Trump’s Kennedy Center Takeover Opens New Front in Culture War

One of President Donald Trump’s first official acts was an attempt to reshape the cultural landscape, starting with the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. Within days of taking office, Trump asserted greater control over the Kennedy Center’s leadership, operations, and funding.

He justified the move as a response to ideological concerns about artistic programming—specifically drag shows—but this government intervention raises serious legal concerns and economic risks that could have consequences for cultural institutions and their municipal and state partners across the country.

The changes at the Kennedy Center aren’t superficial. Performances and exhibits might be realigned to match the Trump administration’s priorities and ideological values while minimizing or excluding dissenting or eclectic voices.

The threats of defunding and erasure are not veiled. As the Trump administration has stated publicly, the Kennedy Center learned the hard way that “if you go woke, you will go broke”—essentially signaling a new political litmus test for public funding. The changes at the Kennedy Center reflect an effort to exert political control to reshape narratives and cultural expression.

Cultural spaces have long been used as battlegrounds for political agendas, but there are broader issues here implicating the First Amendment and the financial stability of the creative sector.

At the heart of this issue is the First Amendment and whether the government can impose ideological restrictions on cultural institutions that receive public funding. The US Supreme Court has recognized—in National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley—that the government has some discretion because Congress can set spending priorities. However, the court cautioned in Finley and other cases that the government may not engage in viewpoint discrimination.

Finley arose in the context of a political backlash against exhibits funded by the National Endowment for the Arts, including Robert Mapplethorpe’s homoerotic photography and Andres Serrano’s artwork depicting a crucifix submerged in urine, which scandalized some audiences. While ruling in favor of the government, the court warned against weaponizing funding restrictions as a tool for unconstitutional censorship or ideological suppression.

Viewpoint discrimination was explicitly prohibited in a case involving a municipal theater’s rejection of “Hair,” a controversial rock musical in the 1970s. The Supreme Court ruled against government officials in Chattanooga, Tenn., rejecting the city’s contention that the show should be kept off stage because the production was not “in the best interest of the community.”

Because blocking access to a public venue violates the First Amendment, government intervention in programming—like banning drag shows—may constitute an impermissible restraint on speech and expression.

Other cases reinforce strong constitutional limitations on government interference in arts and culture, with courts finding the government can’t weaponize funding or regulatory controls to suppress cultural expression.

In Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences v. City of New York, the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled against then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani for attempting to cut funding to the Brooklyn Museum because of controversial artwork, including Chris Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary,” which featured elephant dung. This case shows that public funding can’t be manipulated to enforce ideological conformity.

Similarly, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Pasco, Wash., violated the First Amendment by removing politically sensitive artwork from a public facility while permitting other exhibitions.

As these and other cases make clear, viewpoint-based exclusion constituted unconstitutional government censorship. Federal, state, or local control over cultural spaces can’t be used to target or suppress viewpoints. Attempts to curate or censor artistic expression through funding or other mechanisms open the door to legal challenges and potential liability.

From Appalachian fiddling and gospel choirs to drag shows, American cultural expression reflects a broad spectrum of experiences. Celebrating differences strengthens national unity. Sidelining certain voices brings the government into determining what is “real,” “authentic,” or “acceptable” culture. As the Supreme Court recognized in Finley, it “is vital to a democracy to honor and preserve its multicultural artistic heritage.” Everyone deserves to see themselves reflected in art and culture.

When ideology dictates cultural programming—what institutions should or shouldn’t exhibit—entire communities stand to lose. A narrowed cultural agenda telling one story to one audience drastically reduces artistic diversity and shrinks the cultural economy. Whitewashing American cultural expression carries a cost.

The creative sector contributed $1.1 trillion to the US economy in 2022, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs across industries ranging from performing arts to tourism in blue and red states alike. Cultural institutions are economic engines.

Cultural districts help buoy local economies and anchor communities such as Mesa, Ariz., and Irving, Texas. If federal or state governments begin imposing ideological restrictions, the resulting programming limits could destabilize revenue streams, leading to fewer performances, reduced public access, lost funding, and economic decline.

The legal community should be paying close attention to these developments. If ideological restrictions on arts funding continue, we can expect legal challenges that will test the limits of government power in regulating cultural expression. First Amendment litigation in this area will likely shape the future of government investment and intervention in cultural initiatives.

In the words of Justice Louis Brandeis, “the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” Ensuring that cultural institutions remain independent and free from unconstitutional encroachment is essential to preserving the economic and artistic vitality of the creative sector.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

Iván Espinoza-Madrigal is the executive director of Lawyers for Civil Rights, an organization founded at the request of President John F. Kennedy.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines