instead—forcing the press corps to choose between their annual self-congratulatory gala and covering the actual president.
The 2018 Wolf fiasco, with journalists laughing then feigning outrage, was just another confirmation of the bias and progressive-leaning press. Senator Ted Cruz tweeted in 2018, slamming the dinner as a "liberal love-fest," echoing widespread conservative distrust.
Throughout this period, the dinner's liberal celebrity guest list and comedians' disproportionate targeting of conservatives made the event look less like a celebration of journalism and more like a progressive gala. The contrast between the reverential treatment of Obama and the hostility toward Trump undermined any remaining claims of media objectivity, creating wounds that would not heal even as the dinner attempted to rehabilitate its image.
Biden Era (2021–2025) | Four Years of Softball Questions and Memory Loss Amnesia
After COVID-19 forced cancellations in 2020 and 2021, the dinner resumed in 2022 with comedian Trevor Noah. To his credit he did take a few jabs at the media and their COVID-19 coverage however, the dinner never recaptured the Obama-era energy or cultural relevance. Journalists who hounded Trump's tweets tiptoed around Biden's gaffes, with much of the media downplaying his press conference limits.
The WHCA's muted response to Biden's 2022 press restrictions fueled bias accusations. This contrast in treatment only reinforced the public perception of the WHCA as effectively a Democratic Party auxiliary organization with press credentials. The dinner's Hollywood glow may have faded, but its partisan reputation remained firmly intact, setting the stage for the association’s complete face plant when Trump returned to office in 2025.
Trump's Second Term (2025–present) | The Press Corps' Group Hug After Being Put in Time-Out
With Trump's return to office, the tensions between his administration and the press have reached new heights. The White House has stripped the WHCA of traditional privileges, including control over briefing room seating arrangements. The WHCA decried the seating changes as "anti-press," but their complaints rang hollow when their decades of cozy, exclusive White House access were upstaged by the Trump administration’s broader inclusion of new media outlets in the briefing room.
Tomorrow's 2025 dinner reflects the WHCA's diminished status. There will be no comedian—comedian Amber Ruffin's podcast rant, calling Trump's team "kind of murderers" and refusing balanced humor, sparked backlash, with Budowich labeling her "2nd rate" on X. The controversy led the WHCA to scrap Ruffin's performance entirely and decide against featuring any comedian at the 2025 dinner.
Neither Trump nor administration officials are expected to attend the dinner. The subdued atmosphere represents a stark contrast to the star-studded Obama-era spectacles where journalists and Democratic politicians exchanged knowing smiles over champagne.
The irony is almost too delicious to bear. According to Politico's Playbook, the pre-dinner parties have a distinctly funereal atmosphere. "The vibe is more serious," a White House correspondent confessed. "It feels like people are looking for a reason to be together. It sounds cheesy, but folks seem to be holding on a little bit longer in hugs."
Yes, the same press corps that spent years attacking Trump from the moment he announced his candidacy, the same journalists who cheered on the censorship of Americans with opposing viewpoints, are now huddling together for emotional support, apparently shell-shocked that a president they relentlessly vilified is calling out their hypocrisy and isn't eager to break bread with them.
The 2025 dinner, devoid of GOP-friendly media at top tables, cements its partisan legacy. The snub by Trump's team is less a breach of tradition than a recognition of reality: the dinner long ago abandoned its pretense of nonpartisan celebration of journalism.
Can the WHCA Dinner Make a Comeback?
The White House Correspondents' Dinner faces unprecedented challenges. What was once Washington's premier social event now struggles with partisan division, fading cultural relevance, and a serious credibility crisis. But could the dinner reclaim its former prominence? A comeback would require substantial changes and genuine soul-searching by the journalistic establishment.
First, the WHCA would need to acknowledge its partisanship and bias rather than continuing to lean on press freedom rhetoric while selectively applying its principles depending on which party holds power. This could begin with a formal recommitment to bipartisan coverage principles and an invitation to respected conservative voices to help reshape the dinner's format. The Alfalfa Club dinner, for instance, has maintained its bipartisan character by ensuring leadership alternates between parties and that speakers equally target both sides—a model the WHCA could adapt.
