Congresswoman Sues to Block Trump’s Illegal Renaming of the Kennedy Center

breaking: Lawmaker Files Federal Suit to Block Trump Name at Kennedy Center

A sitting congresswoman and ex officio Kennedy Center trustee has filed a federal lawsuit, aiming to undo a recent board vote that added former President donald Trump’s name to the center’s title.

Representative Joyce Beatty, a democrat from Ohio, petitioned a federal court in Washington, D.C., seeking a declaration that the institution’s official designation remains the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and that the board’s decision to rename the center is void.

The suit argues that as Congress established the center by statute, any change to its name would require congressional action. It contends that the late-2025 move-carried out over December 18-19-was improper and contrasts with the center’s constitutional duties as a living memorial to President kennedy.

According to the filing, the board voted to rename the center on a Thursday, and the following day signage on the building’s facade was updated to read “The Donald trump and The John F.Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.”

The lawsuit lists Trump as chairman of the Kennedy Center, alongside its president, and names multiple board members. It also targets other ex officio participants, including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., house Speaker Mike Johnson, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune.

Alleging breaches of trustee duties under federal law and violations of the plaintiffs’ federal rights,Beatty seeks more than just a reversal of the name change. The filing requests an order requiring the removal of all signage and references that rename the center after Trump.

The center has not publicly responded to the lawsuit. A spokesperson for the institution has previously defended the board’s authority to alter the name, drawing parallels to other federal and presidential actions. Critics, however, say such changes should follow an act of congress and caution against perceived partisan influence over a national cultural landmark.

Historically, the National Cultural Center was designated in 1964 as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Following the vote to rename,democrats and members of the Kennedy family criticized the move as improper and urged restraint,arguing it violated established norms.

The suit characterizes the board meeting as a sham, alleging there was no advance notice that a name change would be on the agenda. It further asserts the meeting took place at the home of a Republican donor’s spouse, a detail supporters say raises questions about process. Beatty contends ex officio trustees have the same rights and duties as other trustees, despite bylaws that purportedly limit voting rights for non-general trustees.

Raising a contrasting view, a center spokesperson defended the board’s authority to proceed, noting the action aligns with precedents cited in other government and organizational naming decisions. Critics point to the difference between authorization through statute and other naming traditions that do not require new legislation.

The lawsuit also argues that the proposed name change would inflict financial and reputational harm on an institution already facing challenges in donor and audience engagement. It cites cancellations and refunds as examples of how such a change coudl affect operations and enrollment.

Beatty is represented by Norman Eisen and Nathaniel Zelinsky, both prominent figures in constitutional and Washington litigation circles.

Key facts at a glance

Item	Details
Event	Federal lawsuit to invalidate a name-change of the Kennedy Center
Contested change	Renaming to include Donald Trump’s name
Date of actions	Board vote on Dec. 18-19, 2025; signage updated the following day
Plaintiff	Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio),ex officio Kennedy Center trustee
Defendants	Donald Trump; kennedy Center board; ex officio members
Legal claims	Breach of fiduciary duties; violations of federal rights; improper name change
Significant named figures	Trump; Ric Grenell; Robert Kennedy Jr.; Mike Johnson; John Thune
Representative counsel	norman Eisen; Nathaniel Zelinsky

Context and implications – evergreen viewpoint

Legal challenges over the naming of national cultural institutions underscore a broader tension between governance, statutory authority, and political influence. When a landmark’s designation sits at the intersection of law, history, and public sentiment, disputes like this can test the balance between executive decisions and legislative oversight. Analysts say outcomes may set a precedent for how future actions involving federally designated cultural assets are reviewed, particularly around naming and branding.

As the case unfolds,observers will watch not only for a potential reversal of the name change,but also for how courts interpret trustees’ duties when ex officio members hold influential,albeit non-voting,roles. The dispute also invites renewed discussion about how national monuments and institutions reflect diverse public values while remaining faithful to their statutory origins.

What comes next

Legal proceedings will determine whether the court halts or reverses the naming action and whether signage and branding must be altered back to the original designation. Timelines for further filings and potential settlements will shape how quickly the center can move forward while the dispute remains unresolved.

Reader engagement

What is your view of such naming disputes at national cultural institutions-necessary checks and balances or political overreach?

Should Congress play a more active role in changes to federally designated landmarks, or should institutional governance suffice?

share your thoughts in the comments and tell us how you believe national arts institutions should navigate the tension between tradition and contemporary leadership.

Disclaimer: Legal developments and interpretations can evolve. This article summarizes the current filings and public statements and does not constitute legal advice.

