“That’s the tactic they use,” observed Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) during a recent discussion, pondering if former President Donald Trump might seek to attach his name to the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. “You float ideas until people become desensitized to the outrageousness, and then you pull the trigger.”

Just hours after Whitehouse’s comments, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that the Kennedy Center’s board had unanimously voted to rename it the Trump-Kennedy Center. Construction crews moved quickly to affix the new title to the building’s exterior, prompting swift condemnation from Kennedy’s family, who noted that altering its name requires an act of Congress.

A Shift in Institutional Power

The takeover of the national cultural institution began earlier this year when Trump ousted members of the Kennedy Center board appointed by President Joe Biden and installed Richard Grenell as its president. Critics view this as a case of institutional capture, raising serious concerns about government policy and its implications for democracy in America.

In November, Whitehouse launched a formal investigation encompassing allegations of cronyism, financial mismanagement, and corruption at the center, which he termed a “secular temple to the arts.”

Investigating Cronyism and Financial Mismanagement

Democratic members of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee stated they obtained documents suggesting that the Kennedy Center was being mismanaged as a “slush fund” for Trump’s associates, leading to significant financial losses and a deviation from its intended mission.

In a letter demanding detailed records, Whitehouse stated, “We began to receive information regarding mischief at the Kennedy Center,” indicating that substantial financial malfeasance may be at play. Whitehouse likened the current situation to “the brigands taking the ship,” with Trump’s allies prioritizing personal gain over the center’s mission.

Preferential Treatment Under New Leadership

Central to the investigation is the charge that the Kennedy Center is giving preferential treatment and financial benefits to organizations connected to the Trump administration. A recent contract allowed FIFA to utilize the entire Kennedy Center campus for the World Cup draw—something Whitehouse estimates could lead to over $5 million in losses.

Grenell countered with claims that FIFA provided several million dollars, including covering all event expenses, critiquing Whitehouse’s approach as simplistic. Nevertheless, Whitehouse challenged this defense, asserting that FIFA has been courting Trump’s favor while benefiting from unmatched access to the Kennedy Center.

Luxury Expenditures and Cultural Implications

Documents surfaced indicating significant expenditures on luxury accommodations and entertainment for associates. Between April and July, $27,185 was charged for stays at the luxurious Watergate Hotel, described as “unprecedented” for the center’s operational standards. Whitehouse emphasized that such luxury should not be prioritized for political allies.

The center is reportedly over budget and experiencing falling ticket sales, which Whitehouse attributes to a narrow programming focus that appeals primarily to Trump’s base. He compared this shift to “the Vandals in Rome,” warning of its consequences for the arts and public engagement in America.

The Broader Cultural Strategy

The Kennedy Center saga illustrates a broader political strategy emerging in Trump’s potential second term, marked by overt attempts to reshape the cultural landscape. From plans to construct a triumphal arch in Washington to threatening to withhold federal funding from the Smithsonian unless they adhere to a specified narrative, the administration appears intent on revising American cultural history.

Whitehouse noted, “It’s a second-term strategy of letting Trump be Trump without guardrails, which takes him into uncharted territories for presidents.” The Trump administration’s tactics serve as a prime example of blending political campaigns with cultural policies, raising critical questions about civic engagement in democratic processes.