New Act Voids Kennedy Center Name Change, Strips Board of Future Renaming Power

The “Kennedy Center Protection Act” is a piece of legislation that gets straight to the point: it immediately reverses a controversial decision made by the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Board of Trustees. Specifically, the bill voids the Board’s December 18, 2025, vote to rename the center “The Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.” Beyond just nullifying the vote, the law requires the Trustees to remove any non-conforming signage within one day of enactment (SEC. 3) and mandates that all official U.S. documents revert to referencing the original name.

The Name Game: Who Gets the Final Say?

This bill is less about arts funding and more about a power struggle over naming rights for federal institutions. Congress’s findings section (SEC. 2) explicitly states that the Board exceeded its statutory authority with the renaming vote, arguing that renaming a federal building for a sitting president signals a “slide toward authoritarianism.” The core action here is the amendment to the John F. Kennedy Center Act, which now explicitly bans the Board from ever undertaking any vote or action to rename the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in the future (SEC. 3). Essentially, Congress is taking the keys to the naming authority and locking it down.

The Cost of a Name Change

For the people running the Kennedy Center, this bill is a sharp rebuke. Not only is their decision wiped clean, but the law requires the Trustees to submit a report to Congress within 30 days detailing every public or private dollar used to implement the name change, including altering or installing new signage (SEC. 3). While the bill doesn't explicitly state what happens next, forcing a financial accounting of funds spent on a now-voided action suggests Congress may be looking to recoup those costs or even hold the Trustees accountable. If you’re on that Board, you’re suddenly spending your time tracking down receipts for nameplates and letterhead instead of planning the next season.

Setting a Precedent for Intervention

What makes this unusual is the level of detail and the highly charged language used in the findings to justify the legislative intervention. Congress is using its power to retroactively nullify a decision made by an independent governing board and permanently strip that board of a key function. While the immediate benefit is preserving the original name and legacy of JFK, the long-term implication is a clear warning shot: Congress is willing to step in and micro-manage the governance of federal cultural centers when it disagrees politically with their decisions. This move limits the Board's autonomy and sets a precedent for direct legislative intervention in institutional naming conventions based on political disagreement.