Kennedy

WASHINGTON — The Kennedy Center Board of Trustees is planning to propose adding President Trump’s name to the facility’s exterior in recognition of his saving the building from its “precarious fiscal position,” according to a new court filing in a suit aimed at blocking the move.

It’s the latest development in the case revolving around adding the president’s name to the exterior of the cultural and arts facility that sits along the Potomac River in Washington and reflects the Trump-aligned board’s efforts to honor the president.

The new information came out of a court filing made by Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty of Ohio, an ex-officio member of the board. Beatty, who has led an effort to block Trump from putting his name on the building, said in a filing she was alerting the court to the proposal because it could implicate a pending decision before the court.

Both the court and the Kennedy Center board are expected to hold meetings Tuesday.

Beatty’s filing includes two exhibits. One is a draft vote to shut the center down, asserting the building is unsafe for occupancy. That assertion incorrectly cites a consulting group’s finding, “which expressly disclaimed providing any such opinion,” according to Beatty.

The other document asserts the center faces dire financial straits. It specifically calls for Trump’s name to be placed in marble beneath the name of the center on the building’s exterior. It offers 10 options for a possible inscription, including “Renovation and endowment overseen by President Donald J. Trump and the Trump Kennedy Center Fund.” Another proposes: “With Gratitude for Support from President Donald J. Trump and the Trump Kennedy Center Fund.”

“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 board wrote in the proposed resolution.

Trump has spent much of his second term reshaping Washington, demolishing the East Wing of the White House to make way for a ballroom and planning a triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery as well as a renovated golf course along the Potomac River.

The Kennedy Center has been a stumbling block in that effort after a judge ruled in May that Trump’s name was added to the building illegally, ordering it to be removed.

Trump and his allies, however, have continued to fight the ruling.

The board voted last month to inscribe his name on the venue’s facade to read “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Restored and Renovated By President Donald J. Trump.”

If the Trump Kennedy Center Fund reached $100 million, another inscription would be added reading: “Endowed by the Trump Kennedy Center Fund.”

Catalini writes for the Associated Press.

Board of trustees recommending that the main building be closed immediately due to costs, US newspaper reports.

The John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, DC, is on the brink of bankruptcy and could close as soon as Tuesday, The Washington Post has reported.

According to the report in the United States newspaper on Sunday, the institution’s board of trustees, of which President Donald Trump is the chairman, has argued that putting the president’s name on the facade could be the only way to avoid imminent and “certain fiscal collapse”.

The trustees also say the institution will not be able to pay employees or meet maintenance costs within a few weeks.

The assessment was set out in a 57-page report before a special meeting on Tuesday, when the Trump-led board is expected to consider the two main issues affecting the performing arts centre: A financial crisis and a physical one, as the building needs renovation.

The Post reported that board members are recommending that the main building be closed immediately due to costs.

The ⁠Post also said Trump ⁠would help the Kennedy Center if his involvement is acknowledged. The trustees’ report represents “a remarkable new phase in Trump’s takeover of the Kennedy ⁠Center, which has been engulfed by financial turmoil, leadership upheaval and litigation ⁠since he installed himself as chairman ⁠last year”, the paper said.

The Kennedy Center was named in honour of the late US president who championed civil rights before he was assassinated in 1963.

Trump placed himself as chairman of the Kennedy Centre shortly after beginning his second term last year, and in December his hand-picked board voted to rename it the “Trump-Kennedy” Centre, a move later blocked in court.

In response to Trump’s takeover, a host of artists have cancelled concerts, with US media reporting that ticket sales had fallen to their lowest levels since the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Post reported that the centre was expected to collect about $124m of the projected $220m in revenue that it had budgeted, “leaving a roughly $23 million deficit even after substantial spending cuts” this past fiscal year.

It added that a spokesperson for the centre blamed the problems on “financial mismanagement by previous leadership” and said Trump’s name had attracted new donors.

UCLA senior wide receiver Mikey Matthews expects the Bruins’ aerial attack to be as electrifying and dominant as their ground game was in a season-opening win over California.

The passing offense lived up to Matthews’ expectations against Cal — but only for a half.

After quarterback Nico Iamaleava completed 12 of 18 passes for 179 yards in the first half, he completed just two more passes for five yards — the Bruins’ only yardage in the third quarter.

The rushing attack carried the Bruins to victory, breaking open a tied game with three fourth-quarter touchdown runs.

UCLA receiver Mikey Matthews (7) celebrates after quarterback Nico Iamaleava (9) ran for a touchdown against Cal at California Memorial Stadium on Saturday.

(Godofredo A. Vasquez/For The Times)

While UCLA called a run-heavy script in the second half, throwing it just four times compared to 18 rushing attempts, the passing game clearly stalled.

Offensive coordinator Dean Kennedy said the offense had to improve after last weekend’s 45-24 victory, noting that two penalties in the third quarter — including on third and one — derailed drives and that the self-inflicted wounds were a teaching moment.

“You have to make sure that every drive, you’re treating it independently. There was a lull in the third quarter, but when you look at it, I was happy with how they responded,” Kennedy said as the team prepared for Saturday’s home opener against San Diego State. “Obviously, you’re not happy with the production of the third quarter, but you’re happy with how they responded in the fourth. There was always belief on the sideline. We had three really bad drives and that’s just as much on me as it is on anyone else.”

Iamaleava played a vital role in keeping the offense on track. And despite largely not contributing through the air in the second half, he looked more comfortable and confident than he ever had in his college career. Matthews called that poise Iamaleava’s greatest improvement since the duo arrived in Westwood last year.

Kennedy said the senior signal-caller was walking up and down the sideline, talking to teammates and stressing a “next drive” mentality.

And Iamaleava’s short-term memory focus echoed his coordinator’s in-game philosophy.

“We will make corrections on bad plays on Sunday, there will be things where we have to make in-game adjustments, but when you are talking about a missed assignment, there’s nothing you can do about it,” Kennedy said. “The only thing you can do about that is worry about ‘how do I get better, how do I learn from my mistake,’ and you have to do it in the moment. You are in a 60,000-seat stadium and it’s not the easiest thing to do, but having other people understand, ‘Let’s move on,’ that’s where he did a really good job.”

Leading up to the opener, Kennedy said he was “beyond confident” in Iamaleava as a leader, player and face of the program, and added that Iamaleava’s willingness to run hard and take hits instills conviction in the team and makes him an easy person to rally around.

“He’s had the opportunity to play young in his career. He’s been in the spotlight for so long,” UCLA assistant quarterbacks coach Jon Boyer said. “He’s dealt with victories. He’s dealt with adversity, and now he does feel valued, and I don’t want him to feel like he’s in it all alone ever.

“He’ll be tested this year where moments of doubt come in, and that’s our job to provide that vision of hope and come up with a plan to get him out of whatever he’s facing.”

Matthews, who led the receivers with four catches for 88 yards, is confident his quarterback will put the ball in the hands of many UCLA receivers he can trust.

“We’re deep in the receiver room. Landon Ellis, Semaj Morgan, Brian Rowe, Aidan Mizell, Shane Rosenthal. I can literally just go down,” Matthews said. “I feel like everyone is bound to have a breakout season, breakout game, whatever it is. Everyone’s going to eat in that room. That’s just how much we trust everyone throwing the ball down the field and everything like that.”

Sept. 2 (UPI) — Workers removed a 24-foot-tall blue sculpture by Joel Shapiro from the grounds at the John F. Kennedy Performing Arts Center on Wednesday amid President Donald Trump‘s efforts to overhaul the venue in Washington, D.C.

The abstract blue sculpture of a stick figure appearing to be mid-kick called Blue was installed outside the Kennedy Center in 2019. Shapiro, who died in 2025, said the artwork was a “celebration of possibility,” The Washington Post reported.

The National Park Service announced the temporary closure of the northbound lane of Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway between the Kennedy Center and the Potomac River to allow heavy machinery to remove the sculpture.

A representative at the Kennedy Center told The Hill the sculpture’s relocation will be determined by the Joel Shapiro and Ellen Phelan Foundation.

“We are deeply grateful to Joel Shapiro for the years Blue has spent animating our campus and connecting visitors to his vision,” the representative said. “We are honored to have been stewards of his vibrant work and park of his enduring legacy.”

The venue confirmed the work to remove the sculpture was done at the facility’s request but didn’t specify the reason. The Joel Shapiro and Ellen Phelan Foundation declined to comment on the move.

The removal of the sculpture is one of several changes to take place at the Kennedy Center in the past year. The Board of Trustees voted in December to add Trump’s name to the building less than a year after the president dismissed the entire existing board and named new members, who in turn elected him chairman.

Since then Trump announced the building would be renamed to include his own name, which sparked a legal battle resulting in the courts ordering his name to be removed from the facade. Trump also planned to shutter the building for two years to carry out renovations.

The venue’s board of directors, stacked with supporters of the president, voted to add his name again despite past ruling.

