Category: Nation & World

The Kennedy Center’s decision to immediately close its doors for roughly two years of repairs is facing a new legal challenge Wednesday, escalating the fight over President Donald Trump’s transformation of the national cultural institution.

Rep. Joyce Beatty (D., Ohio), a Kennedy Center trustee who has repeatedly challenged Trump’s transformation of the institution in court, filed a motion requesting an emergency hearing so center officials can explain the closure despite a federal judge’s instructions hours earlier that he needed to approve it.

“It seems Defendants may be violating the ‘clear and unambiguous order of the Court,’” lawyers Nathaniel Zelinsky and Norm Eisen wrote in the emergency motion.

The challenge puts the question of the Kennedy Center’s physical future back before U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper barely 24 hours after he blocked another attempt to put Trump’s name on the building. It also escalates a legal battle that has come to encompass nearly every element of Trump’s transformation of the national cultural institution: its name, its finances, the condition of its aging building, and now whether its doors can remain closed while its Trump-appointed leadership pursues a roughly $250 million renovation.

The center remained closed Wednesday after trustees voted Tuesday afternoon to shutter its main building “forthwith.” At about 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, a message played over the center’s speakers announcing the closure and security guards escorted visitors out through the Hall of Nations. By about 6 p.m., all of the doors were locked.

On Wednesday, fencing went up around the main building and security guards continued to turn away visitors.

The Kennedy Center did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the motion.

The closure came hours after Cooper addressed the issue in court Tuesday morning. Although the proceeding was largely intended to deal with scheduling in Beatty’s lawsuit, the judge confronted a rapidly changing situation: Center management had recommended an immediate shutdown after a section of ceiling plaster fell about 60 feet into the Grand Foyer during a Sept. 4 storm, and trustees were preparing to vote on the proposal later Tuesday.

The proposed closure carried particular significance because Cooper had already blocked an earlier version of it.

In May, Cooper overturned a March board resolution to close the building, finding that trustees had acted on insufficient information and failed to adequately consider the consequences. But he did not prohibit the center from ever closing. Instead, while his order remains in place, he left trustees free to reconsider the issue after conducting a more thorough review.

Trustees returned to the question in August and approved a roughly two-year shutdown. On Tuesday, they went further, voting to make the closure immediate.

Center officials say new evidence made the acceleration necessary. During the Sept. 4 storm, according to the center, a roughly 4-by-5-foot section of plaster broke loose from the Grand Foyer ceiling. No one was injured. Inspectors subsequently found at least seven other areas with visible water-related deterioration.

Management has cited those findings, along with water intrusion into electrical areas, deteriorating parking-garage steel, and aging mechanical and theatrical systems, in arguing that the building cannot safely remain occupied during construction. Center spokesperson Roma Daravi said Tuesday that the board had demonstrated “a clear prioritization of safety above all else.”

Beatty’s lawyers have challenged that characterization. In a filing Monday, they said Delta Consulting Group, which reviewed the center’s renovation plans, had expressly disclaimed concluding that the building was “unsafe for continued occupancy.” They have accused center leaders of using long-standing maintenance problems to justify a closure the Trump-led board already wanted.

Tuesday’s court hearing also produced a decisive ruling in a separate part of Beatty’s case. Cooper barred trustees from carrying out their Aug. 13 plan to add an inscription reading “Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump” to the facade and rename the grounds “President Donald J. Trump Plaza.”

“Simply put, Defendants cannot install memorials for President Trump or anyone or anything else at the Kennedy Center without Congress’s blessing,” Cooper wrote, reiterating his May conclusion that Congress reserved the national memorial for honoring President John F. Kennedy.

Hours later, Trump tied the renovation directly to that legal fight. He said the building would close immediately but that construction “cannot begin until such time as the D.C. Circuit rules on the Board’s approved name.” If the center ultimately loses the naming dispute, including at the Supreme Court, Trump said, “the Reconstruction and the Renovation of The Kennedy Center will not take place.”

That leaves the Kennedy Center in an unusual position: Its main building is closed because trustees say an immediate shutdown is necessary for safety and renovation work, while the board chairperson says that renovation may never proceed if the center loses the name dispute.

Federal officials acknowledge that President Donald Trump’s planned triumphal arch will unavoidably harm historic sites if built as planned, but they say the project must move forward, according to a National Park Service document and emails obtained by the Washington Post.

Trump’s 250-foot-tall proposed arch would be built in Memorial Circle, a traffic roundabout tucked inside Washington’s boundaries near Arlington National Cemetery. Historic preservationists, veterans groups, and others have called on the administration to shrink the monument’s planned size or build it elsewhere, warning that the towering structure would overshadow the cemetery, interrupt the solemn corridor that was intended between the cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial, and create other disruptions.

National Park Service officials agree that the arch would adversely affect the cemetery, the Lincoln Memorial, and several dozen other historic sites.

The “adverse effects cannot be fully avoided,” Park Service officials wrote in a document circulated Tuesday and obtained by the Washington Post. But, they said, the project cannot be constructed somewhere else because “the proposed location at Memorial Circle is central to the undertaking,” according to the NPS document.

The document is a proposed agreement that the administration wants local historic-preservation officers to sign on to as part of a federally required process to offer feedback on the project.

The NPS proposal says that since the harms cannot be avoided, federal officials would pursue efforts that they contend would mitigate the arch’s impact, such as creating new signs and webpages to explain the project to the public.

Officials also said they would manage construction to reduce interference with burials at the cemetery and document the current landscape before construction begins.

“NPS recognizes that Memorial Circle is located within a highly sensitive historic and commemorative landscape and that the Undertaking’s location contributes to adverse effects to historic properties whose significance is associated with setting, design, feeling, association, spatial organization, circulation, and contributing views and vistas,” the proposed agreement says.

Tammy Stidham, a senior NPS official, asked the preservationists, local historic preservation officers, and other groups to review and sign the agreement by 12 p.m. on Monday, according to an email obtained by the Post. Their assent would help conclude the administration’s required consultations under the National Historic Preservation Act and expedite the process of securing final approval for the arch.

Stidham said last week that the administration hopes to submit the project for approval from the National Capital Planning Commission, a review panel that oversees federal construction projects, as soon as November.

Stidham and spokespeople for the Interior Department, which oversees NPS, did not immediately respond to questions about the proposed agreement.

Trump has said that the arch should be the tallest in the world and be specifically 250 feet high to mark the nation’s 250th anniversary, which was celebrated this year. The president and his deputies have also asserted that the arch must be built in Memorial Circle because lawmakers a century ago authorized a somewhat similar project that was never built there.

“The Triumphal Arch in Memorial Circle is going to be one of the most iconic landmarks not only in Washington, D.C., but throughout the world,” White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement. “It will enhance the visitor experience at Arlington National Cemetery for veterans, the families of the fallen, and all Americans alike, serving as a visual reminder of the noble sacrifices borne by so many American heroes throughout our 250 year history so we can enjoy our freedoms today.”

Local historic preservationists have said that the administration’s timeline to wind down public input and begin building the arch is overly aggressive. They also criticized the proposed agreement, saying it falls short under federal requirements that the administration must avoid or minimize the harms of a project, rather than just mitigate those harms.

“This is not consistent with NPS practice, NPS regulations, or the intent of the National Historic Preservation Act,” Rebecca Miller, executive director of the DC Preservation League, wrote Tuesday to Stidham, other federal officials, and colleagues at preservation organizations. Miller also called for the administration to continue its efforts to consult with local preservationists about alternative approaches to building the arch. The email was shared with The Post.

NPS officials previously said that they have explored changes to the arch proposal.

“We looked at a smaller arch height. We considered a relocation of the project altogether,” Stidham said at a meeting with preservationists last week, according to audio posted online by NPS. “It was determined that the options would either create a greater impact on historic properties or would not meet the undertaking’s location-dependent purpose need.”

Federal officials also say they would create several webpages, including one devoted to triumphal arches, to help explain the significance of Trump’s project.

“The webpage would address the origins and use of triumphal arches in different historical and cultural contexts, their association with military victory, civic identity, national celebration, and public memory, and how the proposed Arch relates to or differs from those traditions,” according to the NPS document obtained by the Post.

Historic preservationists say that the proposed mitigations are insufficient and that officials should slow their process.

“The administration is being very transparent in their overt hostility to public input and the regulatory process and the result will be to permanently disfigure one of the nation’s most revered and richly symbolic cultural landscapes,” Charles Birnbaum, founder of the Cultural Landscape Foundation, a local advocacy and education organization, said in a statement.

If the local preservation officers refuse to sign the agreement, it could trigger a process overseen by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, a federal agency led by Trump officials, to address disputes under federal preservation law. The administration does not need the preservationists’ consent to move forward.

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation declined to comment Wednesday.

BRUSSELS — Locked in a trade war with President Donald Trump and pivoting away from the United States, Canada is seeking stronger ties in Europe and Asia as a shield against Washington’s volatility.

On Wednesday, sitting as a guest of honor inside the European Parliament, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney received an unprecedented offer: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said she wants to make Canada the first “associate member” of the 27-nation bloc.

“We want to bring the relationship with Canada to the highest level possible,” she said in her annual State of the Union address.

The declaration at the Parliament in Strasbourg, France, received a standing ovation from European lawmakers and from Carney.

The offer, which would see two longtime U.S. partners expand their alliance from trade to security, highlights the extent to which Trump is redefining alliances.

