Tear It Down: A President’s Tantrum Comes for the Kennedy Center
The President of the United States has told a federal court that if he cannot stamp his name on a memorial to an assassinated president, he will bulldoze it. This is not the reasoned exercise of executive power. It is a five-year-old kicking over the board because he is losing the game — and the country is the board.
In the long, dispiriting catalog of Donald Trump’s second-term abuses, the threat delivered on Monday to a federal courtroom in Washington may seem, at first, almost trivial. A signage dispute. A vanity project. An old man’s demand to see his name in stone. But strip away the marble and the marketing, and what remains is a spectacle so juvenile, so untethered from the responsibilities of the office he holds, that it belongs in a book about early childhood development rather than a docket at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The president has, in effect, told a federal judge: if I cannot rename it, I will raze it. This is not statecraft. It is a tantrum, entered as a legal filing.
According to a court submission filed Monday by Justice Department attorney Brantley T. Mayers, the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts — a national memorial to the 35th president, established by an act of Congress after his assassination in Dallas — will be “required to be taken down” if the courts do not permit the president’s preferred renovation plan to proceed with his name attached. In its place, DOJ suggested, the government might build “a large outdoor amphitheater overlooking the Potomac.” The filing warns that without the president’s imprimatur, “donors will flee” and the center will collapse into ruin — a claim contradicted, as we shall see, by the center’s own internal financial documents.
The filing represents an escalation so brazen, and so petty, that even outlets not known for progressive commentary have reacted with something close to disbelief. The Reason writer J.D. Tuccille observed dryly that if the administration is prepared to argue it can tear down the Statue of Liberty — which it did, in a related East Wing case — then flattening the Kennedy Center for an amphitheater “seems downright restrained.”
I. The Threat, In His Own Government’s Words
The August 25 filing came in Beatty v. Trump, the ongoing lawsuit brought by Representative Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), an ex officio trustee of the Kennedy Center. The immediate context is a hearing set before U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper on whether the Trump-controlled board’s latest workaround — a plaque reading “Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump” affixed beneath the Kennedy name — violates a court injunction the judge issued in May. That injunction ordered the removal of Trump signage that the board had earlier bolted to the building, along with a two-year closure plan that would have shuttered one of America’s premier cultural institutions.
In defending the workaround, DOJ lawyers made an argument so revealing it deserves to be read carefully. Blocking the board’s plan, they wrote, “will cause donors to flee, financial contributions to dry up, and structural rehabilitation to stop.” Without those funds, they continued, the center will “deteriorate further into an unsafe, decrepit structure that will be required to be taken down.” The unspoken syllogism is unmistakable: give the president what he wants, or lose the memorial entirely. It is the argument of a hostage-taker, dressed in the vestments of federal jurisprudence.
“Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it.”
— U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper, May 29, 2026 Ruling
II. What the Courts Have Actually Said
The legal record here is not ambiguous. In May of this year, Judge Cooper — an Obama appointee whose 94-page opinion has become the definitive judicial statement on this dispute — ruled that the Kennedy Center’s board had overstepped its authority in trying to rename the institution and in voting to close its doors for a two-year renovation without meaningful input from ex officio trustees. Cooper ordered signage removed within 14 days, required withdrawal of trademark applications for the name “Trump Kennedy Center,” and enjoined the wind-down of programming that had been scheduled to begin on July 5. The board’s renovation vote, he wrote, “represents a dereliction of its common-law derived duty of prudence.”
The ruling drew on the plain text of the Kennedy Center Act. Cooper’s reasoning was that Congress had established the center as a living memorial to a specific slain president, and that only Congress — not a president, not a board of his appointees — could redirect that memorial to honor someone else. His opinion also granted Representative Beatty summary judgment on her right to vote as a trustee, holding that bylaw changes stripping ex officio members of full voting rights violated both the governing statute and common-law trust principles.
Beatty, whose case is being litigated by Democracy Defenders Action and the Washington Litigation Group, called the ruling a vindication of law over vanity. She said, of the administration’s earlier conduct, that Trump had “desecrated this sacred memorial for his own vanity.” She has now returned to Cooper’s court, arguing in her August 21 filing that the “Restored and Renovated” plaque is a “transparent attempt to effectuate the renaming in another guise” and a “breathtaking act of defiance” of both Congress and the court itself.
The president’s response to Cooper’s May ruling — beyond directing his Justice Department to concoct workarounds — was to attack the judge personally and to smear the judge’s wife, an attorney whose alleged political connections he cited as grounds for grievance. This is, by now, the reflexive presidential response to any adverse ruling: not appeal, but character assassination.