A United States judge has questioned why the Kennedy Center is rushing to restore President Donald Trump’s name to the performing arts venue after it was ordered removed in a previous ruling.

US District Court Judge Christopher Cooper asked Trump administration lawyer Bradley Mayers on Thursday why the venue has said it must begin adding the president’s name back to the building by September 8.

“What’s magic about that date?” Cooper asked.

Mayers stated that the date is aligned with a vote by the centre’s board — composed of members selected by Trump, who then installed him as the head — earlier this month.

“That’s all fine and good,” Cooper responded. “What does that have to do with what Congress intended in these statutes? That’s really what’s before me.”

The legal saga around Trump’s effort to inscribe his name on the building of the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, DC, is one of several examples of the president’s desire to reshape the landscape of the national capital.

In addition to changes to the performing arts centre, Trump has demolished the East Wing of the White House and sought to replace it with an enormous ballroom.

He also has pushed forward with plans for an enormous triumphal arch to be erected in a traffic circle not far from the historic Arlington National Cemetery.

The president and his allies have faced numerous legal challenges to those efforts, with critics arguing that the projects require congressional approval.

Previously, in May, Cooper found that the addition of Trump’s name to the building was illegal and that Congress alone could rebrand the building.

He also struck down an attempt to close the building for two years. The board had described the effort as necessary to maintain the building, but critics saw the closure as retaliation against the backlash to the renaming effort.

Earlier this month, however, the Trump-aligned board renewed the push to add his name back to the facade, by adding the inscription, “Restored and Renovated By President Donald J Trump”.

The vote also called for the plaza in front of the venue to also be renamed after Trump.

On Tuesday, administration officials threatened to demolish the Kennedy Centre if the renovations do not go through. They warned the performing arts centre would become “decrepit” without the board’s interventions.

In Thursday’s hearing, however, Cooper rejected the idea that court orders were standing in the way of any repairs.

“No one is stopping the center from doing any necessary repairs,” Cooper said. “The notion that continued judicial involvement is standing in the way of accomplishing necessary repairs is not quite fair.”

The lawsuit against the board’s changes to the Kennedy Center was brought by Representative Joyce Beatty, a Kennedy Center trustee who represents the state of Ohio in Congress.

Lawyers for Beatty said on Thursday that they view the board’s recent actions “as outright defiance” against the court.

The Kennedy Center was named by Congress as a living memorial to John F Kennedy, the 35th US president who helped fundraise for its establishment. He was assassinated in 1963. Under the law, no other national memorial to Kennedy is allowed in Washington, DC.

The Justice Department’s latest salvo in the battle over the future of the Kennedy Center claims President Trump’s “efforts and prestige provide the sole hope for the Center’s financial survival, and structural renewal,” according to a Monday court filing, which also threatens a possible demolition of the historic building.

Without the president’s interventions, says the filing, “the Center will deteriorate further into an unsafe, decrepit structure that will be required to be taken down, with a determination to follow on what to build on the site.”

The filing by the administration’s lawyers came in response to the efforts of Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) to block the Kennedy Center board from adding the president’s name to the building. The 21-page document argues that the “prestige” afforded by such an addition is both necessary and warranted.

“The Board also underscores, and the undisputed evidence demonstrates, that without the prominent recognition of The Trump Administration, and President Trump’s efforts, the donors will not contribute, and the Center will continue to be in a financial and structural death spiral,” the filing reads. “The Trump Administration, and President Donald J. Trump, should, therefore, be given the respect and dignity of acknowledgement.”

The filing also suggests what could replace the center if the building were to be torn down: “a large outdoor amphitheater overlooking the Potomac River … has been proposed, by some, for many years.”

“Such a replacement will fail to adequately honor President John F. Kennedy, but would be simpler and more economical to build, operate, and maintain,” the administration’s lawyers wrote in the filing.

Such a tear down would face enormous legal pushback, but preservation groups are already on high alert after Trump’s swift demolition of the White House’s East Wing, which was completed before a challenge could be fully mounted.

The Kennedy Center has been mired in controversy since Trump fired its board and had himself appointed chairman in the early months of his second term. Artist and staff defections became common after that, but the question of the center’s survival came into stark relief in early February when Trump declared his intention to shutter the center for two years of renovations.

That decision came after the Kennedy Center board voted in December to add Trump’s name to the building. Both the closure and the renaming were halted in a May ruling by Federal District Court Judge Christopher R. Cooper who is still overseeing the legal back-and-forth over the center’s fate.

