Trump’s attempt to remake the Kennedy Center faces key legal test

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s plan for a “Complete Rebuilding” of the Kennedy Center in Washington has sparked a legal debate over whether he — or Congress — has the power to control the high-profile cultural institution.

The battle began in December, when Trump’s name was added to the building’s facade — above the existing signage that reads “The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts” — following a unanimous vote by Trump’s hand-picked board of center trustees.

It escalated recently, when Trump announced it would close in July for two years — to make major renovations he said were necessary.

Some members of Congress are pushing back, including in court, alleging Trump’s actions are unlawful and should be reversed.

What does the law say?
Here’s a closer look at what the law and history say on the question:

Since Congress created the cultural institution in a federal statute, designating it as a living memorial in 1964 shortly after President John F. Kennedy’s death and then through its expansion in the 2010s, it has been operated by both the executive and legislative branches — contributing to the legal debate.

While the executive branch oversees the appointments of the center’s board of trustees, Congress has the ultimate say on what money gets appropriated and what projects get approved.

The House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies grants the center’s board the power to act on any proposed and approved changes.

According to the top Democrat on the subcommittee, Rep. Chellie Pingree, the panel has historically controlled all funding, project management and security, separate from the executive branch or what is voted on by the center’s trustees.

Congress has proposed and authorized expansive construction projects, such as the REACH expansion adjacent to the Kennedy Center, designed for artist collaboration, to smaller standard year-to-year maintenance costs.

When Trump’s signature legislation passed in July, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” it circumvented the subcommittee, instead directly appropriating $256,657,000 for “necessary expenses for capital repair, restoration, maintenance backlog, and security structures of the building.”

In a statement, the Kennedy Center’s new president, Richard Grenell, a Trump appointee, said, “I am grateful for President Trump’s visionary leadership. I am also grateful to Congress for appropriating an historic $257M to finally address decades of deferred maintenance and repairs at the Trump Kennedy Center.”

The Trump administration has suggested these already appropriated funds will cover any costs of his proposed major renovation.

“It desperately needs this renovation and temporarily closing the center just makes sense — it will enable us to better invest our resources, think bigger and make the historic renovations more comprehensive,” Grenell said. “It also means we will be finished faster.”

Limits on the president’s power?
Georgetown University law professor David Super told ABC News that even though the money for those changes is already appropriated by Congress, Trump and his administration do not have total freedom to make decisions.

“The Constitution says that no money shall be drawn for the Treasury except in accordance with an appropriation passed by Congress,” Super said. “He can spend that money for any of the purposes Congress provided it for, and that includes deferred maintenance, repair, restoration, renovation. It does not allow him to rebuild it.”

While Trump has suggested major renovations, no plans have been officially released or shared with the congressional subcommittee overseeing the center. During an Oval Office photo, Trump said the steel would be “fully exposed” but not removed.

“I’m not ripping it down. I’ll be using the steel,” he said. “So, we’re using the structure. We’re using some of the marble and some of the marble comes down, but when it’s opened, it’ll be brand new and really beautiful. It’ll be at the highest level.”

Super said if those renovations align with the language of the law Congress has passed, it is within Trump’s legal right both as president — and chair of the Kennedy Center’s board — to go forward. If the renovations go beyond what the law spells out and allows, Super said, his moves would be unconstitutional.

“Some of his remarks about ‘maybe, they will use the marble, maybe they won’t’, imply that he’s planning something much more than renovation or repair,” Super said. “If so, then he would be violating the language of the appropriation, and therefore the Constitution.”

When asked whether the president would keep his plan within the constraints laid out by Congress, White House spokeswoman Liz Hudston told ABC News: “While the Democrats neglected the Trump-Kennedy Center for years, President Trump immediately stepped up to rescue and revitalize the institution.”

Hudston also included some intended uses of the funds for maintenance, including “repairing and, where necessary, replacing elements on the exterior of the building,” and “work to bring the Trump-Kennedy Center into compliance with current life safety codes and security standard.”

So far, there are no lawsuits alleging Trump’s proposed renovations to the center are illegal.

The renaming
The center’s controversial renaming presents another legal question.

When the building was designated a living memorial in 1964, Congress wrote in explicit language on how the center should be named and operated.

U.S. Public Law 88-260 dictates the U.S. must “be held to designate or refer to such Center as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”

“They really left very little to the imagination, and detailed what they wanted the Kennedy Center to be,” Super said, adding, “there are many things Congress creates that it doesn’t name, and that’s left to the president to name, but here is a law saying it shall be known as the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”

Super said that regardless of what the board of trustees decides, the name will legally remain as written in the statute.

“And as a duly passed law of Congress, this binds you, it binds me, and it binds the president,” Super said. “The money that the president says he wants to spend on renovating the Kennedy Center is money that was appropriated for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, not for the Trump-Kennedy Center. So, if he in fact uses that money, he is acknowledging that its name did not change.”

