Brooks and Atkins Stohr on the East Wing demolition

Geoff Bennett:

This past week saw the demolition of the entire East Wing of the White House and the redistricting battle intensifying across several key states.

On that and more, we turn now to Brooks and Atkins Stohr. That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Kimberly Atkins Stohr of The Boston Globe. Jonathan Capehart is away this evening.

It's great to see you both.

David Brooks:

Good to see you.

Geoff Bennett:

So the remarkable scenes at the White House this week as President Trump green-lit the total demolition of the East Wing — you can see it there — to make room for a ballroom, the price for this, the price tag for this has now grown to some $300 million.

On the screen right there, this is the list that the "News Hour" has obtained of the private and corporate sponsors that have contributed to this project.

So, David, the last time we talked about this, you said the idea wasn't necessarily a bad one. Do you still feel that way now that the East Wing has been reduced to rubble and dust?

(Laughter)

David Brooks:

Well, I must say the photos are shocking, because there is something sacred about that building. And it feels like somebody taking a claw into a wedding cake. It just feels wrong.

But I have long believed that the White House is just too small. It was built for John Adams and Abigail Adams. And people have added wings on since, of course. But it's just the rooms — and the West Wing is so sacred, you can't touch that.

But the Obamas used to have their state dinners out in tents. And John Kennedy, they had their state dinners, they had to spread everybody in different rooms. So the idea of having a room where we could have a state dinner or a big event, that still strikes me as the right thing to do. And I'm hoping future presidents will scrape the gild off and make it nice.

Geoff Bennett:

And, Kimberly, you could argue that this ballroom project is in many ways the kind of perfect distillation of how President Trump sees the presidency, something that needs to be remade in his image. Do you see it that way?

Kimberly Atkins Stohr, The Boston Globe:

Well, I don't.

And, listen, we can have a debate, a discussion about how big the White House is and how old it is. I have been in that press room. I know that a renovation is called for. But it's the people's house. And the idea that it has been a corporate — the corporatization is what is in charge of this rebuild in a way that is in no way transactional.

I had a lot of people in my mentions today saying, hey, it's saving the taxpayers money. No, but what are taxpayers paying for? The reason that things that happen in the White House ought to be paid by taxpayers is that keeps the White House accountable to them. Now who is the president accountable to? Google, corporate interests, Meta, unknown individual donors?

That is exactly what the Emoluments Clause and other constitutional measures are supposed to protect against. Who will the president be beholden to now, the American people or all the folks who ponied up to help pay for this ballroom?

Geoff Bennett:

And, David, the White House this week when faced with criticism, they updated this list on the White House Web site of the major events, they say, to include things like Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, cocaine being found on the premises during the Biden administration, real top-tier trolling.

David Brooks:

Yes.

No, I agree on the funding part totally. The Big Beautiful Bill expanded the deficit, what was it, like $4 trillion, and they can't afford to build a ballroom? So the cost seems like just a ridiculous argument to me and prone to corruption. It's not — I don't think it's as big as the 747 from Qatar or the crypto coins, but it's just a leg — you're asking for corruption.

Geoff Bennett:

And, at the same time, Kimberly, the president is asking the Justice Department for $230 million. He argues that he suffered real harm from the Russia probe and from the Mar-a-Lago search.

What do you make of that request?

Kimberly Atkins Stohr:

From the claims that I could see, I didn't see a lot of "there" there, but what's really concerning is the people who are making this decision on the first blush under the law are his former personal attorneys, people like Todd Blanche or other people who have been in his corner from the beginning like Pam Bondi.

They should not be the ones deciding how much money he may make. Yes, he's saying he will give it away to charity. I will believe that when I actually see the receipts from the charity that gets there. But, besides that, again, this is a — using taxpayer money to recompense himself.

And doing both this and the demolition at a time when federal workers are now running out of money, going to soup kitchens and Americans will see their health care costs skyrocket at the beginning of the month, I can't imagine a worse look. I think even Marie Antoinette would blush at this point.

(Laughter)

Geoff Bennett:

David, what about that? What about the optics of it or the underlying substance?

David Brooks:

I'm here to defend Marie Antoinette. She gets a bad rap. She — no, it is. I mean, he's a man of luxury. And people like him or Putin, they think big men should live in big ways. And he's true to that creed.

Geoff Bennett:

Yes, I mentioned in the introduction the redistricting battle. You have got both parties escalating, Republicans in North Carolina, Democrats in Virginia.

Is there any off-ramp in this fight right now?

Kimberly Atkins Stohr:

Well, so far it the only out ramp that I could see — off-ramp I could see is if the Republicans finally stop the push.

