Judge Scrutinizes DOJ’s Rush to Enshrine Trump’s Name on Kennedy Center Amid Legal and Ethical Concerns
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
A federal judge pressed the Justice Department on the legality and rushed timeline of a controversial board decision to rename the Kennedy Center after Donald Trump, raising concerns about government resources being used to glorify a divisive former president.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper on Thursday rigorously questioned Justice Department attorney Brantley Mayers regarding the Kennedy Center board’s hasty and ethically questionable plan to add the words “renovated and restored by President Donald J. Trump” and rename the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts as “President Donald J. Trump Plaza” by September 8. The judge challenged the apparent urgency of the deadline and probed whether the move would violate federal appropriations rules that prohibit the use of taxpayer resources to promote a specific individual within a federal agency. Mayers attempted to justify the board’s decision by claiming the renaming would honor Trump in his role as president, not as board chairman. Judge Cooper, however, noted that this argument was “cutting it a little fine,” and indicated he was considering a temporary injunction to allow for a thorough review of the legal and ethical implications.
In a recent filing, the Justice Department argued that failing to give Trump prominent recognition could result in donors withholding support, potentially causing severe financial and structural harm to the center. The filing even went so far as to warn that continued deterioration might necessitate demolition and replacement with an outdoor amphitheater—a threat that critics see as a scare tactic to force compliance. Attorneys for Rep. Joyce Beatty, an ex officio board member, countered that the center’s financial woes actually stem from the earlier addition of Trump’s name and accused the defendants of holding the memorial hostage to their demands.
Board minutes released to the court reveal Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick relaying that Trump, who had previously threatened to withdraw from the project after his name was removed, was now demanding recognition for his supposed fundraising and renovation commitments. Trump, addressing the board virtually, boasted about his intent to complete a $257 million renovation within two years. The board, in a move critics say is politically motivated, voted to honor his “current and future existential and unprecedented contributions” by emblazoning his name on the building’s façade.
Counsel for Beatty argued that this naming effort blatantly defies a prior court order to remove Trump’s name from the front portico and pointed out that the funds for the renovation were appropriated by Congress, not raised by Trump. Lutnick, attempting to justify the proposal, told reporters that the naming was meant to entice Trump to raise private donations, describing him as a “great philanthropist” who enjoys building projects—a characterization many see as a distortion of reality.