Morning Joe - 'Is there no oversight?' Joe shocked by Congress' silence on Trump's East Wing demolition

Episode Date: October 23, 2025

'Is there no oversight?' Joe shocked by Congress' silence on Trump's East Wing demolition Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Coming soon to HGTV, you know Flip or Flop. Well, we've got an all-new version starring the president. Introducing, flip or flop or fuck it up. Trump's working on the White House. Will he flip? They're going to slip it. Will he flop? They complete flop.

Or will he f*** it up. Knock it down with a giant wrecking ball. Tonight on HGTV, after an episode of Love It or Epstein listed. Hey, yeah, that's right. Jimmy Fallon's take on the massive demolition underway on the grounds of the White House. We'll talk about the growing scope and soaring price tag of the president's construction project. Trump, meanwhile, is acknowledging his talks with Vladimir Putin are going nowhere. What that frank admission means for the war in Ukraine also ahead,

how Republicans on Capitol Hill are reacting to the Pentagon's plan to limit the military's contact with Congress. And to paraphrase the president, they're not sending their best. We'll talk about the mixed results from the administration's recruiting push by immigration and customs enforcement. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, October 23rd. Along with Joe, Willie, and me, we have MSNBC, National Affairs Enlist and a partner

and chief political columnist at Puck, John Heilman. Washington Bureau Chief at USA Today, Susan Page is with us. Rogers Chair in the American Presidency at Vanderbilt University. Historian John Meacham is with us and President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. Richard Haas is here. So, Joe, a lot to get to this morning. We're watching the White House slowly get chipped away on the East Wing. You call that chipping away?

You call that chipping away? I mean, that is like a wrecking ball. It's a complete demo. I mean, I mean, it's like, I just, it raises the question. Like, is there no oversight? Could a president tear down the entire White House if he wanted to? I think Charlie Sykes was asking that question yesterday. It's kind of surprising.

I'm like, you know, there will be people who say, well, presidents have done this and that. Yeah, that's right. They have. But like, with zero oversight, that's the thing that's that, you know, And Willie, it goes to, you know, Pam Bondi's oversight hearing that we saw, I think, last week where just the absolute contempt for the people that write checks to fund your agency. And now you have Pete Heggseth, who runs the Pentagon saying, hey, you know, according to these reports, we're going to, you know, just like we did with the press, we're going to stop, you know,

reporting to you guys as much. And, of course, a couple of Republican senators obviously concerned, but that would be like a child telling his parents or her parents, yeah, I'm not going to show you my report card, but keep giving me my allowance. I mean, it really is that way. It's like they can say all they want to say. They can get together and have their little project 2025, their little project 2026s, all they want at the end of the day, the Constitution.

gives the power of the checkbook to the United States Congress. So for Pete Hegesith to say, oh, well, you know, we're just not going to report as much to Congress or for these members of the administration to treat Congress with such contempt or to just completely tear apart the White House without consulting with Congress, not that these Republicans have shown much of a spine anyway, but still, I mean, I really do think there are people who are in the, and let me say this slowly so they understand the second branch of government, who now think they're the only branch of government because they got elected by, what, 49.9% of the vote. Yeah, plurality of the vote is what President Trump got in the last election. They don't want

oversight at all. If you look at that here, the oversight. hearing that Pam Bondi had that you mentioned where she sort of mocked the entire process and just attack the people asking questions about simple oversight. Now you have Defense Secretary Pete Higgs is saying, yeah, we don't want you thumbing around and looking through our records and knowing what we're doing here, which is literally the job of the United States Congress. They don't want people. They don't want Congress to execute its job effectively in and out around this administration. So it's a, you asked it, is there no oversight even of tearing down large portions of the White House. There's supposed to be, there's an entire organization that

looks at federal construction projects that has said a 90,000 square foot ballroom were completely overwhelmed the 55,000 foot White House that sits next to it. There's always oversight in place. The question is, does the administration have any respect for it? Does it recognize Congress and other organizations' job to oversee what the executive branch is doing. Well, and is Congress going to actually have the nerve, the backbone, the spine to actually do their jobs on every one of these fronts? I mean, again, it's in past times, if any attorney general treated any members of the Senate with such contempt or people went up to the hill and treated those who were committing oversight on the administration, the first branch, giving oversight

to the second branch, which the first branch completely finds, because that's what the United States Constitution say, Mika. You would have Republicans and Democrats together going, wait, wait, I think you got this backwards. You may want to go back and read the Constitution. It doesn't matter what, what, some dork in some... some, you know, Washington think tank is telling you, the Constitution gives the first branch the power to find and the power of oversight. And right now, you know, the second branch is doing whatever it wants because too many of the first branch are giving them free reign. And the impact is

going, again, said it a billion times. I'll say it again. It is Republicans who will pay for this in the future, unfortunately. It is independence. It is Democrats. I mean, we will all pay for the precedence that this weak and enfeebled Congress is setting right now.

Yeah. We're going to talk about this a little bit more in a moment, but first our top story this morning. The United States is imposing new sanctions, targeting Russia's two largest oil companies, along with dozens of their subsidiaries. The Treasury Department

made the announcement yesterday. The sanctions may extend beyond just the companies named in the announcement. The Wall Street Journal highlights the warning in the sanctions notice that, quote, foreign financial institutions that conduct or facilitate significant transactions or provide any service involving Russia's military industrial base also run the risk of being sanctioned. Since Russia launched its full-scale war on Ukraine, its lucrative, oil industry has been the primary source of funding for its war effort. Yesterday, in the Oval office, President Trump discussed that and recent comments from Treasury Secretary Scott Besant,

who said Vladimir Putin has not been honest and forthright with Trump. Today is a very big day in terms of what we're doing. Look, these are tremendous sanctions. These are very big. Those are against their two big oil companies. And we hope that they won't be on for long. We hope that the war will be settled. I just felt it was time. We've waited a long time. I thought that we'd go long before the Middle East. And Mark, as you know, we did the Middle East plus seven. So we did seven different wars from Pakistan and India to so many. That's about Janamina, Africa. Which they said was impossible to do. All these wars I did. And the one that we have left, we have one left. It'll be nine. We have one left. And I think we'll get

that done, too. I think we're on our way to getting it to. In terms of honesty, the only thing I can say is every time I speak with Vladimir, I have good conversations, and then they don't go anywhere. They just don't go anywhere. You know, this is, Willie, I

said after Anchorage, a lot of people were freaking out after Anchorage because you know, people weren't flying, you know, Putin wasn't flying the white flag. I said at the time I thought it's all part of a process. We understand the president has been far more subservient to Vladimir Putin in the past. But this has seemed to be a process. It's been a very

jagged process. But after Anchorage, having the European leaders come in, which was a historic group of European leaders coming together, they've been talking about sanctions. I think these sanctions are positive sanctions. I like the fact that they're going to sanction any institution that deal with the Russians on oil. And certainly, hopefully the Europeans will. be there shoulder to shoulder on the sanctions part of it and not getting oil. But this is, I do think, I won't say it's a significant step because who knows, maybe it changes tomorrow. But if we, I will say it's a significant trajectory that we are going. And if we continue with that trajectory, with pressure being put on Vladimir Putin, with oil close to, you know,

it's down to about $60 per barrel, he doesn't have the money to continue fighting this war. Putin doesn't. It doesn't matter how much he flexes his muscles or gets on top of a horse without his shirt on. It doesn't change the facts on the ground and the facts on the ground are. First of all, he can't get the territory on the battlefield that he wants to get at the negotiating table and he can't make Russia's economy any better than it is. And it is really, really weak right now. These sanctions should hurt it. Well, we can put to the side for the moment the president's batting average and all these wars I did to put it in his terms, talking about how he did seven or eight wars.

But focus on this one, Richard Haas. Is this a trajectory? Does this look like a plan to you? And why does President Trump seemingly go back and give Putin another chance, seemingly go back and give him the benefit of the doubt when everyone who's known who Vladimir Putin is and what he wants for decades now?

