Judge Hears Arguments On Returning Trump’s Name To Kennedy Center, Sidesteps Talk Of Demolition Of Complex

A federal judge heard arguments on Thursday in the latest challenge to the Trump-controlled Kennedy Center‘s effort to install the president’s name on the complex, this time twice on its facade and once to designate the grounds for him.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, however, stopped the center’s lawyer from bringing up the “dilapidated” condition of the center, referring to it as a “non sequitur” to the issue at hand: Whether the board can return Trump’s name to prominent locations at the complex.

Earlier this month, the Kennedy Center board voted to add “Renovated and Restored by President Donald J. Trump” to the front facade below the inscription, “The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.” Once a $100 million threshold is met for an endowment, another inscription would be placed below that one to read, “Endowed by the Trump Kennedy Center Fund.”

The board also voted to rename “the physical site and grounds upon which the center sits” as the “President Donald J. Trump Plaza.”

Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH), an ex officio member of the board, is seeking a court order to stop the naming, as her attorneys argued that it violates a statute and the judge’s previous order. After the center’s board voted to add Trump’s name to the center, rebranding it as the Trump Kennedy Center, Beatty sued, arguing that only Congress could change the name of the complex, as it was designated as a memorial to President John F. Kennedy in 1964. Cooper agreed, and issued a preliminary injunction in June that forced the center to revert to the original name and remove lettering on the front facade of the complex.

At the hearing, DOJ attorney Brantley Mayers, representing the center, argued that the latest plans for recognizing Trump are not a “renaming.” He also contended that it did not violate a congressional law in 1983 that restricted any other memorials at the complex. He noted that the board’s resolution “was quite clear that it wanted to recognize” Trump’s “ongoing contributions,” as memorials recognize something that happened in the past.

But Cooper noted that the planned inscriptions are written in past tense.

Earlier this week, in a court filing, the center’s attorneys warned that if Trump’s name wasn’t returned to the center, it would jeopardize its future, even pointing to the potential need for demolition.

The judge declined to go into those arguments, stopping Mayers as he started to talk of the condition of the complex.

“That is all fine and good, but what does that have to do with what Congress intended?” the judge asked. He later said that nothing in his earlier order prevented the center from proceeding with renovations, with Congress allocating more than $250 million for repairs as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Nathaniel Zelinsky, one of Beatty’s attorneys, said that the name change plans were an “outright defiance” of the judge’s injunction and an act of “massive bad faith.” He argued returning Trump’s name to the complex amounted to a rebranding, while Congress also intended the grounds and land the center sits on to solely honor Kennedy. He pointed to a past proposal, ultimately never realized, to construct a Kennedy Plaza on the grounds, saying that it was “another indication Congress didn’t intend name [the complex] for anyone other than Kennedy.”

Mayers, though, argued that Congress did not prevent the board from designating areas of the center for certain individuals. When Cooper asked if that meant the board could recognize Barack Obama or George W. Bush at certain parts of the complex, like a garage, Mayers agreed.

Beatty sat with her attorneys during the hearing. Also there was Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, whose wife, Allison, is among the board members. During a brief break to address an audio issue, Lutnick huddled with DOJ lawyers.

The judge raised some jurisdictional concerns over ruling on Beatty’s emergency motion as Trump is appealing. He did not indicate exactly when he would rule, but pressed Mayers on the deadline of Sept. 8. The center has committed to refraining from installing Trump’s name until that date, but not after. Mayers said that the timing was the board’s decision.

The judge also sounded weary that he was being asked to render a ruling so quickly, during a high time for summer vacation.

In his May ruling, the judge also barred the center from embarking on a two-year closure for the renovations, concluding that the board failed to consider options and the full impact. In the meeting this month, the board considered options presented by a consultant, and against moved to shutter almost all of the complex. The judge’s injunction, though, remains in effect.