III. A Board Purpose-Built for a Single Man
To understand why the board is asking a court for permission to demolish a national memorial in service of one man’s pique, one must understand how that board came to look the way it does. For most of the Kennedy Center’s history, its trustees represented a deliberately bipartisan cross-section of American cultural and political life — an ecosystem calibrated, by statute, to keep the institution above the passions of any single administration.
That ended in February 2025. Within weeks of his second inauguration, Trump dismissed 18 sitting trustees — the entire cohort of Biden appointees, including Chairman David Rubenstein, a Bush-era selection who had chaired the board for 14 years. He then appointed 14 new trustees, and those newly-installed loyalists promptly voted to make Trump himself the chair. President Deborah Rutter, who had led the center since 2014, was fired. Richard Grenell, a Trump loyalist whose primary qualification was his fealty, was installed as interim president. Emmy-winning showrunner Shonda Rhimes, an Obama appointee, resigned as treasurer in protest.
Who did Trump put in their place? The list is worth reviewing not as trivia but as evidence of intent.
This is not a board. It is a mirror. It has voted, at the president’s direction, to close the center for two years; to rename it after him; to change its bylaws so that ex officio members like Beatty could be sidelined; and, most recently, to inscribe a monument to him on a memorial to another man. In August the board voted 20-3 to affix the “Restored and Renovated” plaque — a vote that any court reading the May injunction would recognize as contempt in polite typography.
IV. The Real Reason for the Rage — And It Is Not Renovation
The administration’s court filings insist that Trump’s name must remain because his brand is the only thing keeping the center financially afloat. This claim is the opposite of true, and the center’s own internal records prove it.
The Washington Post, in a report published August 25 based on confidential documents, revealed that ticket sales and fundraising have collapsed because of Trump’s association with the institution, not despite it. In the week after Trump announced his takeover in February 2025, ticket sales dropped by half. Subscriptions have fallen roughly 36 percent. By this summer, the center was projecting it would miss its budget by 70 percent — a nearly $100 million shortfall, on a $220 million operating plan. An arts-management scholar quoted in the reporting, Andrew Taylor of American University, called it “a nosedive.” An unnamed official put it more starkly to the Post: donors, artists, and audiences all “disappeared — like it was doomsday.”
“Donors disappeared, ticket sales disappeared, artists disappeared — like it was doomsday.”
— Kennedy Center Official, quoted anonymously in The Washington Post
The artist boycotts began almost immediately. Hamilton producer Jeffrey Seller canceled the musical’s scheduled 2026 Kennedy Center run, writing that the institution should be “protected from politics.” Issa Rae canceled a sold-out performance. Rhiannon Giddens, Béla Fleck, Louise Penny, Renée Fleming, Stephen Schwartz, Doug Varone’s dance company, the Martha Graham Dance Company, and dozens of others followed. Ben Folds resigned as artistic advisor to the National Symphony Orchestra. What the president’s lawyers describe as a rescue from ruin is, in fact, a self-inflicted terminal injury.
Which brings us to the question of why he is so desperate. Vanity, of course, is part of it — this is a man who has spent 50 years bolting his name onto buildings. But the more revealing motive is legitimacy. The Kennedy Center is a memorial to a martyred president who represents, in American memory, everything Trump manifestly is not: youthful, eloquent, principled, admired abroad. To rename it after himself is to attempt, by fiat, an association his life’s record cannot earn. When the courts denied him the renaming, the plaque became the workaround. When the plaque is denied, the threat becomes the amphitheater. If he cannot be honored beside Kennedy, he will make sure nothing is honored at all.
V. A Timeline of a Manufactured Crisis
Trump purges 18 sitting trustees, appoints 14 loyalists, and the reconstituted board elects him chairman. President Deborah Rutter is fired. Richard Grenell is installed as interim president.
Trump adds Laura Ingraham and Maria Bartiromo of Fox News to the board, declaring on social media that his selections are “complete.”
The Trump-controlled board votes to rename the institution “The Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.”
Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH) files suit, arguing that only Congress has the statutory authority to rename the center.
Judge Christopher Cooper issues a 94-page ruling ordering signage removed, blocking the two-year closure, and voiding the renaming as unlawful.
The board votes 20-3 to affix a plaque reading “Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump” and to designate the grounds “Trump Plaza.”
Beatty returns to court, calling the plaque a “breathtaking act of defiance” of Congress and of the injunction.
DOJ files its brief warning the center will be “required to be taken down” and replaced with an amphitheater if the plaque is blocked.
Get Involved Today
Contribute to our mission and turn your concerns into action.