Have thoughts? Join the discussion below to weigh in on the future of the Kennedy Center’s name and governance.

Congressional bill has been passed.

The Lawsuit Filed by Congresswoman [name]

Background of the Trump‑Kennedy Center Renaming

• In early 2025 the Trump Governance added former President donald J. Trump’s name above the historic “John F.Kennedy” signage on the Kennedy Center’s exterior and updated the official website to read “John F. kennedy & Donald J. Trump Center for the Performing Arts.”
• Legal analysts quickly flagged the move as contrary to federal naming statutes and historic preservation guidelines, labeling the change “illegal” (Variety, 2025).

Federal Naming Rules that Govern the Kennedy Center

Statute	Core Requirement	Relevance to the Kennedy Center
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA)	Any renaming of a federal facility must receive Congressional authorization and the Secretary of the Interior’s approval.	The Kennedy Center, a federally funded cultural institution, falls under FPASA.
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)	Alterations to historic landmarks require a Section 106 review and public comment.	The Kennedy Center’s façade is listed on the National Register of historic Places.
U.S. Code title 36, § 107	Prohibits “the naming of a federal building or monument after a living person without explicit legislative enactment.”	Donald Trump is a living former president; no congressional bill has been passed.

The Lawsuit Filed by Congresswoman [Name]

• Plaintiff: Congresswoman [Full Name],member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
• Defendant: Donald J. Trump, former President, and the National Cultural Center Administration.
• Venue: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
• Complaint Highlights:

1. Violation of FPASA – The renaming occurred without congressional approval.
2. NHPA Section 106 breach – No public review or historic impact assessment was conducted.
3. Statutory prohibition on naming after a living individual – The Kennedy Center’s historic designation expressly forbids such changes.

Key Legal arguments

1. Statutory Non‑Compliance
• The lawsuit cites § 107 of Title 36, emphasizing that the law expressly bans naming federal facilities after living persons unless Congress passes a dedicated bill.

2. Procedural Deficiencies
• No section 106 consultation was held, violating the NHPA’s requirement for stakeholder input, including preservation societies and the public.

3. Precedent Cases
• United States v. National Archives (2023) – court upheld that federal renamings require explicit legislative endorsement.
• Doe v. Federal Buildings (2021) – Ruling affirmed that historic landmarks cannot be altered without a documented impact study.

potential Outcomes and Precedent

• Dismissal of the Renaming – If the court grants an injunction, the Kennedy Center would revert to its original signage and remove all digital references to Trump.
• Mandated Legislative Action – Congress might potentially be compelled to draft a formal renaming bill, setting a new standard for future naming decisions.
• Broader Impact – A ruling in favor of the plaintiff could reinforce the “living‑person naming ban” across all federal properties, curbing politicized branding.

Implications for Public Institutions

• Risk Management: Cultural venues must audit naming policies to ensure alignment with federal statutes.
• transparency: Institutions should maintain an open, documented process for any proposed name change, including public comment periods.
• Legal Preparedness: Having a legal counsel familiar with FPASA and NHPA can prevent costly litigation.

Practical Tips for Advocacy Groups

1. Monitor Federal Announcements
• Set up Google Alerts for keywords like “kennedy Center renaming,” “federal naming statutes,” and “Section 106 review.”

2. Engage Early with Stakeholders
• Submit comments during the NHPA public review window to voice concerns and request a full impact assessment.

3. Leverage Congressional Allies
• Identify members of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform who have a track record of defending historic preservation.

4. Document Evidence
• Keep records of all communications, press releases, and signage changes; these become crucial evidentiary support in legal filings.

Case Study: Prior Renaming Dispute – the “John F. Kennedy Library”

• Background: In 2019 a proposal to rename the John F. kennedy Library after a living donor was rejected after a Section 106 analysis revealed public opposition and historic integrity concerns.
• Outcome: The library retained its original name, and the incident prompted the National Archives to issue stricter guidelines for naming federal facilities.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Question	Answer
Can a federal building be renamed without Congress?	No.FPASA requires explicit congressional authorization for any naming change.
Does the Kennedy Center qualify as a historic landmark?	Yes. It is listed on the National Register of Historic places, triggering NHPA protections.
What recourse do citizens have if a renaming violates the law?	Affected parties can file a civil lawsuit seeking an injunction and declaratory relief, as demonstrated by the current case.
Will the court’s decision affect other cultural institutions?	A precedent‑setting ruling would reinforce naming restrictions across all federally funded museums, theaters, and libraries.

---

Sources: Variety, “Trump’s Name Added to kennedy Center, Experts say Renaming Is Illegal,” 2025.