Cooper originally gave the administration until mid-June to remove Trump’s name from the building. The administration complied by placing a tarp over the sign, which has remained ever since.

This month the board again voted to move forward with the renovation, and also to add Trump’s name to the building with the words, “Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump.”

The most recent court filing claiming the center’s survival rests with Trump is in stark contrast to a recent Washington Post investigation that found the center’s revenue plunged after Trump’s name was added to the building.

The U.S. Navy’s Ford class aircraft carriers have been very much in the news in the past week, with huge changes to the core design now potentially on the horizon. Whether or not radical changes to the catapults, weapons elevators, and island superstructure on future ships in the class actually materialize remains to be seen. However, the design has already been changing in various other ways. This includes adding back in a feature that had been found on all Nimitz class carriers and other Cold War-era flattops before it – dedicated radar illuminators to guide surface-to-air missiles.

The illuminators are used to guide the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSMs). The need to add this feature is intertwined with a decision to integrate a replacement for the complex and troublesome Dual Band Radar (DBR) on all forthcoming carriers in the class after the USS Gerald R. Ford. The future USS John F. Kennedy is the first of those ships.

The Mk 95 radar illuminators on John F. Kennedy were particularly visible in pictures released last week of the ship leaving port in Newport News, Virginia, to begin acceptance sea trials. The carrier, also known by its hull number CVN 79, made its maiden voyage in January, and the Navy hopes to take formal delivery of the ship before the end of the year.

The Mk 95 traces back to the 1970s and was originally designed to support the employment of surface-launched RIM-7 variants of the Sparrow missile. All versions of the RIM-7 use semi-active radar guidance, which requires the launch platform to ‘illuminate’ the target.

As an example of the mode of operation for the RIM-7, if a ship were to detect an incoming cruise missile or some other kind of aerial threat, it would cue the missile in the right direction, fire it, and then use illuminators like the Mk 95 to ‘paint’ the target in radar energy. The missile’s seeker would then passively home in on the reflected radar energy through the terminal phase of flight.

When it was first introduced, the Mk 95 was part of a larger fire control suite that also brought an important new level of automation compared to previously available capabilities. Some earlier illuminators on Navy ships even had to be manually operated by sailors on deck.

Today, Mk 95s are found on a variety of U.S. and foreign naval vessels, including the Navy’s Nimitz class carriers. Some versions of the illuminators have camera systems to further help spot and track incoming threats, which have also been upgraded over the years. Improvements in associated combat systems also mean they have become better able to manage available illuminators to allow for as many engagements simultaneously as possible.

The RIM-7 family has since been supplanted in U.S. Navy service with the improved RIM-162 ESSM. Block 1 variants of the ESSM also use semi-active radar guidance and have the same general mode of operation as their predecessors. New Block 2 versions, which began entering service in the early 2020s, have semi-active and active modes, the latter of which does not require any illumination in the terminal phase. In addition, the new missiles feature a data link, allowing them to receive targeting updates after launch, helping cue them to the target area, which further reduces the need for an illuminator in the initial phases of flight. It is also very valuable for longer-range engagements beyond the horizon, especially against low-flying cruise missiles.

At present, the defensive armament suite on Ford class aircraft carriers includes two 21-round launchers for RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAM), three Mk 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems (CIWS) armed with 20mm Vulcan cannons, four 25mm cannons on Mk 38 mounts, and various small arms. There are also two eight-cell Mk 29 launchers, a design that also dates back to the 1970s and was originally designed to fire RIM-7 Sparrows. The Mk 29 has since been adapted to fire Block 1 ESSMs, but there were issues in integrating Block 2 versions owing to the increased weight of those missiles, at least in the past.

“CVN 79 and follow-on Ford class ships will be upgraded to a mix of new RAM variants Block 2A and 2B, plus a mix of ESSM Block 1 and Block 2,” according to an annual report from the Pentagon’s Office of the Director of Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) covering work on the program during the 2025 Fiscal Year.

The Navy’s most recent annual budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2026 does note work to modify the Mk 29 launchers to support Block 2 ESSM capability, but the current state of those efforts is unclear. The service is also pursuing an entirely new launcher to replace the aging and increasingly unsupportable Mk 29, as well as a follow-on to the Block 2 ESSM.

Mk-29 Sea Sparrow Missile Launcher – RIM-162 ESSM & RIM-7P During Sea Trials

Even with integration of the Block 2 ESSM, Ford class carriers will still have to provide ‘illumination’ in order to employ Block 1 versions of the missile, which remain in active Navy inventory. As noted, Block 2 variants can be employed in a semi-active radar homing mode, as well.