Well, I'm going to answer this question, really, on behalf of all think-tank dorks in order to keep Joe happy here. One of the best, sitting right here. You're one of our favorite, Richard, one of our favorites. Thank you, Jeff. But you don't go around thinking that the dorkdom that you do in a think tank has the power to override the United States Constitution.

There are certain people in Donald Trump's government that do think that what they think of in their bespeckled glasses while they're in some dorkdom think tank in Washington, D.C. has more pull and more power than the Constitution of the United States. You would never do that, Rich. I would never do. They certainly have selective readings of it. It's kind of the short version of the Constitution.

They skip Article 1 and things like that. It kind of gets you to the end really quickly. Yeah. Look, I think you used a good word here, which is trajectory of the policy. I like two things that seem to have gotten out. One is the reduction of restraints on the use of U.S. intelligence to attack targets, economic and military targets inside Russia. Good step. Second, all, these financial sanctions against the oil companies, they're welcome.

They're not game changes. Increasing the world is learning how to move around weaponized dollar sanctions. You can use barter, China and others are stepping up. So these are not game changes. Welcome trajectory, as Joe would say, the big thing, again, still missing. which is direct help for Ukraine. You really want to make a difference. The president wants to get to the peace he wants, help Ukraine,

because that's the only way I know to persuade Putin, that a ceasefire, however reluctant he has to accept it, is the least bad option for him. Why is the president, you know, there's a groundhog day quality to this, Willie. Why is the president again so, what's the word, willing to work with Putin? He seems surprised every time. The other metaphor that comes to mind is Lucy in the football.

He keeps stepping up to the football, gets yanked away, and he seems surprised every time. I can't answer why. I doubt, though, we're going to get a permanent shift against Putin. Again, the one thing to look for is large-scale military help to Ukraine. It's the only way I know to get to a ceasefire and to maintain a ceasefire. Until we get there, I think this could go back and forth. We'll go back and forth many more times. Well, of course, the thing that always held Joe Biden back,

in the early part of the war. And what Donald Trump has certainly expressed concerns about as well as the fact that Russia has a fairly significant stockpile of nuclear weapons. And they do. So, yeah. So that will have you treating foreign powers a little bit differently. But, again, we're just talking about a trajectory. This trajectory seems to be positive. and it was good to hear the president say that yesterday of the White House.

Now, Alex, John Meacham, is a very unkind, unkind man at times. We don't understand why. But he said, Joe, you brought up dorks. Why don't you go to Meacham next? And that hurt me because I know you are anything but a dork. In fact, sort of that dark shadows lighting that you have on you kind of makes you actually quite a frightening figure. Yeah, pretty cool, pretty cool. cool. We need the dark shadows theme going to break. John, I do. Let's talk, though, about

what the president has done. We're not going to add up, you know, the 87 wars that he claims to have ended. But let's talk about the Middle East, which, of course, going to be Rocky Road for a while. But how significant would it be if this president were able to get a ceasefire, a lasting ceasefire in the Middle East, and this 20-point plan? And if, in fact, he were able to bring an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine, with Ukraine gaining some semblance of autonomy from future Russian threats? The second part is the critical one. And I must say, I'm delighted that we led with the dork attack against Haas.

This is actually progress. Yes, exactly. For my point of view, so I'm all for that. I apologize for the dark shadow. It's like green acres down here today, and so we're having some wireless and other issues. So the key part of your question is the last part. On what terms can this remarkably bloody war of aggression in Europe end? And so peace without a just settlement would not be, would not go to the Trump column.

