WASHINGTON — The sudden appearance of new signage reading “The Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts” has thrust the nation’s premier cultural institution into the center of a political and constitutional dispute, prompting swift backlash from members of Congress, the Kennedy family, and arts advocates who argue that the change is neither legitimate nor durable.

The renaming was approved late last week during a meeting of the Kennedy Center’s board, whose membership was significantly reshaped during President Trump’s term in office. The vote, described by attendees as unusually expedited, resulted in the institution briefly updating its website and installing new exterior signage under a tarp before the public could respond. By Friday afternoon, the building’s facade bore Trump’s name ahead of Kennedy’s, a symbolic reversal that immediately drew criticism.

President Trump, speaking from the White House grounds, said he was “surprised” by the decision but “honored” by the board’s action, describing its members as “the most distinguished people in the country.” But Representative Joyce Beatty of Ohio, who serves on the board in an ex-officio capacity, told reporters she was repeatedly muted during the virtual meeting when she attempted to question the motion. “Each time I tried to speak, I was silenced,” she said, calling the process “deeply irregular.”

Residents of Washington, cultural organizations, and longtime patrons of the center reacted with alarm. For many, the Kennedy Center is not simply a venue for music and performance but the nation’s officially designated living memorial to President John F. Kennedy. The renaming, they argue, undermines the historical intent of the institution and violates the legal structure under which it was created.

That legal question has quickly moved to the forefront of the debate. The Kennedy Center was established by Congress in 1958 and formally designated as a national memorial to Kennedy in 1964, two months after his assassination. As a memorial named by statute, its designation can only be altered by congressional action — a process that typically requires legislation passing both chambers and, in the Senate, overcoming the 60-vote threshold.

“It is not within the authority of any board to rename a congressionally designated memorial,” said one Senate Democratic aide who spoke on background. “This is, at best, an unofficial rebranding. At worst, it is a procedural overreach that will not withstand scrutiny.”

Members of the Kennedy family expressed their dismay. Maria Shriver said in a statement that she was “speechless, enraged, and in disbelief,” calling the decision “beyond comprehension.” Kerry Kennedy wrote that the move constituted an “affront to history” and vowed that Trump’s name “will be removed the moment he leaves office.”

Legal scholars echoed those concerns. While the board can make administrative decisions about programming and operations, experts say the statutory name of a memorial remains in force until Congress explicitly changes it. Any signage or website alterations made in the interim, they argue, carry no binding authority.

“The name inscribed in law is the Kennedy Center,” said James Fallon, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University. “No board vote, regardless of its membership, can supersede an act of Congress.”

The episode arrives at a moment of broader tension over the boundaries of executive influence on national cultural institutions. During his presidency, Trump regularly criticized the Kennedy Center’s programming as “elitist” and oversaw a period of extensive renovations funded by Congress. He also replaced many board members with loyalists who were publicly aligned with his approach to arts and culture.

The renaming decision has revived longstanding debates about political interference in public institutions and the durability of norms surrounding presidential memorialization. Traditionally, national memorials are named after leaders whose careers have concluded and whose legacies have undergone a period of historical reflection. In rare cases, Congress has named structures after living figures, but the practice is widely regarded as inappropriate for national memorials or symbolic landmarks.

Several Republicans, while declining to comment publicly, have privately expressed concerns about the precedent the move could set. “If one administration can retroactively rename a memorial dedicated to a president who was assassinated, the next administration can undo or escalate that,” said a former Republican Senate staffer familiar with cultural policy. “That is not a path most lawmakers want to open.”

For now, the situation remains unresolved. The signage bearing Trump’s name remains on the building, but its legal status is ambiguous at best. Multiple Democratic lawmakers have indicated they may introduce legislation clarifying that only Congress may alter the institution’s name, though any such bill would face political hurdles.

There is also the question of public legitimacy. Attendance at the Kennedy Center had already experienced fluctuations in recent years, and several local arts organizations have publicly stated that they will refuse to use the new name in any promotional materials, describing it as “non-binding” and “symbolically improper.”

What happens next may depend on whether Congress decides the matter requires statutory intervention or whether the renaming simply fades as a symbolic gesture without legal force. But the controversy has opened a deeper debate over the stability of national institutions — and whether the guardrails that have historically insulated memorials from partisan shifts remain intact.

“In the end,” Professor Fallon said, “what matters is whether the public and the government continue to treat our national memorials as permanent civic fixtures rather than political canvases. The law still draws that distinction, even if the signage does not.”