This all brings us to the matter of the DBR, which was intended to be the main radar on all members of the Ford class. The DBR consists of two distinct radar systems, the AN/SPY-3, an X-band active electronically scanned array (AESA) type, and the AN/SPY-4, an S-band phased array. On paper, this was set to be a powerful combination. In a defensive scenario, the SPY-3 would be used for horizon search, generating high-fidelity target tracks, and otherwise helping direct interceptors like the ESSM to their targets. The volume search SPY-4 would provide additional long-range search and tracking functionality. Being able to fuse all that data for the dual arrays together, while also leveraging the specific capabilities of the quick-scanning AESA SPY-3, would only offer even greater benefits.

As part of the original Ford design, DBR also serves as host of other functions, including helping to provide air traffic control in support of flight operations. This also allowed the Navy to pare down the total number of distinct radars on the ship compared to the Nimitz class. This, in turn, directly factored into the design of a smaller and more angular flight deck island on the Ford class. Just this week, TWZ published a separate detailed piece on the island, and the reasons for its location so far back on the flight deck. This followed reports this past weekend that President Donald Trump is pushing the Navy to reposition the structure on future ships in this class on aesthetic grounds.

Despite the promised benefits, and its deep integration into the Ford class design, the DBR has proved to be extremely complicated and unreliable.

“Here’s the one thing that I think I screwed up. I think I’m responsible for at least a billion-dollar cost of overrun because I wanted to reduce the number of radars,” retired Navy Capt. Tal Manvel, who served for a time as Program Manager for Future Carriers, said during a presentation at the U.S. Naval Academy Museum in 2015. “I did not appreciate that the complexity of that is not just increasing scale like with a mechanical system, like in the propulsion plant, but the complexity of the software-hardware interface.

“That’s my fault. I screwed up on that because I thought that this would be significant,” Manvel continued. “It turns out to be a big cost driver up front, and that’s one of the reasons why the Ford has this challenge of cost.”

You can watch Tal Manvel’s full 2015 presentation below.

Shifley Lecture: USS Ford-class carrier design

The Navy has since made the decision to replace the DBR on Ford class carriers primarily with the AN/SPY-6(V)3, also known as the fixed-face version of Raytheon’s Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR). The AN/SPY-6(V)3 has three antenna arrays compared to the DBR’s six. John F. Kennedy and future ships in the class will also feature an AN/SPQ-9B horizon search radar and the Mk 9 Tracker Illuminator System – which includes the Mk 95 illuminators – to provide additional functionality that was originally supposed to come from the DBR.

As an aside, the DBR was originally a core component of the Zumwalt class stealthy destroyer design, and was to be deeply integrated with the ship’s unique combat system, but suffered from similar technical and reliability issues in that setting, as well. The Navy subsequently decided to eliminate the S-band arrays on those ships as a cost-cutting measure. As it stands now, the USS Gerald R. Ford is the only ship the service expects to operate with the full DBR. The Navy has plans to eventually replace the DBR on that carrier with the EASR and other radars, too. Several variants of the AN/SPY-6 are also increasingly being integrated onto a host of different Navy ships, as seen in the graphic below.

The need for the Mk 95 illuminators on the Ford class could evolve further over time, including as the Block 2 ESSM enters more widespread service and with the development of the planned follow-on missile. TWZ has previously noted that the total number of Mk 95s has been reduced on at least some Nimitz class carriers for reasons that are still not entirely clear.

John F. Kennedy is also expected to bring along other important, but less visible improvements, which are set to be carried over to future ships in the class. This includes upgrades to the ship’s combat management system and a Block II version of the Navy’s Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) networked sensor architecture.

The Ford class program, overall, continues to face major delays and cost growth due to a host of technical issues and other factors that go well beyond problems with the DBR. The Navy had originally hoped to receive John F. Kennedy in 2022. Work on the next two ships in the class, the future USS Enterprise and USS Doris Miller, is also running behind schedule.

The Navy has said it is working to mitigate these ongoing issues and incorporate lessons learned in the construction of future ships in the class. The USS Gerald R. Ford has also now supported real combat operations, mostly recently as part of the conflict with Iran.

As highlighted in John F. Kennedy‘s recent sea trials, the Ford class design is already evolving in notable ways, particularly when it comes to the radar suite.

Special thanks to user @lfx160219 on X for bringing the Mk 95 radar illuminators on the future John F. Kennedy to our attention.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com