A former Kennedy Center trustee, Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty, has filed a lawsuit to stop Trump and the board of trustees from changing the Kennedy Center’s name and wants Trump’s name removed.

U.S. Code § 76j states that “the Board shall assure that after December 2, 1983, no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public areas of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”

“Because Congress named the center by statute, changing the Kennedy Center’s name requires an act of Congress,” Beatty’s lawsuit said. “But on December 18 and 19, 2025 — in scenes more reminiscent of authoritarian regimes than the American republic — the sitting President and his handpicked loyalists renamed this storied center after President Trump.”

Pingree said her subcommittee has been told little about Trump’s plans and that she had instead learned about his proposed changes through social media.

“What’s going to happen now?” Pingree told ABC News, adding,” he tore down the East Wing. Does this mean he thinks he’s going to tear down the Kennedy Center and just rebuild it as a monument to himself?”

With lawmakers beginning discussions on funding for 2027, Pingree said she is working with her Republican counterpart to demand information.

“We will certainly say to them, we’re not going to allocate any money in this cycle until you give us more information about what you’re doing,” Pingree said.

“If that money is currently being used just to keep the place afloat because ticket sales are off and performers won’t perform, then it’s not going to go to the desperately needed. I believe there are some really important things that need to be done to that building,” she said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Florida Democrat Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick resigned from Congress on Tuesday afternoon, just before she was to face a House Ethics Committee sanction hearing.

The committee was set to hold a rare public hearing to determine what sanction would be appropriate for it to recommend to the full House against Cherfilus-McCormick.

Last month, Cherfilus-McCormick was found guilty of 25 House ethics violations, including acceptance of improper campaign contributions and commingling of campaign and personal funds. The congresswoman was indicted in November 2025 by a federal grand jury on charges of stealing $5 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency funds, which she is accused of laundering to support her successful 2021 congressional campaign.

Cherfilus-McCormick has denied wrongdoing, excusing the allegations as an accounting error.

In her resignation announcement, the congresswoman called the process a “witch hunt.”

“By going forward with this process while a criminal indictment is pending, the Committee prevented me from defending myself,” she said. “I simply cannot stand by and allow my due process rights to be trampled on, and my good name to be tarnished.”

Ethics Committee Chairman Michael Guest read out loud the congresswoman’s resignation letter after the committee briefly convened and said the committee had lost jurisdiction over Cherfilus-McCormick with her resignation.

“I will tell you that the committee has worked diligently to investigate this matter, that this was not a rush to judgment, as some would claim, that this was a very deliberate process to gather information into allegations that were extremely serious and extremely complicated,” Guest said.

Ranking Democrat Mark DeSaulnier told the committee, “Nobody’s happy. I don’t think any of us are happy at what we’ve gone through, but I am extremely proud of being associated with all of you.”

She is the third member of the House to resign in a week, following Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas and Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, who were accused of sexual misconduct and were about to face efforts by their colleagues to have them expelled.

Expelling a member of the House is a rare occurrence. A two-thirds majority is required to remove a member.

Only six House members in U.S. history have been expelled from the lower chamber. Former New York Republican Rep. George Santos was the most recent lawmaker expelled from the House in 2023.

The committee could have recommended a range of sanctions, including expulsion, censure, reprimand, fine — and even denial or limitation of any right, according to House rules. The House may punish its members and may expel its members by a two-thirds vote, according to Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.

The sanction recommendation against Cherfilus-McCormick was expected to be announced in writing after the hearing. Afterward, the panel was to break into executive session to conclude its deliberations and reach a judgment.

Before Cherfilus-McCormick announced her resignation, Florida Republican Rep. Greg Steube said he would move to force a vote to try to expel the congresswoman following the sanction hearing. Steube was expected to make the expulsion resolution privileged, which required Speaker Mike Johnson to hold a vote on the matter within two legislative days.

The speaker signaled last week that expelling Cherfilus-McCormick over her alleged crimes would be “appropriate.”

Though he initially insisted that Democrats would not help Republicans expel Cherfilus-McCormick, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on Monday that Democrats would convene a caucus meeting to determine how they’ll handle the the bipartisan Ethics panel’s recommendations.

After her resignation, Steube called on the Department of Justice to put Cherfilus-McCormick in prison.

“This is a victory for our institution and the great state of Florida,” Steube wrote on X. “Thank you to everyone who stayed involved and kept the pressure on. Now it’s on the DOJ to put her in prison.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Mayors from Minnesota to Louisiana traveled to Washington earlier this month with a bipartisan message that protecting the Mississippi River is not just an environmental issue, it is a matter of national security.

The mayors met with lawmakers and federal officials, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Homeland Security, as part of their annual Mississippi River Cities & Towns Initiative fly-in, and later spoke with ABC News about growing pressures facing the river corridor.