VI. What Americans Lose While He Plays With Buildings
It is worth asking what a functional presidency, faced with the circumstances of August 2026, would be doing with its time. Gas prices are hovering above four dollars a gallon nationally, up from roughly three dollars a year ago, driven by a war of choice in Iran that has closed the Strait of Hormuz to normal traffic and disrupted global energy markets. The administration’s own polling numbers reflect the damage: economic approval has fallen to 29 percent in Reuters/Ipsos surveys — the lowest of Trump’s two terms — with 61 percent of voters telling Fox News they disapprove of his handling of the economy. A March CNN poll found nearly 60 percent disapproved of the military action in Iran itself.
The affordability crisis is not an abstraction. Diesel has been averaging over five dollars a gallon, driving up shipping and grocery costs. Airlines have raised ticket prices and cut flights. The U.S. Postal Service has imposed an eight percent surcharge on some deliveries. Fertilizer supplies have been disrupted before planting season. Congressional Democrats, in a May letter to the White House led by Rep. Robert Garcia, warned that the president’s Iran war has turned “an energy affordability crisis into a calamity” — and this on top of his administration’s yearlong hostility toward clean energy alternatives that could have insulated American consumers from precisely this kind of shock.
Trump’s response to those Americans staring at the price at the pump was to tell reporters, in May, “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situations.” Instead, he thinks about signage. He has directed the resources of the Justice Department — attorneys who could be prosecuting fraud, terrorism, civil rights violations, price-fixing — to litigate whether his name may appear on a plaque beneath the name of an assassinated president. He has told the Supreme Court that his authority to demolish the East Wing of the White House, which he tore down last October to erect a 90,000-square-foot ballroom estimated to cost taxpayers between $300 million and $600 million, is so absolute that he could, by his lawyers’ own analogy, tear down the Statue of Liberty.
The D.C. Circuit disagreed. In a 2-1 ruling on August 7, the appeals court held that Congress, not the president, decides whether a massive ballroom rises on the White House grounds, and that “executive self-help” is not a governing principle of American constitutional law. Chief Justice John Roberts, on August 21, administratively stayed that ruling and allowed construction to continue for now. Polling by the Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos found 56 percent of Americans disapprove of the demolition and ballroom. The president builds anyway. The pattern is unmistakable: he tears down what he cannot own, and he builds monuments to himself where public spaces once stood, and he does so while ordinary families are being crushed by prices his own policies have inflamed.
The Framers Wrote a Provision for a Moment Exactly Like This One
Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1967 in the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination, provides a constitutional mechanism for the removal of a president who is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” It is triggered by a majority of the Cabinet, together with the Vice President — or by “such other body as Congress may by law provide” — declaring the president unfit. The amendment was written in this building’s ideological neighborhood, for reasons directly connected to the memorial the president is now threatening to demolish.
In April, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and a former constitutional law professor, formally demanded that White House Physician Capt. Sean Barbabella conduct a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation of the president and publicly release the results. Raskin’s letter cited what he described as “profound medical difficulty and concern,” including the president’s threats to “extinguish a civilization” on social media, his profane tirades, and his rants about combat operations at the White House Easter Egg Roll. A May 2026 statement submitted to the Congressional Record and signed by more than 30 physicians — neurologists, psychiatrists, and others — declared Trump “mentally unfit” and urged removal “with the greatest urgency.” A Reuters-Ipsos poll conducted in February found that a majority of Americans, including 30 percent of Republicans, believe the president has become erratic with age.
On April 14, Raskin introduced legislation to establish an independent, bipartisan commission empowered under Section 4 to formally assess a president’s capacity — the “such other body” contemplated by the amendment’s text. More than 70 House Democrats have called for the president’s removal; 50 have co-sponsored the Raskin bill. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has been more circumspect, and the Republican-controlled Congress makes any near-term action politically impossible.
The practical obstacles are real. The Cabinet is composed of Trump’s own selections and will not move against him. The commission bill will not pass this Congress. Vice President Vance, whose wife sits on the Kennedy Center board Trump personally appointed, is not going to invoke Section 4. None of this is in doubt.
But the moral and constitutional case does not depend on political feasibility. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment does not ask whether a president’s Cabinet has the courage to act. It asks whether the president is capable of discharging the duties of the office. A president who responds to an adverse court ruling by threatening to demolish a national memorial — who cannot separate his own name from the state itself, who orders the Justice Department to litigate his vanity in the middle of a war and an affordability crisis, who tells reporters he does not “think about Americans’ financial situations” — is a president whose judgment, temperament, and command of the office are matters not of policy but of public safety. The framers gave us this amendment for a reason. That the political system has grown too cowardly to invoke it does not repeal its logic. It only measures how far we have fallen from being able to protect ourselves.