And we all know that the Trump column is a key incentive, which, by the way, is fine, right? We want results. The motivations matter less. And so, you know, as you say, the lasting ceasefire, you know, will this really work in the Middle East? can, in fact, this terrible war of aggression from Putin, if it is, in fact, resolved in a way that Zelensky feels is a just and acceptable way, then you're looking at a remarkable turn of events. But this stuff, as Richard knows better than I do, you know, the summits can be perilous. Right. You know, the principles go to the summit. There's not a lot of prep work, the dork work, the good dork work. And the principles sometimes fly off on tangents. They get a false sense of progress. I think President Trump discovered that in Anchorage, an important step. But often what is said in the room and what do politicians do? What's their unit of commerce? The unit of commerce, of a politician is to make someone like you, Mika, you know this. Your father spent an enormous

amount of time being sort of one of the dorks, but also one of the principles, right? So he had a dual role there. And so how do you translate these deal-making skills into lasting results is going to be, you know, presuming the Constitution survives, which is a presumption, is going to be one of the great questions of history about President Trump. Yeah, Mika, I just, I just want to, I just want to say for the record here, we go through this in very, the very important conversation about geopolitical piece. And I, I never, I never refer to anybody on this set, being a dork, all right? They are, they are outing themselves here.

And if they want to come out of the dork closet, they can. do that. I was, I was talking about somebody else. I wasn't using any names that's in the administration. That's all I'm doing here. And I sure, I don't want to be haunted. And I certainly never suggested your father was anything resembling a door. Yeah, that's important. I'm a little projection, Congressman, a little projection. I will say the self-identification here by these two. I wasn't talking about them. And they They talked about themselves. Yeah, and Joe, I like the way when it comes to this big, you know, to be afraid.

Be very afraid. No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die. All right, Susan Page, obviously there's this sanctions package sitting in Congress, and Congress has a role in this. Republicans have a role in this, and yet nothing? Yeah. Just for the record, I don't have a Ph.D., so I can't be a dork, by definition. I think that requires a doctorate. You know, there is, the sanctions could pass Congress.

There's support for sanctions against Russia in Congress. And I do think that yesterday was an important day because that was a step we had not seen President Trump willing to take before. Now, he still needs to enforce these sanctions, and the sanctions aren't everything, as Richard Haas was saying. But they are something. And one of the, maybe the most flummoxing thing about Donald Trump's presidency has been his deference to Vladimir Putin. And we saw just a little less of that yesterday. And so let's see if that continues. And there's every sign that Congress is willing to go along with Trump if he wants to move ahead with sanctions that they would need to impose.

All right. Still ahead on morning, Joe. The United States military launches two more strikes on alleged drug vessels. about this. Our next guest is laying out the risk these actions carry and how it could alienate American allies. Plus, some Republicans have a new beef with President Trump when it comes to his plan for importing cattle from Argentina. Why he's getting pushback from member of his own party and talk more about Argentina. And a reminder, the Morning Joe podcast is available each weekday featuring our full conversations and analysis. You can listen wherever.

You get your podcasts. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. They had in the Pacific. And the way I look at it every time I look, because it is violent. And it is very, it's amazing that the weaponry, that everyone, you know, they have these boats that go. 45, 50 miles an hour of the water.

And when you look at the accuracy and the power, look, we have the greatest military in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And you see a little bit of it there. One shot, everyone dead center. Now they'll come in by land at a lesser, to a lesser extent, and they will be hit on land also. And if we do by land, we may go back to Congress.

But we have, this is a national security problem. They killed 300,000 people last year. drugs, these drugs coming in. They killed 300,000 Americans last year, and that gives you legal authority. President Trump yesterday responding to the latest lethal U.S. military strikes against alleged drug-carrying vessels, this time in the Pacific. Officials say this new series of strikes killed five people, bringing the death toll up to at least 37 over these series of strikes in recent weeks. The administration defending those attacks, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, comparing the anti-cartel campaign to the war on terror.

But many legal scholars, along with Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill, are questioning the legal authority of these strikes. Joining us now, MSNBC's senior national security reporter, David Rode, his latest piece for MSNBC argues President Trump's war on boats lowers the bar for the use of U.S. lethal force abroad. David, good morning. So the president basically saying, we are at war. where war with drug cartels.

We have an epidemic in this country where people are overdosing drugs were awash in drugs and using that as authority to take out these boats. What did legal scholars make of that argument? The surprise is that there are some conservatives who are questioning this.

