I really hope that the inauguration will be free from disruption and violence. If it is, there will be hot takes of the "See? The threat was exaggerated" variety. As a disaster expert, I can tell you that is not a useful framing.

Reactions like that after swine flu etc are part of why we were so terribly underprepared for covid: "the low-/medium-/high-probability disaster didn't happen this time therefore it won't happen" is not solid reasoning.

And of course the preparedness itself affects how bad the impacts of the event are (which is part of why emergency management/disaster risk reduction is such a thankless job: if it goes well, no one notices). In this case that's particularly true: heavy deterrence approach.

if preparedness is done well, it's honestly quite hard to waste, because you learn stuff and you build up capacity for the next time or improve existing non-emergency stuff. Unless ofc someone says "oh see it was useless cancel that program", then it gets wasted.

The security around the inauguration is a bit different, partly because it's kind of last minute, partly because it is more deterrence and security than preparedness, and anyway I'm not qualified nor have I followed closely enough to comment on the details.

but the absence of a disaster now is not evidence of the absence of risk of that disaster in the future.

to badly mangle a formerly pithy saying