The president’s foreign policy gyrations, including threats to take Greenland from NATO ally Denmark, have triggered a reckoning among Washington’s traditional friends about their relationship with the United States.

Amid the standoff with Trump on tariffs, Canada has pursued a thaw in ties with China including new trade deals. Beijing has praised Ottawa for walking away from talks rather than caving to Trump’s demands, and this month, China and Canada revived a dialogue on military issues after an eight-year break.

Ahead of his trip to Europe this week, Carney said he wanted a “unique alliance” with the EU, including on energy and critical minerals, to help safeguard Canada against economic coercion. “The world’s more dangerous and divided, and friends need to stick together in these times,” he said.

European leaders have echoed Canada’s bid to strengthen ties.

“Dear Mark, I said we must urgently reimagine our partnerships,” von der Leyen said in her speech. “So, I would like to work with you on opening the door for Canada to be the first associate member of the European Union.”

Von der Leyen described the move as “not against anyone else, but for our common strength.”

Yet America’s jilted allies are having once-unthinkable conversations about whether Washington could abandon or even turn against them, and are working to limit their dependence.

European leaders have vowed to take responsibility for their defenses as the U.S. shifts resources away and have rushed to close ranks with allies including Britain and Canada.

A new arrangement with Canada could involve visa-free work for Canadians in the 27 nations of the EU, said two European diplomats, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomacy. Talks could include further reducing trade barriers and boosting joint arms production, they said.

Carney said Tuesday that visa-free opportunities are “one aspect of the discussion.”

In facing Trump’s tariffs and rhetoric about annexing Canada, Carney has cast himself as a leader who can rally together “middle powers” to protect their interests.

Trump has leveled personal attacks against Carney since trade talks between the North American neighbors collapsed last month. Carney retaliated against U.S. tariffs after rejecting U.S. demands that he said would undermine Canada’s sovereignty.

“What Carney has been saying to Europe, to Latin America, to Asia, is that now’s the time to stand up to Donald Trump,” said Fen Hampson, a professor of international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa. “That’s his message: We’re going to stand up, and if you guys have any guts, you’ll do the same thing.”

Carney, who has described Canada as “the most European non-European country,” has found a receptive audience in Europe. He is scheduled to give a speech at the European Parliament today.

But while European nations similarly stared down the barrel of Trump’s threats, EU leaders ultimately tabled retaliatory measures and agreed to a trade deal with higher tariffs to prevent a spiraling confrontation.

Valérie Hayer, a French lawmaker who leads a centrist faction in the European Parliament, told Carney on Wednesday that he has “shown what to do in the face of Trump: Refuse to compromise … speak the language of power.”

“Canada is welcome in the European Union because we share the same values and our interests align,” Hayer added. “So let’s go further.”

Von der Leyen, who heads the EU executive branch, did not offer details on how associate membership for Canada would work or when it might occur.

Instead, she used her speech to tout plans for a deeper partnership on economic security, energy, and technology, as well as in the Arctic. “We see the world with the same eyes,” von der Leyen said.

She said the two would build on their existing free trade agreement and “integrate” their defense industries.

Canada last year sent some 70% of its exports to the United States, which is also the E.U.’s largest export market for goods. Canada and Europe have sought access to new markets via deals with other trade partners, including in Latin America and Asia, amid Chinese competition and U.S. pressure.

Trade between the EU and Canada stood around $150 billion last year, while the U.S. and Canada traded more than $850 billion.

The EU and Canada, which have long sheltered under U.S. military guarantees, have pledged to ramp up their defenses and collaborate on upgrading their weapons industries. Like Canada, most EU countries are also members of the U.S.-led NATO alliance.

Canada this year became the first non-European country to join the E.U.’s 150-billion-euro loan program for joint weapons procurement, giving Canadian arms manufacturers access.

In a separate announcement this week, the European Parliament also said it plans to open a satellite office in Ottawa.

The status of associate member, proposed by von der Leyen, does not exist in the European Union, which oversees trade policy for its 27 member states and operates a single economic market based on the free movement of goods and people.

Creating such a category could complicate the EU setup with other nations such as Britain or Norway, and also potentially the membership bids of countries eager to join, such as Ukraine.

Joining the EU can be a yearslong ordeal that requires thorny negotiations and legislative changes. Several nations on the continent have long been waiting in line, and the EU typically has not been flexible about membership rules.

Earlier this week, commenting on a Wall Street Journal report about EU associate membership, Carney said that Canada was “not looking to become a member” of the EU but was seeking an enhanced alliance.

“We share the same values,” Carney told ​reporters in Toronto. “We have the same priorities and we have very ⁠complementary strengths.”

Hampson said the key question is how the new relationship “is actually defined” and whether “it is just a new bow tied around existing agreements.”

“But if it does involve a much deeper and broader relationship than what we have now,” he added, “it will be significant.”