If you remember during George W. Bush administration, John U. was an official in the Justice Department who wrote a series of memos. They became known as the torture memos. And they argued that certain interrogation techniques enhanced interrogation techniques could be used. Many people said that was torture. John Yu, who's a huge defender of presidential power,

wrote an essay earlier this month saying that these strikes go beyond anything he has seen, that there's no evidence that the Venezuelan government is somehow involved or directly involved or no evidence has been presented that they're involved. So this is, you know, what at least Colombian officials who these last two strikes were about to say this is a violation of international. I just want to read Richard from John. You, the direct quote here, because, as you say, John Yu, the author of the so-called torture, memos, no squish, to be sure, writes, the White House has yet to provide compelling evidence

in court-ordered Congress that drug cartels have become arms of the Venezuelan government. To confuse them with wartime enemies is to misuse the tools of war, erode constitutional limits, and endanger liberty at home. That's from John Yu. Yeah, and Senator Rand Paul is also raising questions. David, what worries you about this? Put aside the legal. arguments, which are not insignificant. What can go wrong here or be counterproductive? Which, I mean, in terms of, say, the reaction of certain government, not just that you would kill innocent people without due process. I don't mean to minimize that. What about the geopolitical consequences

of this? So one of the lessons of sort of the war on terror is that, you know, there's a joke in journalism. You're only as good as the local journalists who works with you in the country as a foreign correspondent. We are only effective as we are with the support of a local government. The Colombian government in general has been a strong supporter of the U.S. effort to counter drugs. I talked to a former U.S. intelligence officials who said how important it is to keep Colombia on our side. The government of Colombia, when one of the first strikes in the Caribbean happened to kill the Colombian national, the president said, President Petro said this was this fisherman, a civilian. So these strikes, as Trump carries them out and make statements like that in the Oval Office saying how amazing these weapons are,

we can lose allies. And this hasn't happened yet, but a huge question is going to be Mexico. Yeah. And the president of Mexico, she's made very clear that she does not want drone strikes on, you know, near or on Mexican territory. So it's the stakes in terms of our long-term success are very high. So meanwhile, some Republican lawmakers are pushing back against Defense Secretary Pete Hegset's crackdown on how the Pentagon communicates with Congress. A new policy instructs all Pentagon personnel except for the Inspector General's office to seek approval before they communicate with any lawmakers or congressional staff on Capitol Hill. Some Republicans yesterday voiced concerns about that decision. We have Senate confirmed nominees that I dare say would we be reluctant to confirm if our actual. access to accurate information from the Department of Defense was inhibited in any way.

I think Secretary Hagseth knows that. We're a Democratic Society where, first off, he's got an organization. You've got to trust your chain of command. This is too large of an organization to have that kind of a tight clamp on it, particularly when we have members that want specific answers, not going through protocol. So that's number one. But I think generally, this sort of closing the discussion to the press, limiting how many people can act independently in their capacity, very senior capacities in the DOD,

just doesn't make sense to me. It underlines a lack of trust in the organization that I don't think is good for senior management to project. Well, and again, John Heilman, the funding comes from those people. Those people fund Pete Heggzeth. Those people fund his salary, fund his staff salary, funds the Pentagon, funds everything. And, you know, I don't have to go back to when I was in Congress. I can talk about 10 years ago, if you were sitting on the Armed Services Committee, like I sat on the Armed Services Committee way back.

My God, let me tell you, any Secretary of Defense that said that, like, they'd be called in front of that committee or do what we used to do. You would just freeze spending in a certain area where said SecDef, fill the pain. So, I mean, these, so yes, this is stupid for the Article 2 branch to be trying to do this Article 1 branch. It's just pathetic, though, that all they can do is go out and talk in front of microphones instead of actually taking real action. Hopefully, they're being very blunt behind the record. But this is sort of an upside down world where you've got the article two branch telling the Article I branch

who they can talk to and who they can't talk to. Well, you know, Joe, it's only about the 900th way in which we live in upside down world, bizarre world, with respect to the relationship between the Article 2 and the Article 1 branch since the beginning of Trump's second term. You know, I'm with you. You know, all I can say is kind of like baby steps, you know, should we take, can we take some hope because in the fact that at least there's, at least there are a few members of the Senate, Republicans in the Senate, who are now speaking out on some of these issues

