“New York Times” White House correspondent Peter Baker on “Washington Week” said that while many of President Donald Trump’s actions can be reversed, the new White House ballroom would be permanent.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG, ‘ATLANTIC’ EDITOR, ‘WASHINGTON WEEK’ HOST: David, you’ve covered Washington for a little while. Have you ever seen anything like this? DAVID IGNATIUS, WRITER: So, this does feel different and I’ve been trying to think why does it, it feel so different? Peggy Noonan, who’s a, you know, fairly conservative columnist, wrote on The Wall Street Journal this morning a very angry, you know, emotional piece. The headline was a republic, but can we keep it ruminating on this? I think part of it is just this feeling that this is the people’s house and he’s treating it like his own personal property. He’s treating every part of the government like his own personal property. It’s almost a compulsive desire to blow through limits, you know, in every direction, involving the military, the CIA, Justice, you know, campaign of retribution against his enemies. And I think it’s begun to worry more and more people. This is such a symbolic moment with a steam shovel, you know? If that photograph on the Washington Post, my beloved newspaper hadn’t, appeared, we might not have known about this for a day or two. I mean, they were doing this stealthily. PETER BAKER, NEW YORK TIMES: Which is shocking, right? They didn’t announce it. They tried to hide it. They knew. They knew there’d be a reaction. I don’t think they knew quite the reaction that they would be. But what’s really remarkable too is how anathema it is to the original design of the White House. The original idea of the White House was to produce a relatively modest home for a president compared to the palaces of Europe. They didn’t want a Versailles. George Washington and the group that brought us the White House wanted something that was the people’s house. It was of a certain degree of modesty and certainly not a palatial, ostentatious kind of thing. And what’s remarkable about this is that, you know, you saw all the gold that he’s added in the Oval Office, and, of course, he’s paved over the Rose Garden and things like that. He’s done other things. Those are things that could be reversed, right? The next president could come along, take that gold out of the Oval Office and restore it to a more of a simple grace that it’s meant to be. They could replant the Rose Garden. They’re not going to be able to do this. This is a decision of the ages. GOLDBERG: It’s so large as to be irreversible.

RealClearPolitics Videos