Washington has seen its share of political theater, but few disputes cut as deeply into the intersection of law, history, and national identity as the latest legal battle now unfolding around the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. At the heart of the controversy is a fundamental question: who has the authority to rename a national cultural institution created by Congress and bound by federal statute?
That question is now before the courts after Rep. Joyce Beatty, a Democratic lawmaker and an ex officio trustee of the Kennedy Center, filed a lawsuit asserting that any attempt to rename the iconic institution—particularly after former President Donald Trump—would be unlawful, unconstitutional, and procedurally invalid.
The lawsuit draws a sharp legal boundary between political influence and statutory authority, arguing that while presidents may shape public discourse and appoint trustees, they do not possess the legal power to rewrite acts of Congress. Beatty’s filing does not merely challenge a symbolic proposal; it challenges what she describes as a dangerous erosion of congressional authority and legal process.
What follows is not just a political dispute, but a test of how firmly America’s governing institutions still adhere to the rule of law.
The Kennedy Center: A National Institution Born of Law
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is not merely a venue. It is a federally chartered national memorial, created through legislation passed by Congress in 1958 and formally named by statute in 1964 following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Unlike museums, arenas, or privately endowed cultural spaces, the Kennedy Center exists within a unique legal framework. Congress did not simply authorize its construction; it codified its identity.
The statute naming the Kennedy Center was explicit. Lawmakers chose to designate the institution as a living memorial to President Kennedy, reflecting both his legacy and the nation’s commitment to the arts. That designation, Beatty’s lawsuit emphasizes, was not ceremonial—it was legal.
And because it was enacted by Congress, the lawsuit argues, only Congress can undo or alter it.
The Legal Claim: Authority Cannot Be Assumed
Beatty’s legal argument is grounded in a straightforward principle of American governance: statutory authority resides where Congress places it.
According to the complaint, any attempt by the Kennedy Center’s Board of Trustees or by a president—current or former—to rename the institution would exceed their legal authority. The Board, while responsible for governance and programming, is bound by the statutory framework established by Congress. It cannot override the law that created and named the institution.
Similarly, the president’s role—though influential—is limited. Presidents appoint trustees, attend events, and often serve as public champions of the arts. But they do not possess unilateral power to amend congressional statutes, even when those statutes concern symbolic or commemorative matters.
“The name is not a preference,” the filing argues in essence. “It is the law.”
Why This Case Is About More Than a Name
Supporters of the lawsuit stress that the dispute is not about Donald Trump as an individual, nor is it about partisan rivalry. Instead, they frame it as a necessary defense of institutional boundaries.
If a president or board could rename a federally chartered institution without congressional action, the implications would extend far beyond the Kennedy Center. Libraries, memorials, federal buildings, and national institutions across the country could become vulnerable to political whims.
Legal scholars observing the case note that allowing such a precedent would weaken Congress’s exclusive authority to legislate and could invite future administrations to reinterpret statutory limits as optional.
“This is about process,” one constitutional expert noted. “Once you let symbolism override statute, you’re no longer governed by law—you’re governed by power.”
The Board of Trustees: Power With Limits
The Kennedy Center’s Board of Trustees includes members appointed by the president, members of Congress serving ex officio, and private citizens. While the Board has significant authority over operations, budgeting, and artistic direction, its powers are not unlimited.
Beatty’s lawsuit highlights that the Board’s mandate comes from Congress, not the other way around. Trustees are stewards of the institution, not its legal authors.
Any attempt by the Board to rename the center, the lawsuit contends, would constitute an ultra vires act—an action taken beyond the scope of legally granted authority.
Such acts, under administrative law, are routinely invalidated by courts.
The President’s Role: Influence vs. Authority
Presidents have historically used cultural institutions to project values, host diplomacy, and celebrate national identity. However, influence does not equal authority.
The lawsuit draws a clear distinction between soft power and legal power. A president may advocate for changes, encourage debate, or signal preferences—but cannot unilaterally rewrite a statute.