because really for the first 10 months of Trump 2.0, there was nothing. There was not, there was no action, and there was no talk. There was just total abdication of the Article I responsibilities, prerogatives, and authorities. And so now we're seeing whether it, you know, was on this Trump nominee in Gracia the other day. We saw some pushback. where that nomination had to be pulled because of the fact that he was obviously on the basis of what was found out a bit of unqualified for the job that he was being appointed to. We're seeing a little bit of this now on this question of Pete Higgseth, but you know, you make the correct point, which is there is, it really is, we're encouraged to see a little bit of talk, but it will really only get serious when there is some action. I do think that there are Republicans on the Hill who are particularly offended by Pete Hegseth doing something. of these things. I think some of those Republicans who voted to confirm him regret their votes

now. And the last thing I'll say is I want to loop this back to the previous topic, which is of all of the topics we've talked about today, where some congressional oversight seems to me essential is, and Rand Paul agrees with me about this, is on the question of the strikes against these Venezuelan fastboats, because that, we're taking the lives with no evidence whatsoever, no congressional consultation whatsoever, let alone congressional authority, we are saying that we're now at war over these, over drugs here. Well, if we're at war, time to start talking about the War Powers Act, because right now all of this is happening, strikes killing civilians on an almost daily basis now with no evidence, as I said, no evidence, no consultation, and no

authorization. I can't believe that the Article I body is going to allow that to go on for very much longer. And if it does, it's a, it's a huge mistake. And of course, the vast majority of those drugs are coming from China, which would open an entirely new front there. Let's go back to the Pentagon, David, just for a minute, because of your vast experience as a reporter in this policy. First of all, we have the relationship with Congress. We're now Pete Hagsith and the defense secretary saying there will be no unauthorized engagements with Congress, which is there to oversee the Pentagon, but also with the press now, staged this. walk out over the policy. They wouldn't sign the document. Most organizations wouldn't,

including ours here at MSNBC. And yesterday, the Pentagon sort of announced what it called the next generation of Pentagon Press Corps, including Lindell TV, run by the My Pillow guy, organizations like that. What are the implications for the way this Pentagon is covered from the press side, but also how oversight is carried out by Congress? My concern is that some of the lowest moments in American history have been when there is a concentration of power and secrecy. And that's what's sort of evolving in the Pentagon. And it's extraordinary. These are lawmakers with security clearances.

These are lawmakers that back in the 70s uncovered some of the worst abuses under, you know, Hoover and other parts of the government. So I'm surprised what's happening. And then in terms of the new reporters who have declined on to this, I mean, the vast majority of the press, including Fox News, has not agreed to this. because this is our responsibility. And I just think, these are sending young Americans out to fight and die for this country. And pesky reporters, I've been on military embeds, but, you know, there's a role for us to be there to make sure that these young soldiers and airmen and sailors are being properly led and supported and trained.

MSNBC Senior National Security Reporter, David Rode, thank you. We'll be talking a lot more about this. His new reporting is available to read online right now. And coming up, we'll show you part of the contentious mayoral debate last night in New York City, plus some of the other stories making headlines this morning, including the new frontier now conquered by mosquitoes. We'll explain that ahead on Morning Jail. 20 minutes before the top of the hour. And there you see a live look at the White House. Within days, the entire east wing of the White House will be completely demolished.

That updated timeline from two Trump administration officials to NBC News yesterday. as the president continues to defend the rapidly expanding scale and also price of his addition of a massive ballroom to the People's House. I think it'll be one of the great ballrooms anywhere in the world. It's about $300 million. It's set to do many, many things, including meetings of foreign leaders, including the honoring of foreign leaders. In order to do it properly, we had to take down the existing structure. The way it was shown, it looked like we were touching the White House. We don't touch the White House. This comes despite President Trump said back in July that construction would not interfere with the current building. It won't interfere with the current building.

