Why Trump decided to demolish the East Wing of the White House

The act of destruction is precisely the goal: a kind of performance designed to display Donald Trump’s arbitrary power over the Presidency, including its physical headquarters.

The photographs of destruction of the East Wing of the White House by Donald Trump provoked shock and indignation widespread in the United States.

Some may consider demolition a relatively minor offense compared to months of economic chaos, constitutional violations, abuses of justice, social unrest and gratuitous attacks on the moral values ​​of North American society.

But the hasty demolition of the East Wing to make way for the ostentatious ballroom of Trump represents something much more significant: it is a symbolic attack to themselves ideals of democracy American, says the renowned writer and art critic Adam Gopnik in an opinion article in .

A Architecture is never just a matter of buildings. As the great Victorian critic observed John Ruskina nation writes its history in many books, but the book of its buildings proves to be the most lasting.

Since the incarnation of order and proportion in the Spanish Alhambra to the celebration of modernity at the Eiffel Towerstructures express ideals in a more lasting way than words ever can, says Gopnik.

American monuments like the Memorial de Lincoln capture the modest, egoless ideal of the democratic tradition—showing not a herobut a contemplative man, sitting in grave reflection.

The White House has always embodied these same values democratic. Unlike the palaces of monarchs, remains deliberately modest in its scale—an imposing house, certainly, but not imperial.

Known as “the people’s house“, historically functioned both as the seat of government and as the family residence of the president in office.

As Ronald Reagan noted after his decisive electoral victory, the President is just your temporary residentholding the keys to the building for a fixed term at the discretion of the people. That was the beauty of American democracy.

The East Wing, now demolished, never claimed greatness. Built during the anxious years of World War II, Franklin Roosevelt designed it for organize service spaces and create a refuge safe underneath them.

However, it quickly became a discrete power center. The then first lady, Eleanor Rooseveltthere it welcomed female journalists, breaking barriers at a time when reporters faced systematic exclusion.

The simplicity of the wing symbolized the government functional modesty democratic — a space for employees instead of a showfor civic rituals rather than personal glory.

And the destruction of the East Wing itself works as performative artdisplaying the Trump’s arbitrary power over the Presidency and its physical headquarters. Do not ask anyone for permission, destroying what you want, when you want.

Trump’s defenders, who see critics as elitists who oppose a ballroom that Americans could enjoy, invoke precedent: he did not install Jimmy Carter solar panels? Did not build George H.W. Bush a playground? Did not add Barack Obama a basketball court?

This apologetic narrative is typical of Trump: identify obvious outrage and then scour history for vaguely similar acts of Presidents who actually respected the Constitution. It is a deliberately inappropriate comparison.

When previous Presidents changed the White House, they did so gradually and after extensive deliberation. Harry Truman’s addition of a modest porch proved controversial, but construction proceeded under the supervision of a bipartisan commission.

Donald Trump’s project, financed by technology companies and cryptocurrency tycoons, represents pure excess and self-promotionsays Gopnik.

The difference between Truman’s balcony and Trump’s ballroom encompasses the difference between democratic process and authoritarian whim. Liberal democracy is based on rules rather than fury, on procedures rather than displays of power.

If the White House needs renovation, let there be a plan; that faces debate; that financing remains transparent and free from corruption.

This principle is at the heart of the American Revolution: follow rules represents strength, not weakness. Breaking them satisfies insecure tyrants who feel more alive through acts of violence, both real and symbolic.

The architecture embodies values ​​rather than merely containing them. Simple proportions and human-scale spaces not only suggest a democratic spirit — they are that spirit made three-dimensional, with doors and windows.

Reverence for the past and reluctance to destroy without understanding all the consequences represents wisdom, not shyness. Conserving, after all, defines the essence of conservatism.

The hurt that so many feel at these images is not an exaggerated reaction to the loss of a beloved building. And the recognition of something deeper: os core values ​​of democracy to be demolished before our eyes.

Now we don’t just sense it. We see it, concludes Gopnik.