This distinction is critical to Beatty’s argument. Even if a president were to publicly endorse a renaming effort, or even encourage the Board to act, such steps would remain legally insufficient without congressional action.
The Constitution, the filing reminds the court, vests legislative power in Congress—not the executive.
Political Reactions: A Divided Response
Reaction to the lawsuit has been swift and polarized.
Supporters of Beatty argue that the case represents a necessary defense of democratic norms. They emphasize that preserving the Kennedy Center’s name is about respecting historical intent and honoring legislative authority.
Critics, meanwhile, dismiss the lawsuit as political theater, arguing that discussions about renaming are hypothetical or symbolic rather than concrete. Some contend that the dispute reflects broader cultural battles over legacy, memory, and political identity.
Yet even among critics, legal analysts acknowledge that the statutory argument is strong. Whether or not the proposal is realistic, the law governing the Kennedy Center is clear—and difficult to circumvent.
Historical Precedent: How Names Are Changed
When Congress has renamed federal institutions in the past, it has done so explicitly through legislation. From post offices to federal buildings, renaming efforts typically require bills, hearings, and votes.
There is no modern precedent for a federally chartered memorial being renamed solely through executive or board action when its name is embedded in statute.
This absence of precedent strengthens Beatty’s case. Courts often look to historical practice when interpreting statutory authority, and in this case, practice aligns squarely with the lawsuit’s position.
Constitutional Stakes: Separation of Powers on Trial
At its core, the lawsuit raises a separation-of-powers issue.
If the executive branch or an executive-influenced board can effectively rewrite a statute without Congress, then legislative authority is diminished. Beatty’s filing warns that such erosion, even in symbolic matters, undermines constitutional design.
The courts have traditionally guarded Congress’s prerogatives closely, particularly where statutes are clear and unambiguous. Legal observers say this could place the judiciary in a position to reaffirm long-standing limits on executive reach.
What the Court Will Likely Consider
As the case proceeds, judges are expected to focus on several key questions:
- Is the Kennedy Center’s name explicitly fixed by statute?
Historical records indicate that it is. - Does any existing law delegate renaming authority to the Board or the president?
The lawsuit argues no such delegation exists. - Has Congress ever amended or authorized changes to the name?
There is no evidence that it has. - Does Beatty have standing as an ex officio trustee and member of Congress?
Her dual role may strengthen her claim.
If the court answers these questions as the lawsuit anticipates, the legal outcome may be relatively straightforward—even if the political ramifications are not.
Broader Implications for Federal Institutions
Beyond the Kennedy Center, the case could serve as a warning shot.
Federal institutions across the country operate under statutory frameworks that define their names, missions, and governance structures. A ruling in Beatty’s favor would reinforce the principle that these frameworks are not optional.
Conversely, a ruling against her could invite future disputes over who controls national memory—and how easily it can be reshaped.
A Symbolic Battle With Real Consequences
While the debate may appear symbolic, symbols matter—especially when they are backed by law.
The Kennedy Center stands as a testament to a moment in American history when bipartisan consensus elevated culture as a national priority. Its name reflects not just a president, but an era and a vision.
Changing that name without Congress, Beatty argues, would do more than alter signage. It would rewrite history without consent.
What Happens Next
The court’s initial response, potential motions to dismiss, and any injunctions will determine how quickly the case advances. Congressional leaders may also weigh in, either through statements or legislative action reaffirming the statute.
For now, the legal line has been drawn.
Whether the case ultimately results in a formal ruling or a broader reaffirmation of congressional authority, its message is clear: in a system governed by laws, not personalities, names written into statute are not easily erased.
Conclusion: Law Over Legacy
This lawsuit is not just about the Kennedy Center. It is about whether America still honors the distinction between power and authority.
By filing suit, Rep. Joyce Beatty has forced a fundamental question back into the spotlight: who decides what our national institutions represent?
The answer, if the law holds, may be simpler than the politics surrounding it.
Congress decided in 1964.
And unless Congress decides otherwise, the law remains.