Defiance by Design

Not ready to commit to becoming a paid subscriber? We totally understand. But if you’d like to support our efforts, you can now make a one-time contribution for as little as $3. Every little bit helps!

The Trump-aligned board running the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts appears determined to prove that a federal court ruling is less an order to obey than an obstacle to maneuver around.

On Thursday, the Kennedy Center board voted to put President Donald Trump’s name back on the building’s facade, this time with slightly different wording: “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Restored and Renovated By President Donald J. Trump.” The board also voted to name the plaza in front of the institution for Trump and approved a two-year closure of most of the building for renovations.

Ordinarily, a board deciding how to renovate a performing arts complex would be an administrative story. This is considerably more serious. The Kennedy Center board is attempting to do two things that U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper specifically addressed in a May ruling: attaching Trump’s name to a national memorial that Congress named for President John F. Kennedy and shutting the institution down for two years under a process Cooper found legally deficient.

That makes Thursday’s vote look less like ordinary governance than an extraordinary experiment in how closely an institution controlled by presidential allies can approach judicial defiance without openly admitting that is what it is doing.

Cooper’s ruling was hardly ambiguous. He concluded that the Kennedy Center board had exceeded its authority when it previously added Trump’s name to the institution. Congress created the Kennedy Center as a memorial to John F. Kennedy and established its name by statute. As Cooper made clear, Congress gave the institution its name, and only Congress can change it. He ordered Trump’s name removed from the facade and official materials.

The administration fought that decision and failed to persuade higher courts to suspend it. Trump’s name eventually came down in June. Yet barely two months later, the board wants to put it right back up.

The apparent strategy is almost insultingly transparent. Instead of formally renaming the institution the “Trump-Kennedy Center,” the board proposes preserving Kennedy’s name while bolting a monumental presidential credit onto it: “Restored and Renovated By President Donald J. Trump.”

It is difficult to regard that as anything other than an attempt to accomplish through wording what the court said the board could not accomplish through renaming.

The legal problem is especially glaring because Cooper’s ruling did not merely object to one particular arrangement of words. He concluded that the Kennedy Center’s governing statute did not permit the board, acting unilaterally, to turn the building into another presidential memorial or append another president’s identity to the institution.

Calling Trump the man who “restored and renovated” the Kennedy Center therefore does not magically erase the underlying problem. Neither does naming the plaza for him. Together, the changes make the board’s intent more conspicuous: Trump’s name would again be physically attached to one of Washington’s most prominent national cultural institutions while the grounds themselves would become another monument to him.

Rep. Joyce Beatty, the Ohio Democrat and ex officio board member whose lawsuit produced Cooper’s ruling, described Thursday’s action as a “transparent effort to circumvent the Court’s ruling.” That assessment is difficult to dismiss when the board is voting in August to restore precisely the kind of Trump branding a federal judge ordered removed in May.

Equally troubling is the board’s decision to resurrect the two-year closure.

Cooper did not declare that the Kennedy Center could never close for renovations. The evidence suggests that the aging building requires substantial work. Executive director Matt Floca has described serious water damage, deteriorating steel and mechanical equipment badly in need of replacement. A major renovation may be entirely justified.

But that was never the whole issue.

The issue was whether the trustees had actually exercised the independent judgment the law required of them or simply ratified a decision Trump had already made. Cooper characterized the earlier closure vote as “ill-informed and seemingly preordained,” raising the obvious question of whether the board had seriously evaluated alternatives before endorsing the president’s preferred plan.

Thursday’s meeting was ostensibly designed to fix that problem. Kennedy Center officials supplied several renovation scenarios, ranging from extensive closure to phased work that would permit substantial programming to continue.

And after considering those alternatives, the board arrived at essentially the same two-year closure Trump wanted in the first place.