What you have seen from the Democratic leaders in the states is that they are reacting to what Republicans are doing. I was heartened by California's move to actually build into their law a sunset that basically says, look, when Texas stops, we will too. But we can't have a redistricting war race to the bottom.

That is terrible for democracy for everyone. It skews representation and it makes our government work better for nobody. There is a Congress. You would think that they could come together and fix this, but they won't. The Supreme Court, I fear, with their decision on the Voting Rights Act that's going to come later this term that guts — will likely gut a bigger hole out of it, will only make it worse.

I really don't know how we get to the end of this, but I certainly don't think a race to the war bottom is the way to go. But I also think if somebody is advancing bad policy, the other side has no — has every right to try to defend itself.

Geoff Bennett:

And there is this dynamic where you have lawmakers choosing their voters, as opposed to voters choosing their lawmakers.

Kimberly Atkins Stohr:

Yes.

David Brooks:

Yes, I mean, people died in Valley Forge or at least got cold there. People died on the beaches of D-Day to preserve American democracy.

Kimberly Atkins Stohr:

Yes.

David Brooks:

And what stuns me, frankly, is why the voters in Texas and California and I guess Virginia and North Carolina and all these other states are not, like, saying, you're disenfranchising.

Why bother to vote in a House race in 2026 when the outcome is already predetermined? They're basically trying to eliminate competitive races. And they're going to succeed, apparently. And so I just think it's atrocious that people don't put the democracy and their country above their party. They think as long as it's my party that's doing the rigging, fine. I'm fine with that.

I think it's a mistake for the Democrats to join the race to the bottom, both for moral reasons, which I just tried to express, but also for political reasons. I do think the country is going to be in the mood for integrity, for upholding the standards, defending the Constitution just the way after Watergate the country went for Jimmy Carter because they thought they were getting integrity.

And I think that's the play here. And in the long run, the Democrats, not only morally, but politically, would be better off by saying we don't play that game.

Geoff Bennett:

In the time that remains, I want to shift our focus overseas, because several U.S. officials, as we reported on the program tonight, have visited Israel. They've met with Netanyahu and other top Israeli officials. You see the vice president there.

The list also includes the secretary of state. What's your assessment of where things stand, David, some two weeks in with this cease-fire?

David Brooks:

I don't say this that often. I think the Trump administration is doing an excellent job. I think the 20-point plan they did and the way they got that through and pushed that through, that was excellent.

But clearly it's fragile. We saw the Knesset vote trying to annex parts of the West Bank. And Trump couldn't have been more clear. You are not getting the West Bank. You are not annexing the West Bank. So that's not our policy. You do that, we're out of here. And Vance and Rubio and all the people that are going over there, Jared Kushner, I think of this as a deal that needs some babysitting.

And the Trump administration is doing an excellent job of babysitting.

Geoff Bennett:

Kimberly?

Kimberly Atkins Stohr:

I agree with David on this too. I mean, Donald Trump wants a Nobel Prize for his work on the cease-fire. And he is seeing it being threatened by Netanyahu once again.

So I agree. And it makes sense for everyone in the administration, from J.D. Vance to Rubio to Trump himself to make clear that this will not only threaten the cease-fire, but it will also cause a rift between Israel's biggest ally.

Geoff Bennett:

Well, this week, the "PBS News Hour" is marking 50 years on the air.

David, you have been with the program nearly half that time, a mere quarter-century with the program.

David Brooks:

Thank you for reminding me of that.

(Laughter)

Geoff Bennett:

So I just want to invite you to reflect on that span of time.

David Brooks:

It's just a parade of faces. I think of Robin. I think of Gwen. I think of Ray Suarez, obviously Judy. I mean, it's a parade. And you are like worthy heirs to a great parade of people.

But I will tell one story I told in one of my books. When I first started doing this, when I said something stupid or crass, which happened a lot, I would see Jim's eyes when he was hosting. I would see his mouth turned down with displeasure because I said something stupid. And when I said something he liked, his eyes would crinkle with pleasure.

So, for 10 years, I just tried to avoid the mouth downturn and chased the eye crinkle.

Geoff Bennett:

Yes.

David Brooks:

And Jim never told me how to do this, how to do this job we're doing. But with those little gestures, he said, this is the "News Hour" standard. This is how we do things here.

And Jim's been dead a number of years, but that moral ecology, because he taught the same lesson to everybody on the team, that moral ecology still exists. Jim Lehrer's moral ecology, this is how we do things here, still exists. And it's a great legacy for anybody to leave behind a moral ecology.

Geoff Bennett:

Moral ecology, what a phrase.

David Brooks, Kimberly Atkins Stohr, my thanks to you both.

Kimberly Atkins Stohr:

Thank you.

David Brooks:

Thank you.