Home > Opinion > Columns

Trump’s takeover of the Kennedy Center

Published: 28 Feb. 2025, 00:01

Kim Ho-jung

The author is a reporter of classical music at the JoongAng Ilbo.

In Washington, the hottest debate in the arts world can be distilled into a battle between simplicity and complexity. At the center of this controversy is the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, a landmark performing arts venue along the Potomac River, which, for the first time since its opening in 1971, finds itself embroiled in an unprecedented political storm.

The latest development: U.S. President Donald Trump has taken control of the Kennedy Center. In a move both stunning in its audacity and revealing in its simplicity, Trump appointed himself as chairman of the institution. Political patronage of cultural institutions is nothing new, in the United States or elsewhere, but Trump’s approach is a model of extreme straightforwardness: Why delegate power when one can assume it personally?

Pedestrians walk up a sidewalk to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on August 16, 2014 in Washington, DC. U.S. President Donald Trump announced on Feb. 7, 2025, he will name himself to be chairman of the Kennedy Center, putting his aggressive rightwing stamp on Washington's premier cultural venue. Trump broke the news in a post on his social media platform. [AFP/YONHAP]

The appointees who entered the Kennedy Center alongside Trump share a similarly uncomplicated vision. Richard Grenell, named CEO of the center, outlined his bold artistic vision: “For Christmas, we should have Christmas events.” He also expressed enthusiasm for hosting a performance by country music legend Dolly Parton, explaining simply, “Because I want to see her.” A refreshingly direct approach, if nothing else.

On the other side of the debate lies complexity. The Kennedy Center has long been home to a broad array of performance —classical and contemporary music, opera, theater and dance — all reflecting a commitment to the often arduous mission of fostering cultural diversity. Its stated purpose extends beyond staging performances; it seeks to provide arts education and inspire civic engagement. Lofty and intricate ambitions indeed.

With complexity, however, comes fiscal ambiguity. The Kennedy Center operated on a $268 million budget last year, running a modest $1 million deficit. Yet, its programming has included productions spotlighting racial minorities, LGBTQ artists and underrepresented art forms — cultural commitments that do not always align with pure profitability. The institution’s operations reflect a deeper human impulse: the desire to grapple with nuance, to embrace the challenge of growth through understanding what is difficult.

Against this backdrop, Trump’s allies have offered their own, markedly simpler solutions. Paolo Zampolli, a longtime Trump associate, former modeling agency head and Kennedy Center board member since 2020, reportedly suggested, “The center is running a deficit? Let’s build a marina.”

On the facade of the Kennedy Center, an engraving quotes President John F. Kennedy: “The age of Pericles was also the age of Phidias. The age of Elizabeth also saw the rise of Shakespeare. The new frontier of which I speak can also be a new frontier for American art.” It is a reflection on the interconnectedness of societal progress and artistic achievement — an idea that demands a certain level of cultural engagement to fully appreciate. By contrast, Trump marked his arrival at the Kennedy Center with a simple post on social media: “Honored to be chairman. We will make the Kennedy Center very special and exciting!”

Simplicity delivers immediate impact, particularly when backed by power. Within days of Trump’s appointment, Kennedy Center President Deborah Rutter and longtime Chairman David Rubenstein were ousted. Rubenstein, who personally donated $120 million to the center over two decades, was dismissed without ceremony.

The New York Times predicted on Feb. 19 that the backlash to Trump’s intervention will be swift, particularly in the realm of fund-raising. The dismissed executives raised $141 million in private donations in 2023 alone — funding levels that may prove difficult for Trump to match. Rutter, speaking to the Times, pointed to the complexity of running a cultural institution: “It’s much more complicated than people think. Managing relationships with artists, overseeing staff, securing funding and collaborating with Congress and the White House — it all requires careful balance.”

The Guardian, in a Feb. 24 editorial, drew a comparison between Trump’s takeover of the Kennedy Center and Soviet-era artistic suppression. The parallels are not unfounded. In the 1930s, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin attended Dmitri Shostakovich’s opera “Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk” and was reportedly enraged by its complexity. He demanded that artists produce simpler, more accessible works that celebrated Soviet ideals.

Shostakovich responded with his “Symphony No. 5” (1937), a piece that, on its surface, appeared to comply with Stalin’s demands. Yet, to those attuned to artistic nuance, it contained layers of hidden defiance. What seemed like triumphant melodies were, in reality, cries of distress; what sounded like victory was, in truth, a coded lament.

Amid the ongoing battle over the Kennedy Center, one cannot help but wonder: Will complexity, in the end, outlast simplicity? History suggests that it might. For now, those who champion the intricate, the nuanced and the challenging can only hope that the triumph of simplicity will prove to be short-lived.

Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.