For The Righteousness of Cause?
Opinion by Ben Everidge for Thomas
Photo Credit: The White House Press Office
The Kennedy Center Debacle in Perspective …
On the 23rd day of his second-term presidency, Donald Trump fired the chair and the president of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and installed himself as the new board chairman.
President Trump also removed board members appointed by a previous United States president and named an interim executive director of the Kennedy Center, a Make America Great Again loyalist who comes with a boatload of political career controversy, Richard Grenell.
Critics of the board takeover argue that the Kennedy Center has lost its independence, which is a threat to the arts. Upon taking over the Kennedy Center, on the other hand, Grenell predicted President Trump’s leadership would see a “Golden Age of the Arts” in the nation’s capital.
Grenell justified the Kennedy Center takeover, contending, "The Kennedy Center has zero cash on hand and zero dollars in reserves – while taking tens of millions of dollars in public funds.” [i]
Righteousness is defined as the quality of being morally right or justifiable.
The decision by the president of the United States to take over the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts from the nation by summarily dismissing its volunteer board of directors and then installing himself as the board chairman was not a righteous or justifiable act. Morally, ethically, politically, or economically.
Understandably, the President’s Kennedy Center actions stunned political and philanthropic communities. In the immediate days after the executive executions, ticket sales plummeted a staggering fifty percent, and upcoming performers canceled their planned appearances to protest the Trumpian move. [ii]
To maintain one’s tax-exempt publicly beneficial good standing, America’s charitable organizations are strictly prohibited from engaging in partisan electoral activities. Just as we have long had the separation of church and state as granted to us by our founding fathers, so have we long expected separating non-profit initiatives from obvious electoral endeavors.
What does it mean to have a cause? In having a cause, one is motivated to make something happen. The American experience is to make things happen for good purposes rather than harmful or destructive intent.
The Kennedy Center is an iconic venue where one can go to practice cause. Non-partisan cause that celebrates the arts. Cause that memorializes a fallen national leader who gave his nation hope and inspiration. Who demonstrated grace and innovation. Who cherished America’s pioneering spirit. Who pushed us to look beyond ourselves for the sake of our fellow citizens.
Having a cause means actively supporting or advocating for a particular issue, belief, or movement that aims to bring about positive change. We believe that having a reason or purpose to fight for what is considered necessary or worthy implies dedication to a larger goal beyond personal interests.
Bear in mind, this is the same Donald Trump who allowed his personal interests to collide with good charitable governance when he was head of his namesake foundation in New York state. So much so that the state of New York judicially dissolved the Donald J. Trump Foundation, citing the charity for illegally misusing charitable funds at the Trump Foundation for political purposes. The charity was ordered to pay over $2 million in court-ordered damages.
New York Attorney General Letitia James noted at the time: [iii]
Not only has the Trump Foundation shut down for its misconduct, but the president has been forced to pay $2 million for misusing charitable funds for his political gain. Charities are not a means to an end, so these damages speak to the president’s abuse of power and represent a victory for not-for-profits that follow the law. Funds have finally gone where they deserve — to eight credible charities. My office will continue to fight for accountability because no one is above the law — not a businessman, not a candidate for office, and not even the president of the United States.
President Trump downplayed the findings in the case against his charitable foundation, claiming the judge had found only “some small technical violations.” Nevertheless, the judge who ruled on the settlement with the state of New York noted that Mr. Trump “breached his fiduciary duty” to the Donald J. Trump Foundation in service of his 2016 presidential campaign.[iv]
From a tax and ethical standpoint, it is highly questionable for a foundation like the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts to appoint leadership with a history of financial misconduct.
Nonprofit organizations operate under strict fiduciary duties. That means executives of that charitable organization must act in the charity's best interest and mission. Suppose individuals were previously found liable for misusing funds, paying fines, or engaging in financial mismanagement. In that case, this predictably raises serious concerns about their ability to oversee another tax-exempt organization responsibly.
Such is the case with Donald Trump, who has installed himself as the board chairman at the Kennedy Center. Are we as a nation willing to idly stand by and witness a churlish effort to demonize American cultural excellence for misguided political gain?
The Internal Revenue Service and state regulators expect charities to maintain public trust and proper financial stewardship. While there may not be a legal prohibition against hiring someone with such a history, donors, watchdog groups, and regulatory bodies would likely scrutinize such an appointment. The charity could also face difficulties securing funding or maintaining tax-exempt status if an organization like the Kennedy Center lacks strong governance.
This is not to say that The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, like many major cultural institutions, hasn’t faced a mix of challenges and successes over the years. It has, and here are some key points donors and potential donors must consider before giving:
Issues That Might Discourage Donations
Financial Controversies & Federal Funding Scrutiny – The Kennedy Center receives significant federal funding, sometimes leading to scrutiny over how the money is spent. For example, in 2020, it received $25 million in COVID-19 relief funds, yet shortly after, it announced staff layoffs and furloughs, raising concerns about financial management.
Union & Labor Disputes – The center has faced labor disputes with musicians and stagehands, sometimes leading to public criticism over worker treatment.
Leadership & Management Criticism – Some past decisions by the leadership, including executive compensation levels and program prioritization, have been questioned. There have also been concerns about the balance between commercial programming and its core arts education mission.
Accessibility & Outreach Concerns – While the Kennedy Center aims to be a national performing arts hub, some critics argue that its programming does not always reflect the full diversity of American artistic expression or sufficiently engage underserved communities.
Attractive Aspects of the Kennedy Center
Expansive Arts & Education Programs – The Kennedy Center offers a variety of national arts education initiatives, including the "Arts Across America" program and school partnerships. If education and youth engagement in the arts matter to you, this could be a strong incentive to donate.
The REACH Expansion & Modernization Efforts – The REACH, a $250 million expansion, has transformed the Center into a more interactive and accessible arts venue with flexible spaces for innovation, education, and community engagement. This forward-thinking development could be appealing to donors looking for legacy-building opportunities.
Strong Leadership & Philanthropic Network – The Kennedy Center had and continues to have under Mr. Trump’s leadership a well-connected board and donor network, offering opportunities for high-impact partnerships and recognition. This could be attractive if one wants to align their brand or personal philanthropy with a prestigious cultural institution.
Diverse Programming & Commitment to Inclusion – Recent efforts have been made to increase diversity in programming, with more representation of artists from historically marginalized backgrounds. The Kennedy Center Honors, for example, has been praised for showcasing a more diverse range of honorees in recent years.
Government & Corporate Partnerships – The Kennedy Center has leveraged strong relationships with government entities and major corporate sponsors, ensuring financial sustainability and allowing donors to collaborate on high-profile projects.
From a risk management perspective, it would be wise for donors and board members to conduct due diligence on any charity’s leadership before contributing. If a chair or executive team has a record of financial mismanagement, it signals a potential red flag regarding the organization’s integrity and accountability.
Donald Trump’s takeover of the Kennedy Center and its board of directors has significant consequences across political, cultural, and non-profit sectors. There are, therefore, positive and negative implications to take into consideration:
The Potential Positive Consequences
There are several potential positive consequences to consider from the Kennedy Center takeover.
Increased Attention and Funding – President Trump's personal involvement is already bringing more media exposure and potentially increased private-sector donations from his wealthy supporters and business allies.
Conservative Cultural Influence – In re-shaping the board, the Kennedy Center might now showcase more performances and programming that align with conservative values, attracting new audiences that feel underrepresented in mainstream arts.
Business-Oriented Management – Ignoring his legal travails with the state of New York over his previous charitable foundation management, Trump’s background in business could lead to a restructuring of the Kennedy Center’s finances, possibly improving its efficiency, reducing waste, and increasing revenue through commercial partnerships.