It'll be near it, but not touching it and pays total respect to the existing building, which I'm the biggest fan of. It's my favorite place. I love it. The president also initially said the total cost of the. the new ballroom would be $250 million. He has now increased that price tag to $300 million. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a non-profit agency created by Congress, cautioned against the project, saying the space would, quote, overwhelm the White House itself. The president has said the ballroom is expected to be 90,000 square feet.

The agency says the entire rest of the White House is currently only. 55,000 square feet. They also question the administration's delay in submitting plans to the requisite agencies before work began. The White House argues it isn't required to submit plans for review, yet because only demolition work has begun and technically not construction. The ballroom is said to be funded by private donors and the president himself, Joe. So, John, take us through the history of presidents changing, altering the White House.

The National Review has written an editorial saying, come on, get over it. Presidents have done this in the past. Liberals, the White House, doesn't belong to you. Right. You know, the British burned it. So there's that. Or try to start there. You know, the most significant, the two most significant, I'd say, would be the 1903 construction of the West Wing, which was the Oval Office.

The Oval Office was based on the, was called the Oval Study in the main house. That was the reason for the echo of the design. One of the metaphors that you can't make up was in, I think it was Christmas Eve. 1931, the West Wing caught fire under Herbert Hoover, right? So the country's sort of descending into chaos and the house itself catches fire. The other is the Truman, the renovation that happened under President Truman. He and Mrs. Truman moved to Blair House across the way for several years. But, you know, as ever with President Trump, you know, you do have to step back and say, well, what is he trying to do? What is the, you know, let's not bang on our high chairs here.

And to me, one of the issues here is so much of the, I haven't seen the National Review piece, but so much of the controversy here might be settled. if, for instance, he actually paid attention to norms, to the customs of having, you know, Congress was very much involved in the 1940s version of this, bring in the National Trust, bring in the White House Historical Association, a wonderful group, founded in the Kennedy administration, terrific people who care deeply about the House. you know, do this with some sensitivity to the fact that you're not a king. You know, you can't just do what you want to do when you want to do it. That's an adolescent response. That's, that's already not fair to adolescence, right? That's infantile.

You know, just to do it because you can is in some ways a definition of why we had the American Revolution. And I can hear conservative saying, oh, you know, construction project leads to fears about democracy. You know, just take a deep breath on that. It is a particular, the way the president's done this, that reflects and illuminates a universal. And to go back to what you were just saying a minute ago about the Senate, more and more, I don't know if anybody here agrees, I miss John McCain today more than I do when it, when you know, when he died? Yeah, I just, can you see him on the floor talking, or walking down the hall, talking as he inevitably did to reporters, what he would say about what's happening at the

Pentagon, what he would say about the White House and the immense credibility he had. To the senators there, I would say, try to be more McCain-esque. And who is that voice right now? It's hard to find over there on the Hill right now. Susan Page, Donald Trump says, of this destruction of the East Wing, he needed no approvals to build. He does, actually. He's announced $300 million yesterday, about $100 million over what they originally proposed. We can go on and on about the paving over of the Rose Garden, the gilding of the Oval Office, the chandeliers in the cabinet room, kind of remaking the White House into a Mar-a-Lago on the Potomac. But you've studied closely First Ladies in particular where

the East Wing has been in office for First Ladies, I think, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong, beginning with Rosalind Carter. Yeah, it's been the place where the First Lady's staff has worked in offices, has planned state dinners, have worked on the various policy projects that different First Ladies have pursued. If you've ever gone to a White House tour, you've gone down a long, beautiful hallway through the East Wing to get to the main part of the White House. residents to look at things there. And of course, it sits on top of the presidential bunker.