Stretching more than 2,300 miles through 10 states, the Mississippi River forms the backbone of one of the most important economic corridors in America. According to data shared by the mayors’ coalition, the river system generates nearly $500 billion in annual revenue and directly supports about 1.5 million jobs.

Its waters also carry a massive share of the nation’s agricultural exports, making the river central to U.S. and global food supply chains. According to the National Park Service, the Mississippi River Basin accounts for 92% of America’s agricultural exports, including 78% of the world’s exports of grains and soybeans.

Founded in 2012, the Mississippi River Cities & Towns Initiative (MRCTI) brings together local governments along the river corridor to coordinate priorities including clean water, economic stability, disaster resilience and food security.

However, this year’s trip to Washington came with new urgency.

Several mayors said the rise of artificial intelligence, declining infrastructure, growing demand for water and energy, geopolitical tensions in the Middle East affecting fuel prices and increasingly severe weather events are placing unprecedented pressures on the region.

One concern raised during the discussions was growing interest from water-scarce regions in the western U.S.

“The Colorado River Basin is looking at the Mississippi River Basin to move water into areas of Phoenix, Vegas — the places that are most water insecure on the continent,” Colin Wellenkamp, executive director of MRCTI and a Missouri state representative, told ABC News.

He added they “are looking into the Mississippi River basin for their water supply for the future.”

Coalition co-chair Mayor Melisa Logan of Blytheville, Arkansas, said the river system has become a national security concern as water demands grow.

“This water is absolutely essential for the security of the country, and you move it to another basin irresponsibly, right? That puts the nation at risk,” Logan told ABC News.

Several major U.S. water systems are already governed by interstate compacts, including the Great Lakes Water Compact and the Delaware River Basin Compact. These legally binding agreements, often approved by Congress, help to establish rules for managing and protecting shared water resources.

Supporters of a Mississippi River Compact say a similar framework could help coordinate policy across the 10 states that rely on a basin that supports national and international trade and food supply chains.

“That’s why these mayors are pursuing a Mississippi River Compact to protect the Mississippi,” Wellenkamp said.

He noted that his state passed a law for such an agreement.

“The other nine states aren’t far behind, because this is a real risk in the future,” Wellenkamp added.

Beyond water access, many mayors said the rising cost of disasters has become another urgent concern for communities along the river.

Logan, Blytheville’s mayor, said protecting the river requires key coordination across state lines, as communities along the river often struggle to secure federal funding for projects that cross state boundaries.

“Typically, they do it state by state by state,” Logan said, referring to federal funding programs. “But these impacts are multi-state by watershed.”

According to MRCTI materials, natural disasters along the Mississippi River corridor have caused more than $250 billion in losses since 2005.

Mayor Buz Craft of Vidalia, Louisiana, said local leaders often face delays when seeking federal disaster assistance.

“We need Congress to quit changing the goal post, for example, when we have an issue, whether it’s a tornado or hurricane,” he said.

Changing White House administrations can also put them back to square one, Craft noted.

“Just when you are about to get that funding for that past disaster they say ‘Oh, now you got to go through this,’ start all over and apply to this program, and it’s really a rat race,” he said.

Global instability is also beginning to show up in everyday costs for residents along the river. Several of the mayors said fuel prices along the Mississippi River recently jumped about 20 cents overnight. Those increases can quickly ripple through food prices, the mayors said, because much of the nation’s food supply moves by truck, rail or barge along the Mississippi River system.

Meanwhile, some communities are also preparing for a different kind of pressure, the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence infrastructure. The data centers that power AI systems require massive amounts of electricity and water for cooling, placing new increased demands on local power grids and water systems.

Mayor David Goins of Alton, Illinois, said companies have already begun exploring potential sites in his city.

“I think it’s important to get in front of it and get ahead of it,” he said. “This meeting right here is timely to get the resources that we can, that we can have at our disposal through different companies, organizations, to start preparing ordinances and start getting some type of framework or groundwork, because it’s coming.”

For the mayors gathered in Washington, the message they hoped policymakers would hear was simple: the Mississippi River’s importance stretches far beyond the cities along its banks.

“If you don’t live on the Mississippi River, you don’t necessarily understand the importance of the Mississippi River Basin to our entire continent,” Quincy, Illinois, Mayor Linda Moore said. “One in 12 people in the world is fed by food that flows up and down the Mississippi on a barge or from the river itself.”

For the mayors who traveled to Washington this week, the Mississippi River is more than a waterway — it is an economic lifeline whose currents shape American agriculture, trade and communities across the country.

Mayor Hollies Winston of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, said the river’s influence reaches far beyond the 10 states it touches, and may stretch long into the future.

“If that water is not protected, we don’t know the impact that that has on the economy 15, 20, 30 years from now,” Winston said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.