Populist Appeal – The Kennedy Center, often associated with elite arts culture, might shift toward more mainstream or populist entertainment, making the institution seem more accessible to broader demographics.
Potential Policy Changes Favorable to the Arts – If President Trump or his allies see the Kennedy Center as an opportunity to solidify political influence, they might push for increased federal funding or tax incentives for donors aligned with the new vision.
Potential Negative Consequences
However, there are potential negative consequences of President Trump’s takeover of the Kennedy Center and its board to watch.
Political Backlash and Institutional Instability – Many in the arts community lean progressive. As we have seen in the initial days, Trump’s takeover could spark protests, resignations from key figures, and significant push backs from donors and performers who oppose his politics.
Loss of Federal and Traditional Arts Funding – The Kennedy Center does receive significant federal support; however, if a future Congress or White House views a Trump-controlled board as too politicized, it could result in reduced public funding.
Cultural and Artistic Controversy – The Kennedy Center might face a reputational crisis, with artists refusing to participate in its programs, protests at major events, and even boycotts by institutions traditionally collaborating with it.
Increased Commercialization – While a business-oriented approach might boost finances, it could also lead to prioritizing profitability over artistic integrity, with concerns that the Kennedy Center might shift toward entertainment-focused, commercially driven productions rather than fostering diverse, high-quality performing arts.
Polarization of the Arts Community – The Kennedy Center has historically served as a neutral space celebrating American arts and culture. If Trump heavily influences programming, it could turn the institution into a political battleground, alienating portions of the arts community and the public.
Weakened Global Reputation – The Kennedy Center is internationally respected, so the controversial political takeover could damage its standing among global artists, making it harder to attract international talent and collaborations.
A Trump-led Kennedy Center could lead to greater visibility and financial restructuring but at the cost of political controversy, possible funding losses, and artistic integrity concerns. The institution likely will become more polarized, shifting from a prestigious bipartisan arts venue to a politically charged entity.
Whether this shift is seen as revitalization or degradation would depend on one’s political perspective.
Upon her departure from the Kennedy Center as the third president in its storied existence, Deborah F. Rutter said in a statement the following:[v]
The Kennedy Center stands unparalleled as our national cultural center and living memorial to President Kennedy’s legacy and ideals. To lead this organization is to witness its unending capacity to inspire through the power of the arts daily.
The goal of the Kennedy Center has been to live up to our namesake, serving as a beacon for the world and ensuring our work reflects America. I depart my position proud of all we accomplished to meet that ambition. From the art on our stages to the students we have impacted in classrooms across America, everything we have done at the Kennedy Center has been about uplifting the human spirit in service of strengthening the culture of our great nation.
I have been motivated my whole life by the fundamental values of America - freedom, equality, and a deep belief in the American dream. Core to our American experience is also artistic expression. Artists showcase the range of life’s emotions - the loftiest heights of joy and the depths of grievous despair. They hold a mirror up to the world - reflecting who we are and echoing our stories. The work of artists doesn’t always make us feel comfortable, but it sheds light on the truth.
Much like our democracy itself, artistic expression must be nurtured, fostered, prioritized, and protected. It is not a passive endeavor; indeed, there is no clearer sign of American democracy at work than our artists, the work they produce, and audiences’ unalienable right to actively participate.
For more than half a century, artistic growth at the Kennedy Center has been thanks to a dedicated professional staff, artists, and audiences’ eagerness to explore new ground together—with trust, respect, and joy.
It has been the honor of my professional career to serve this great institution and all that it represents. There is no other place like it in the world.
Rutter was and is a respected and established arts industry executive. Her leadership of the Kennedy Center since 2014 witnessed the impressive expansion of the 1960s-designed complex that also saw unprecedented audience growth, fundraising, and programming.