One of the reasons that it got a second floor during the Franklin Roosevelt administration was to cover up the construction of that bunker that was used, among other things, by President Trump during his first term during a demonstration and by Dick Cheney 9-11. So a long, a long history here. And, you know, I think the pictures of the backhoe plowing into the east wing were particularly shocking because people weren't prepared for this to be a consequence of the ballroom. It wasn't part of the description of the ballroom that we had, that we had heard before from the president. So it definitely shot a tremor, I think, through Washington, through Washington, D.C. Yeah, no doubt about it. And Mika, it is, the National Review can write

what the National Review wants to write. They can do all they want to do about, Oh, the libs, the libs, and look at us owning the libs. It's like John said. I mean, it goes for so many things that have happened over the past six to nine months. It's just so unnecessary. It's so unnecessary, but it's done specifically to break norms, to say, I don't need to go through proper channels. I don't need to do what every other president has done. I don't need to consult Congress.

I don't need to consult the relevant historical agencies in Washington, D.C. That are there for a reason. And so it doesn't do that. The next day you have a backhoe literally tearing apart the people's White House, the people's White House. And then they go, oh, you libs, why are you libs? When they know exactly what's going. on here. If Barack Obama had done this, oh my God. Oh, my God. If any Democrat, if Joe Biden had done

this, the National Review would have written about how he's lost his mind. And look, he's even tearing up the White House and he's not going through proper channels. You know, it's, it's very simple. Bring people in, say, this is my vision, this is my goal, this is what I would like to do, and prepare people for it. It's really not hard. And in fact, it might make the president's life, the White House's life, a little bit easier. But obviously, that's the last thing they're interested in. Well, and Richard, we're talking a little bit before, but there's the Republicans almost complete complicity on every level here,

which I think there are a lot of layers to it, some that need to be pinned down a little bit and expressed. Yeah, I mean, two things come to mind here. When is that? Just the lack of insistence on prerogatives. Congress, when all else was said and done, wanted to be respected, wanted to be consulted. And that's totally missing. And no one much seems to be complaining. And we always say we're a country, where a democracy based upon, you know, laws, not men or people. Well, actually, war it so. What we're seeing is that we're increasingly a country based upon individuals. It's what the founders were concerned about. And the bulldozing metaphor here is captures it. We're not just bulldozing a building, but in some ways you're

bulldozing government, whether it's the use of the shutdown to get rid of people or doge or the – look at the stories this morning, the attack on the boats, basically doing an end run around presidential power and war powers, what the Pentagon is doing and cutting out Congress. This is – what's happening with the East Wing, in some ways, it's becoming – it's capturing what is going on in many ways in Washington right now, that we have an administration that is rejecting many of the rules and norms, conventions that have essentially informed 250 years of American history. And what's surprising to me is the lack of pushback.

You know, Mika, Alex may call him a dork. I do not. I mean. But you hear what he just said there. That's exactly why we have. people such as him on our show. Everybody, we're going to do something we only do every seven years. We're going to ring the dork bell. All right. Thank you so much, Richard Haas. We greatly appreciate it. All right. Susan Page, thank you so much, John Meacham. Ring it, Joe. Thank you as well for being on

this morning. And still ahead of morning, Joe will be joined by Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley, who yesterday wrapped up one of the longest Senate floor speeches in modern history. Morning Joe is coming right back. A few minutes before the top of the hour. Time now for a look at some of the other stories, making headlines. this morning, car repossessions in the U.S. are approaching a record high. New data projects that more than three million cars could be repossessed by the end of the year. A level only reached during the Great Recession back in 2009. Over 100 million Americans currently have an auto loan

with the combined debt of more than $1.6 trillion. This comes as autos are more expensive than ever before with the average price of a new car recently crossing the $50,000 threshold. Scientists in Iceland have confirmed the presence of mosquitoes for the first time in the country's history in Iceland. Three mosquitoes were caught by a local insect enthusiast just north of the country's capital. He sent them to the National Science Institute, which confirmed the species and said the mosquitoes were able to withstand. and the country's cold climate. The Institute says a number of new insects have been discovered in Iceland in recent years due to warming temperatures and the rise of international travel.

And nearly a quarter of American workers didn't take any of their vacation days this year. A new survey finds that 23% of employees didn't take a single vacation day in the past year. As for why, 43% said they had too much work. to justify taking time off while 30% worried about falling behind. 29% also reported they felt pressure to appear committed at their jobs. Willie. Take your days off. Yeah.

All right.