Blog

Officials at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts have warned in documents that the institution faces “certain fiscal collapse within weeks” unless President Donald Trump’s name is added back to the building in some fashion.

The warning, contained in a draft resolution ahead of a board meeting scheduled for today, appears to be part of an effort by Trump-allied officials to convince a judge that the institution’s financial health hinges on placing a tribute to the president on the building’s facade.

The judge, Christopher R. Cooper, ruled months ago that the president’s name should be removed from the building because Congress needed to have approved its renaming as the “Trump-Kennedy Center.”

The draft resolution shared with trustees says the center is at risk of bankruptcy and of missing payroll — but that Trump has “offered to step in and raise the necessary funds” to save the center. The draft resolution presents 10 options for how to add Trump’s name below the main signage on the front of the center.

“The board understands that without such appropriate recognition it is unlikely that President Trump will provide the fundamental oversight of the renovation of the main building and lead the fiscal rescue of the center,” the draft resolution says.

Trump took over the Kennedy Center at the start of his second term, and the board voted last December to add his name to the building. Weeks later, Trump announced a plan to close the center for two years for a renovation project to transform what he called a “dilapidated” structure.

In May, Cooper temporarily blocked the closure and ordered Trump’s name removed from the building.

The center complied while pursuing an appeal. But in recent weeks, board members have moved aggressively to restore his name in an inscription beneath the building’s title.

One option included in the draft resolution, which was first reported by the Washington Post, reads, “renovated, restored, and sustained through the generosity of President Donald J. Trump.” Another says, “renovation, oversight, and support provided by President Donald J. Trump.”

The documents were shared days before a court hearing before Cooper. Rep. Joyce Beatty (D., Ohio), an ex officio board member whose lawsuit prompted the court’s scrutiny of the center, has objected to the center’s plans for the inscription. In court papers, her lawyers called the effort a “childish refusal” to accept the judge’s previous order.

In a statement Sunday, Norm Eisen and Nathaniel Zelinsky, lawyers for Beatty, described the documents as “the third attempt to deface this sacred memorial and turn it into a vanity project for one man’s ego.”

Roma Daravi, a spokesperson for the center, declined to comment on the documents.

Paolo Zampolli, a board member and longtime Trump ally, said in a brief phone interview Sunday that the addition of the president’s name to the building was critical to the center’s financial health because “Trump attracts money.”

“So when Trump says donate to this place, everyone will donate,” he said.

Some donors, though, took exception to the fact that Trump’s name was added to the building and were part of an exodus of artists and audience members unwilling to associate with an increasingly politicized institution. Beatty’s lawsuit contends that decision was part of the reason the center now finds itself in a financial quandary.

Kennedy Center officials have repeatedly blamed previous leadership for the institution’s financial problems.

The documents shared with the board included another draft resolution that suggests the center’s main building should be closed immediately, citing a recent incident in which a section of plaster fell from the ceiling of the building’s grand foyer during a storm. Daravi has framed that event as evidence of an urgent need for the building’s closure.

“This structural failure stems from decades of neglect and deferred maintenance by the previous leadership,” she said in a statement this month, “and there’s no justification for further delays in restoring America’s cultural center.”

Cooper temporarily blocked the center from fully closing, but he did not prevent the staff from pursuing renovations, which have been funded by $257 million from Congress.

Although the building has been open to the public as a memorial to Kennedy, its programming calendar has been largely bare for weeks. The National Symphony Orchestra, the center’s resident ensemble, has booked its season at other local venues. And the center’s staff has been diminished to a small fraction of what it was before Trump’s takeover.

This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

WASHINGTON — A coalition of states and local governments sued the Trump administration Monday over what they called a “catastrophic” new policy that would make it harder for immigrants to obtain green cards if they rely on public benefits.

The challenge, brought by two separate lawsuits, aims to block a policy set to take effect Friday. The suit filed by 22 states, including Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia argues that the policy would hurt immigrant families by forcing them to either turn away from public assistance programs to meet their basic needs or risk being denied green cards in the future.

It also argues it would harm states and localities by straining emergency rooms and reducing participation in food stamps, which would drain money from local businesses that depend on the federal benefits.

“Hardworking families should not be forced to go without the support they need because they fear asking for assistance will get them deported,” Letitia James, the Democratic attorney general of New York who led the suit, said in a statement.

Trump officials have said the policy, known as the “public charge” rule, is necessary to protect public resources and to restore “the basic principle that immigrants must be able to support themselves.” The effort is a revival of a similar policy the administration tried to impose during President Donald Trump’s first term before it was met with legal challenges and later reversed by the Biden administration.

The policy is part of the administration’s broader effort to crack down on both legal and illegal immigration. Before the midterm elections, the Department of Homeland Security has tried to carry out its deportation campaign using quieter methods, including by pressuring noncitizens to leave the country by squeezing their access to jobs and federal programs.

Many immigrants who do not have green cards are already ineligible for public benefits programs. But immigrant advocates fear that the rule would discourage noncitizens from using benefits programs even if they have U.S. citizen children who are legally eligible for food stamps, housing aid, and other programs.

In Philadelphia and throughout the region, the rule, though not yet official, is nevertheless having a chilling effect, frightening parents who are legal immigrants into avoiding public benefits for their children, say advocates who work with immigrants and low-income communities.

“It could prevent families from going to food cupboards, or keep women from accessing domestic violence shelters. The effect will be broad,” said Maripat Pileggi, an attorney with Community Legal Services in Center City.

Federal law has long barred immigrants from obtaining green cards if they are likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. Immigration officers have historically considered the use of cash assistance programs or institutionalized long-term care, but not the use of benefits like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or Medicaid.

The Trump administration’s policy would reverse the long-standing practice, expanding the federal programs that immigration officers can consider before determining that someone is likely to become reliant on the federal government.

The states’ suit was brought by New York, California, Illinois, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

The second suit was led by Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York and joined by Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Santa Clara County in California, and King County in Washington.

Staff writer Alfred Lugano contributed to this article.

This article originally appeared in the New York Times.