That does not automatically make the new vote unlawful. It does, however, make scrutiny of the process essential. If the board’s answer to a federal judge finding its first decision “seemingly preordained” is to conduct another meeting, review additional material and then approve substantially the same predetermined result, the question becomes whether it corrected the defect or merely built a better paper trail around it.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, another ex officio trustee, called the proceeding a “sham meeting” and accused the board of rubber-stamping a decision Trump had made months earlier.

That accusation goes directly to the heart of the controversy. Trustees are supposed to deliberate, scrutinize proposals, demand evidence, weigh alternatives and exercise judgment independent of the wishes of the person who appointed them. A board of trustees is not supposed to function as a presidential applause line.

The Kennedy Center controversy has consequently become about far more than theater, chillers, corroded steel or construction schedules. It has become a vivid demonstration of how institutional independence can collapse when governing bodies are populated with presidential loyalists.

Trump engineered a sweeping transformation of the Kennedy Center after returning to office in 2025. He removed board members, installed allies and was subsequently elected chairman by the newly constituted board. Soon afterward, his name appeared on the building.

The spectacle was extraordinary from the beginning. A sitting president remade the governing board of a national memorial, became its chairman and then watched that board put his own name on the building. It carried the unmistakable odor of self-memorialization, something Americans are more accustomed to seeing in personality cults than in the stewardship of national cultural institutions.

The federal judiciary provided a check on that behavior.

Now Trump’s board appears intent on checking the check.

That is what makes Thursday’s action particularly dangerous. The rule of law depends upon government officials accepting that judicial orders have substantive meaning. If officials can respond to an adverse ruling by making cosmetic adjustments and recreating essentially the same prohibited result, judicial review becomes a game of semantic whack-a-mole.

A judge says Trump’s name cannot be added to the Kennedy Center, so the board says it is not renaming the Center; it is merely engraving an enormous tribute to Trump onto the facade.

A judge says the board’s decision to close for two years was inadequately considered and seemingly predetermined, so the board holds another meeting, receives more information and again selects the two-year closure preferred by Trump.

Each maneuver can be dressed up as compliance. Taken together, they look remarkably like defiance with better paperwork.

There is also something profoundly distasteful about using the Kennedy Center itself for this exercise in presidential self-glorification. Congress designated the institution as a living memorial to John F. Kennedy after his assassination. Its identity is not an advertising opportunity awaiting the next politician powerful enough to seize the marquee. The Kennedy Center belongs neither to Donald Trump nor to the trustees he appointed.

If Congress wishes to amend the law and honor Trump there, Congress has the power to try. What Trump and his board do not possess, according to Cooper’s ruling, is the authority to make that decision themselves.

The plaza proposal makes the vanity project even harder to disguise. A sitting president would have his name prominently attached to the facade while the grounds would bear his name as well. The result would effectively transform part of a memorial to an assassinated president into a monument honoring the president who installed the board making the decision.

The Kennedy Center is therefore becoming something much larger than an architectural dispute. It is a test of whether judicial limits still mean anything when they collide with presidential ambition.

The central question now facing the courts may be whether Thursday’s actions represent genuine compliance with Cooper’s May ruling or an elaborate attempt to evade it. That is ultimately a legal determination for the judiciary.

But the appearance is extraordinary.

The board was told it could not unilaterally attach Trump’s identity to a national memorial established by Congress. It has now voted to attach Trump’s identity to that memorial again. It was told that its decision to shutter the institution for two years was legally deficient because the process appeared predetermined. It has now conducted another process and arrived at substantially the same destination.

Perhaps the board believes it has found legal daylight between what Cooper prohibited and what it approved Thursday.

If so, that daylight is exceedingly narrow.

And when a board controlled by the president’s allies searches for narrow semantic pathways around a federal judge’s ruling so it can engrave that president’s name on a national institution, the controversy is no longer primarily about the Kennedy Center. It is about whether those exercising government power regard a court order as something they are required to obey, or merely another inconvenience to outmaneuver.

Source: Associated Press

Not ready to commit to becoming a paid subscriber? We totally understand. But if you’d like to support our efforts, you can now make a one-time contribution for as little as $3. Every little bit helps!