Second, rebuilding bipartisan trust would require actively engaging with Republican leaders and conservative media, not merely inviting token conservatives to sit at the back tables while the premium spots go to progressive favorites. Practical steps might include establishing a rotating co-host system with one liberal and one conservative journalist sharing duties, demonstrating a commitment to ideological balance absent from recent dinners. The Al Smith Dinner in New York offers a template, having successfully maintained its tradition of bipartisan attendance and equal-opportunity humor even in polarized times.
Third, the organization should refocus on actual journalism rather than celebrity hobnobbing. Instead of highlighting Hollywood stars, the dinner could showcase impactful reporting from across the political spectrum, particularly investigative journalism that held powerful figures accountable regardless of party affiliation. The dinner could establish new awards specifically recognizing coverage that demonstrated fairness and objectivity in politically charged environments, providing tangible incentives for journalists to prioritize these values.
Fourth, toning down the glamour and reducing Hollywood's presence would signal a return to the dinner's roots as a forum for press-politician dialogue rather than a progressive pep rally with better lighting. This would mean fewer celebrity invitations, more substantive programming focused on press freedom issues, and a deliberate shift away from the red-carpet atmosphere that defined the Obama years. The Gridiron Club dinner, which maintains a more restrained approach to political humor and limits attendance to journalists and politicians rather than celebrities, is a good example.
Fifth, addressing the WHCA's organizational governance might help restore credibility. Implementing term limits for board members, ensuring ideological diversity in leadership, and establishing transparent ethics guidelines for press-politician interactions could demonstrate a commitment to reform. These changes would signal to skeptics that the organization recognizes its past failures and is taking concrete steps to address them.
Maybe in 2026 the dinner could be hosted by Jake Tapper and GOP Louisiana Senator John Kennedy signaling a renewal. A reimagined dinner—focused on journalistic excellence and genuine political neutrality—could restore the WHCA's legacy. But realistically, in an era of fragmented media and widespread recognition of institutional bias, the dinner may be destined for irrelevance, a relic of a time when the press could maintain the fiction of objectivity while attending what amounted to a progressive pep rally with journalists instead of donors.
The path to redemption exists, but it requires something journalists often demand of politicians but rarely of themselves: acknowledgment of past failures and a transparent commitment to reform.
Journalism's Walk of Shame from Prestige to Punchline
The White House Correspondents' Dinner's journey from a modest 1921 gathering to tomorrow's subdued affair reveals much about the American media's evolution. What began as a celebration of press freedom has become, for many Americans, Exhibit A in the case against media objectivity.
The dinner's transformation tracks perfectly with the media's shifting self-image: from straightforward reporting, to celebrity-adjacent glamour during the Clinton-Obama years, to righteous resistance during Trump's first term, and now to wounded indignation as they face the consequences of their partisan evolution. The journalists who once delighted in the reflected glory of Hollywood stars now find themselves without celebrities, without the president, and increasingly without public trust.
The 2025 dinner—stripped of its comedian, presidential attendance, and glamour—is a testament to a WHCA that overplayed its hand, revealing its partisan inclinations too clearly to maintain the facade of neutrality. The journalists who delighted in mocking Republicans while fawning over Democrats now find themselves facing a Republican administration that treats them with the same level of respect they demonstrated during the Trump years.
Perhaps someday, a future WHCA Dinner will once again unite journalists and politicians in a genuine celebration of press freedom and governmental transparency. But achieving this would require confronting the partisan reality that has defined the event for decades—an admission that many in the press corps seem unwilling to make as they cling to their fading claims of neutrality.
Will the WHCA confront its partisan past, or remain a cautionary tale of media hubris? As Washington prepares for tonight’s dinner, one thing is clear: the WHCA, sidelined by its own excesses, stands outside the White House it once held accountable.
GREAT article.