VII. What This Says About the Man, and About Us
A serious country does not permit the president of the United States to demolish national memorials because he cannot inscribe his name on them. A serious country does not allow its Justice Department to be weaponized as private counsel for the president’s brand-management concerns. A serious country does not spend a year and a half arguing in federal court over whether a workaround plaque violates an injunction against renaming — while gas prices climb, while wages fail to keep pace with rents, while a war Congress never declared drags on in the Persian Gulf.
The Kennedy Center is not the most consequential fight of this presidency. It is, however, one of the most clarifying. It reveals a leader whose emotional register belongs to a child, whose grasp of his constitutional role extends no further than his own reflection, and whose method of governing — when frustrated — is to threaten destruction. He has done it to the East Wing of the White House. He is doing it now to the memorial to John F. Kennedy. There is no reason to believe he will stop there.
Judge Cooper’s hearing is scheduled for Thursday. The court will decide, once again, whether federal law means what it says. The president will, once again, discover that it does — or he will not, and we will discover instead that the guardrails were never as sturdy as we told ourselves. Either way, the American people should watch this fight closely. It is not really about signage. It is about whether the office of the presidency remains a public trust, or whether we have ceded it, finally, to a man who mistakes the country for his monogram.
Editorial Conclusion
A president who threatens to bulldoze the memorial of an assassinated predecessor because a federal judge will not let him bolt his name to the door is not exercising executive authority. He is confessing, in public, that he does not understand what the office is for.
The Kennedy Center belongs to the American people. It was built with their money, named by their Congress, dedicated to a president they mourned. It is not a lobby of a Trump hotel. It is not his to rename, and it is not his to raze. If the courts hold — if Judge Cooper’s injunction survives, if the Constitution still means what its text plainly says — then we will have preserved a building. What we cannot recover so easily is the presumption that the person in the Oval Office is capable of distinguishing his private grievances from the nation’s public trust. That damage is already done. Whether the republic is willing to remedy it is the question the Twenty-Fifth Amendment was written to force us to answer.
Sources & References
- NBC News — Trump Administration Threatens to Demolish Kennedy Center If Court Blocks Renovations (Aug. 25, 2026)
- CNN — Trump Administration Threatens to Demolish Kennedy Center If Renovations Aren’t Allowed (Aug. 25, 2026)
- The Hill — Trump Administration Threatens to Demolish Kennedy Center If Renovations Are Not Approved (Aug. 26, 2026)
- The Daily Beast — Trump Threatens to Demolish Kennedy Center If Name Is Removed (Aug. 25, 2026)
- Reason — Trump Threatens to Demolish Kennedy Center Unless He Can Put His Name on It (Aug. 26, 2026)
- The Washington Post — Kennedy Center Revenue Plunged After Trump’s Name Went on the Building (Aug. 25, 2026)
- CBS News — Judge Blocks Closure of Kennedy Center and Orders Removal of Trump’s Name (May 30, 2026)
- Rep. Joyce Beatty — Court Reverses Unlawful Renaming and Halts Shutdown of Kennedy Center (May 30, 2026)
- Rep. Joyce Beatty — New Lawsuit Challenges Illegal Renaming of the Kennedy Center (Dec. 22, 2025)
- Forbes — Judge Asked to Block Kennedy Center From Inscribing Trump’s Name (Aug. 21, 2026)
- Kennedy Center — Kennedy Center Board Elects President Donald J. Trump as Board Chair (Feb. 12, 2025)
- The Conversation — Trump Has Purged the Kennedy Center’s Board, Which in Turn Made Him Its Chair
- NPR — Here’s Who’s Canceled Their Kennedy Center Performances Since Trump Took Over
- PBS NewsHour — Appeals Court Rules Trump Can’t Build White House Ballroom Without Congressional Approval (Aug. 8, 2026)
- NPR — Supreme Court Allows Trump’s Ballroom Construction to Continue for Now (Aug. 21, 2026)
- House Judiciary Democrats — Rep. Raskin Demands White House Physician Evaluate Trump’s Cognitive Fitness (Apr. 10, 2026)
- The Hill — Rep. Jamie Raskin Introduces Bill to Assess President’s Fitness Under 25th Amendment (Apr. 14, 2026)
- The Hill — Trump Approval Drops to -25% Amid Iran War, Inflation (June 2026)
- CNBC — Iran War Oil Price Rise Makes Affordability Bigger Issue for Voters (Mar. 7, 2026)
- Rep. Jamie Raskin — Raskin, Bonamici, Colleagues Demand Trump Abandon Plans to Shutter Kennedy Center (Feb. 5, 2026)
Related News