Outgoing Board Chairman David Rubenstein added in his own post:[vi]
As many of you have heard, I am no longer the Chairman of the Kennedy Center. I want to direct this message especially to the current and recent employees of the Kennedy Center: I am sorry that I could not be in Washington yesterday with Deborah Rutter and all of you. The Kennedy Center team, led by Deborah, has done an extraordinary job supporting the Kennedy Center over many years and through a number of difficult times, thereby helping to make the Center the beacon for the performing arts its founders intended. Thanks for what Deborah and all of you have done for the American people. President Kennedy would be proud of your selfless work, your long hours, your commitment to excellence, and your dedication to the performing arts.
Rubenstein is one of the board members who put his wealth where it counts: to his chosen charity’s benefit in terms of time, talent, and treasure. It has been reported that Rubenstein gifted more than $111 million to the Kennedy Center itself. [vii] This, in addition to many other charitable endeavors he has supported, includes:
Refurbishing the Washington Monument.
Expansion at George Washington’s Mount Vernon estate.
Mulberry Row at Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello.
James Madison’s Montpelier.
Arlington House at Arlington National Cemetery.
Rehabilitation of the National Mall and support for the National Park Service.
The Smithsonian Institution’s National Gallery of Art and National Air and Space Museum.
The Library of Congress.
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Universities like Duke, the University of Chicago, and Johns Hopkins.
And even the White House Historical Association.
The Kennedy Center was first conceived in the late 1950s when a Democratic-led Congress proposed it during the Administration of Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. Congress and President Eisenhower envisioned a “National Culture Center.”
In the early 1960s, President John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, launched a fundraising initiative to help make that effort a reality but did not live to see it to fruition. His successor, President Lyndon B. Johnson, signed into law a 1964 bill renaming the project The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.
Construction began in 1965, some two years after President Kennedy’s assassination, and the center formally opened six years later, with a premier of Leonard Bernstein’s Mass, a requiem honor to the late 35th president.
[i] Graeme Massie, “Trump takeover sees Kennedy Center suffer ticket sale collapse, says report,” The Independent, February 23, 2025, found at: https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-kennedy-center-ticket-sales-b2703156.html
[ii] Graeme Massie, “Trump takeover sees Kennedy Center suffer ticket sale collapse, says report,” The Independent, February 23, 2025, found at: https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-kennedy-center-ticket-sales-b2703156.html
[iv] https://www.factcheck.org/2019/11/trump-spins-court-ruling-on-trump-foundation/
[v] See https://www.linkedin.com/posts/deborah-rutter_deborah-f-rutter-the-third-president-of-activity-7295540250980847616-Dw70/
[vi] See https://x.com/DM_Rubenstein.
[vii] Press Release: “David M. Rubenstein to remain Kennedy Center Board Chair until 2026,” John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing. Retrieved February 14, 2025.
This opinion is adapted from a chapter in Everidge’s forthcoming book, Generosity: Giving, getting, and Managing philanthropy preeminently.
Thomas opposes the President’s takeover of the board of The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts for several reasons:
Since its inception, the Kennedy Center has been a non-partisan cultural arts showcase for the nation, more often than not, devoid of political manipulation to the degree we have witnessed from POTUS #47. Overtly partisan considerations have no place at the iconic institution.
President Trump should not serve as the Kennedy Center’s board chair, given the judicial judgment imposed upon him with his namesake charity, the Donald J. Trump Foundation. The President was found by a court of law to have breached his fiduciary duties as head of that tax-exempt foundation.
Charitable organizations are required to avoid partisan electoral activities to preserve their tax-exempt status.
Being overly partisan may unnecessarily hamper fundraising at the Kennedy Center, given that one-half of the nation is not MAGA supporters, thus significantly reducing the prospective donor pool.
Previous Board Chair David Rubenstein was a worthy and honorable steward of the Kennedy Center. He did not deserve the unceremonial dismissal and unfounded allegations leveled against him by the President of the United States. Mr. Rubenstein has been and is a role model philanthropist and board executive, as he has practiced throughout his generous career.