‘Attempting to Defend the Indefensible’: Trump Top Official Spins Tale About Why He Tore Down the East Wing, and Literally No One’s Falling for It
The Trump administration is scrambling to explain why the entire East Wing of the White House was bulldozed last week — a move President Donald Trump repeatedly insisted would never happen.
Now that it’s reduced to rubble, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pushed a new excuse, claiming the building “could have had asbestos. It could have been mold.”
Bessent’s remarks on NBC’s “Meet the Press” came as public anger intensifies over the administration’s rapid demolition to make way for Trump’s planned 90,000-square-foot ballroom — a $300 million project he intends to name after himself.
“I think this was a judgment call on the president. The president is a master builder,” Bessent said from Malaysia, where Trump was attending a diplomatic summit. “I completely endorse what the president’s doing here with the ballroom, and I don’t know,” he continued. “I assume that maybe parts of the East Wing could have had asbestos. It could have been mold.”
Pressed by host Kristen Welker on why Trump never disclosed the full extent of the demolition, Bessent repeated: “It could’ve been asbestos. It could’ve been mold.”
Whether mold or asbestos is actually present remains unconfirmed.
For months, Trump pledged the new ballroom would sit “near but not touching” the existing structure, saying it “pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of,” and “won’t interfere with the current building.”
View on Threads
Instead, demolition crews flattened the East Wing, which had served as home to the first lady’s staff.
A White House official told NBC News the “entirety” of the East Wing would eventually be “modernized and rebuilt,” adding that “the scope and the size of the ballroom project have always been subject to vary as the process develops.”
No officials had previously raised asbestos or mold concerns, and none have cited any emergency condition requiring immediate teardown without a public review process. The White House did not respond to multiple requests for comment, while administration officials have described Democratic concerns as “pearl clutching.”
Preservation groups say the demolition appears to have been a unilateral move by Trump, which also circumvented standard oversight. The National Trust for Historic Preservation warned Tuesday that the planned ballroom “will overwhelm the White House itself.” CEO Carol Quillen urged officials “to pause demolition until plans for the proposed ballroom go through the legally required public review processes.”
But the White House argues that because only demolition — not “construction” — has begun, it is not required to submit plans to the National Capital Planning Commission. A person familiar with the matter said that while agencies like the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts typically help greenlight major renovations, “the White House is ultimately exempt,” given the property’s unique status.
Even so, longtime architectural experts say the administration blindsided the public. “From a norms and customs side, administrations have always gone through that [approval] process,” architectural historian Bryan Clark Green said. “A public process would have avoided that kind of shock and surprise.”
Priya Jain of the Society of Architectural Historians echoed that, noting “deliberation happens before anything is demolished.”
Situations like this normally raise environmental and worker-safety questions — concerns that industry professionals say should have been addressed before demolition began. Instead, critics said Trump moved independently because he didn’t want to be told he couldn’t do it.
“If he asked for permission, someone might have said no, and that’s not a word he likes to hear because he’s a toddler with no impulse control,” one person wrote on Threads.
Veteran contractor Sarah Boardman — who said she has more than 30 years of experience — blasted the project after watching crews tear into the structure. “I’d be ‘fined out of existence’ for overseeing a demolition like the East Wing’s,” she told The Daily Dot. She added, “None of them appear to be wearing any kind of protection. I worry about the people that are working in the White House. The timeline for this is bonkers, and I’m not understanding why they think this would go unnoticed.”
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization urged transparency to “reaffirm its commitment to prevention, accountability, and the protection of public health in all federal construction projects,” noting the East Wing was built “during a period of extensive asbestos use in government buildings.”
Bessent insisted the project is moving “at warp speed,” adding, “I think it’s going to be something that all Americans can be proud of.” He pointed to past renovations by presidents, including Thomas Jefferson, whose colonnades critics once claimed carried “aristocratic tendencies.”
The White House has already preserved and stored historic components of the East Wing — including elements from Rosalynn Carter’s original Office of the First Lady — under the supervision of the National Park Service and the White House Executive Residence.
Trump has said the ballroom will seat 650 people and be a “ornately designed and carefully crafted space,” modeled after his Mar-a-Lago ballroom. He has claimed costs would be covered “100 percent” by private donors after initially pegging the cost at $250 million, which he revised this week to “about $300 million.”
Public reaction, meanwhile, has been severe. Social media posted numerous photos of the wreckage, describing “a beloved symbol of American history and power” reduced to rubble in a matter of days. Some took issue with Bessent calling Trump a “master builder.”
“Donald is no master of ANYTHING. His habitual lying is built into his toxic DNA, so no points for that,” one critic wrote on Threads. “Bessent is an unbearable pompous ass, who humiliates himself attempting to defend the indefensible.”
Aceco LLC — the demolition contractor — faced a wave of negative reviews that sank its rating to 1.8 stars before being restored.
“This is America’s house! Complete and utter desecration of a national monument,” one reviewer wrote. “Deplorable act no matter the reason,” said another. Others accused the company of destroying “The People’s House… with no regard for their permission.”