Leftist Fury: Kennedy Clan Threatens Action Over Trump’s Recognition

Paul Riverbank, 12/21/2025Kennedy Center naming uproar: Trump honored, family vows resistance, sparking national debate and legal threats.

Behind Kennedy’s outburst is a controversy that’s left more than one Washington insider blinking in disbelief. In a decision that seemed to materialize overnight, the board at the Kennedy Center—many of its current members chosen during Trump’s presidency—unanimously voted to add “Trump” to the structure’s façade. They offered a pragmatic justification: according to Ric Grenell, now president of the center, Trump’s administration drummed up more than $131 million in donations, plus extra Congressional funding that breathed new life into long-deferred repairs.

Yet not everyone accepts that dry logic. The Kennedy family, never shy of a public cause, took particular offense. The institution, after all, was born in 1964 as a living memorial to John F. Kennedy, not an ever-changing hall of fame. If you consult the original law, written well before cable news or podcasts, it explicitly warns against pasting anyone else’s name across its marble: “The law prohibits the board from making the center into a memorial to anyone else, and from putting another person's name on the building's exterior,” AP noted recently, with a hint of exasperation.

It didn’t take long for others to join the fray. Maria Shriver, another Kennedy cousin, expressed disgust in typically vivid terms, while Senator Chris Van Hollen called the move a “desecration” during a protest—though, to be fair, the demonstration drew a modest crowd. “This was always a question of when, not if, the new sign would come down again,” he said as passersby glanced up, apparently more interested in the altered skyline than the speeches.

Cable news, always quick to find a dividing line, made hay of the flap. On CNN, the debate pitched familiar faces into an unusually raucous exchange. Brianna Lyman, a regular elections correspondent, likened the move to recent building dedications for George Floyd—if America could rethink its heroes after 2020, was one more name on a wall really so shocking? Not so fast, argued Cari Champion, the podcaster. “Trump wants his name on every building—don’t pretend that’s routine,” she challenged, her voice almost shaking. She painted the former president as unstable, lamenting that too few seemed concerned. For a moment, it looked as if the panel would spin entirely off the rails; such is the emotional charge behind symbolic politics in this era.

None of that fazed Grenell and his allies. Their position is straightforward: forget tradition, measure impact. The center’s finances, they insist, are healthier than at any point in decades. Repairs are done, the programming is more ambitious, and money is no longer the ever-present worry it once was.

To opponents, though, the issue goes far beyond fundraising. As Kerry Kennedy wrote, Trump spent years targeting artists, comedians, and journalists—erasing the stories of Americans who’d reshaped the nation. To honor him on the Kennedy Center, a building meant to celebrate inclusiveness, seemed a betrayal of her uncle’s ideals: justice, peace, equality, and compassion for the vulnerable. To some, that’s not just a family squabble, but a question of national character.

Now lawyers are quietly circling as legal challenges get drafted. Ray Smock, once the House historian, notes that changing the name, at least officially, would take a revision of the 1964 law. “The Kennedy Center board doesn’t make laws—Congress does,” he reminds anyone who’ll listen. Meanwhile, any future Congressional action looks tangled and far from certain. For now, the board’s decision holds—and so do the bitter feelings and vows of resistance.

Symbols, of course, don’t just reflect history, they shape it. In that sense, the Kennedy Center now stands as a monument not just to the arts but to a deeper struggle over who earns honor—and who gets written in, or erased from, America’s shared story. Whether or not the second name stays, the questions it’s sparked aren’t likely to fade. And as the months pass, don’t expect either side to quietly come down from that metaphorical ladder.

On a brisk Monday afternoon outside the Kennedy Center, you could spot Kerry Kennedy pacing beneath the familiar block-letter sign that spells out her family’s name in white against the busy D.C. skyline. Normally, she avoids theatrics. But this time, frustration leaked through her usually measured tone. “If Congress or the courts aren’t up to the job, I’ll do it myself,” she declared across her social media. “Three years and one month from today, I’m grabbing a pickax and pulling those letters down.” That promise wasn’t just idle bluster; she followed up by nudging others to pitch in. “I’ll need help with the ladder. Anyone want to join a union job for this?” she quipped—not exactly the typical call to arms in the arts world.Behind Kennedy’s outburst is a controversy that’s left more than one Washington insider blinking in disbelief. In a decision that seemed to materialize overnight, the board at the Kennedy Center—many of its current members chosen during Trump’s presidency—unanimously voted to add “Trump” to the structure’s façade. They offered a pragmatic justification: according to Ric Grenell, now president of the center, Trump’s administration drummed up more than $131 million in donations, plus extra Congressional funding that breathed new life into long-deferred repairs.Yet not everyone accepts that dry logic. The Kennedy family, never shy of a public cause, took particular offense. The institution, after all, was born in 1964 as a living memorial to John F. Kennedy, not an ever-changing hall of fame. If you consult the original law, written well before cable news or podcasts, it explicitly warns against pasting anyone else’s name across its marble: “The law prohibits the board from making the center into a memorial to anyone else, and from putting another person's name on the building's exterior,” AP noted recently, with a hint of exasperation.It didn’t take long for others to join the fray. Maria Shriver, another Kennedy cousin, expressed disgust in typically vivid terms, while Senator Chris Van Hollen called the move a “desecration” during a protest—though, to be fair, the demonstration drew a modest crowd. “This was always a question of when, not if, the new sign would come down again,” he said as passersby glanced up, apparently more interested in the altered skyline than the speeches.Cable news, always quick to find a dividing line, made hay of the flap. On CNN, the debate pitched familiar faces into an unusually raucous exchange. Brianna Lyman, a regular elections correspondent, likened the move to recent building dedications for George Floyd—if America could rethink its heroes after 2020, was one more name on a wall really so shocking? Not so fast, argued Cari Champion, the podcaster. “Trump wants his name on every building—don’t pretend that’s routine,” she challenged, her voice almost shaking. She painted the former president as unstable, lamenting that too few seemed concerned. For a moment, it looked as if the panel would spin entirely off the rails; such is the emotional charge behind symbolic politics in this era.None of that fazed Grenell and his allies. Their position is straightforward: forget tradition, measure impact. The center’s finances, they insist, are healthier than at any point in decades. Repairs are done, the programming is more ambitious, and money is no longer the ever-present worry it once was.To opponents, though, the issue goes far beyond fundraising. As Kerry Kennedy wrote, Trump spent years targeting artists, comedians, and journalists—erasing the stories of Americans who’d reshaped the nation. To honor him on the Kennedy Center, a building meant to celebrate inclusiveness, seemed a betrayal of her uncle’s ideals: justice, peace, equality, and compassion for the vulnerable. To some, that’s not just a family squabble, but a question of national character.Now lawyers are quietly circling as legal challenges get drafted. Ray Smock, once the House historian, notes that changing the name, at least officially, would take a revision of the 1964 law. “The Kennedy Center board doesn’t make laws—Congress does,” he reminds anyone who’ll listen. Meanwhile, any future Congressional action looks tangled and far from certain. For now, the board’s decision holds—and so do the bitter feelings and vows of resistance.Symbols, of course, don’t just reflect history, they shape it. In that sense, the Kennedy Center now stands as a monument not just to the arts but to a deeper struggle over who earns honor—and who gets written in, or erased from, America’s shared story. Whether or not the second name stays, the questions it’s sparked aren’t likely to fade. And as the months pass, don’t expect either side to quietly come down from that metaphorical ladder.