Trump FURIOUS as Kennedy Center TARP REMOVED after his NAME REMOVED

[00:00:00]But join me right now is our friend Massachusetts Congressman Seth Moulton.

[00:00:03]He is a member of the House Armed Services Committee and is a former Marine Corps officer in Iraq.

[00:00:08]Congressman, welcome. Good to see you.

[00:00:10]First, your thoughts on what we were talking about there, the removal of the president's name from the Kennedy Center, that is President Trump from President Kennedy Center there. And it happened, of course, we remind our viewers after court ruled only Congress can make changes to the center's name.

[00:00:27]>> I mean, it's kind of pathetic that we're at a point in American history where we're celebrating stopping the desecration of a memorial by the current president of the United States. But that's where we are, and it is a victory for the law. It is a victory for democracy. Uh and it's a victory for Congresswoman Beatty, uh who I've been Beatty who I'm so proud to serve with. I mean, she put this put this lawsuit forward after serving on the uh Kennedy Center board. And as she said, this is a victory for all the citizens of the United States who do not want to see our country desecrated by Donald Trump.

[00:01:01]>> Mhm.

[00:01:02]How do you describe the audacity, I mean, if that's what you want to call it, um of Donald Trump's vanity projects? And how important was this pushback?

[00:01:11]>> I mean, it's incredibly important. And and every bit of this is taxpayer dollars wasted. They spent 10 hours, I think, putting up that tarp just so that he wouldn't be ashamed, you know, uh because he doesn't he doesn't like the look of having his name taken off the building. Well, that's taxpayer dollars, you know, just putting the name up in the first place when it should never have ever been there. That's taxpayer dollars. Donald Trump said he was going to grow the economy and save Americans money, but he's just wasting money on his vanity projects, and that's why it's so important that we put this to an end.

[00:01:43]>> We are still waiting to see if President Trump's name has been fully removed from the Kennedy Center as the court ordered.

[00:01:50]This is a live shot with the crews who were working on its removal left the building around 4:00 a.m. this morning, leaving that tarp you see covering their progress. Last night, a federal appeals court rejected a last-minute effort by the Trump administration to keep his name on the building. Our next guest, ex-officio Kennedy Center board member and Ohio Congresswoman Joyce Beatty, spearheaded the lawsuit that led to Trump's name being removed, which came after she said she was repeatedly muted and prevented from voicing her opposition during the board's vote to rename it. She joins us now.

[00:02:23]Congresswoman, thank you so much for joining us. Um I'm going to start with reading something from the Trump administration's appeal that actually mentions you. In December 2025, they write, "The center's board voted overwhelmingly to add President Trump's name to the center in recognition of his personal commitment to rebuild and revitalize the center. In this action, however, one of the board's ex-officio trustees, Representative Joyce Beatty, a troublemaking appointment from the beginning of her tenure, exclamation point, sued her fellow trustees of the board, alleging, among other things, that this resolution and its implementation constituted a breach of fiduciary duty under the center's organic legislation. A troublemaking appointment from the beginning of her tenure." What's your response?

[00:03:10]>> Well, I think I would quote John Lewis.

[00:03:12]I would say get in good trouble. So, to Mr. President, who I understand wrote that himself, I would say if you see something, say something. And that's exactly what I did because his action was unlawful. And it was never about him. It was about the American people.

[00:03:29]It was about the performers, the workers there, and the rule of law. And I think that troublemaking got me in good trouble because when the three-panel judges ruled in my favor after his last-minute uh decision to have that brief filed, it was a unanimous decision. Two judges appointed by President Obama and a judge appointed by Donald Trump.

[00:03:58]>> And Congresswoman Beatty, it seems like it was only hours ago that you and I spoke. You were standing in front of the Kennedy Center. I understand um the your you're back in district. I'm going to ask you the question I asked you last night. And that is why more than the rule of law or upholding the rule of law, why was it important for you to take the the Kennedy Center and the administration to court to undo what they illegally did?

[00:04:33]>> I do think that was the major part of it. Jonathan, it was unlawful. Only the Congress can do it. But this was also very personal for me. It started when I was silenced by the very board that I sit on as an ex-official member. I had a right to voice my opinion. I had been on that board prior to Donald Trump and his handpicked appointees. Never silenced, always asked for my opinion. I am a follower of the arts. I am a collector of the arts. And I have attended many, many for years of the exhibits, the performances, [clears throat] the Kennedy Honors. I've been on the red carpet there. And I went on the board with Joe Kennedy. And Car- Caroline Kennedy, a dear friend, and we had served together there. And so it was important for me to speak up because while this was about the John F. Kennedy Center, it was also about giving people hope. If you see something that's unlawful, if your voice is silenced, because that's our power. So whether it was the arts or voting rights or about our health care or the price of food and gas too high. I wanted to give people hope because the American people want to see people fighting for them. And so that's what I felt I needed to do.

[00:05:59]>> Mhm.

[00:06:00]Congresswoman, earlier this year I interviewed a Kennedy Center whistleblower, Yosi Palermo, who told us that the primary person responsible for the financial disintegration of the Kennedy Center beyond the this battle over the the name and the programming had been completely mismanaged by Rick Grenell, the hand-appointed director person to lead the Kennedy Center. I'm wondering if you've had any insight into the finances of the center and what if you have an idea of sort of I think one of the the real reasons or a reason that has been papered over for why the Kennedy Center is closing.

[00:06:44]>> Well, thank you very much. We certainly, as ex-officio members, have been discussing this. As a matter of of fact, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has mentioned to us that this is an area that he wants to delve into. And the board meetings have been very interesting. They would say we're in good shape, we have this, and then someone would hit the gavel and say everything is unanimous. Often times, I don't believe it was. And so one of the things that the judge said in our second thing that we filed was he wanted a declaration of a plan of action. How are we going to start the programming back? What is our plan? That will force the hand of this board to have clear financials because we're hearing all kinds of things from this administration that the place is awful, yet we're continuing to have major events sponsored by Donald Trump and his handpicked board members. We have things scheduled for the Mark Twain. We have the 4th of July event there. So, we clearly need to be looking into the finances. We have other performers, artists who are suing the Kennedy Center based on financial reasons. So, I am sure that that will be our next step, looking into the finances.

[00:08:08]>> We just got some breaking news that just came in to the news room. I'm going to read it straight from my iPad. A court has set a noon deadline to remove Trump's name from the Kennedy Center.

[00:08:17]Judge Cooper granted the administration's request for a 12-hour extension. They had cited thunderstorms as the reason they couldn't comply with the court order by last night's midnight deadline. They must inform the court, the administration, of their compliance by noon. Text order in the thread as well as the motion for an extension that they filed at the 11th hour late last night. So, the >> To your point about it is against the law, I want to give a shout-out to Representative Joyce Beatty. I think that she actually tells the story that when she was on a she's a member of the board and there was a meeting and and she wasn't there and she called in virtually and she this was not on the agenda to change the name or add Donald Trump's name to the Kennedy Center and she tried to speak up against it when she found out about it. She said she was shocked. They muted her. They wouldn't allow her to talk. She then actually filed >> to stop this and on May 29th, we now find out that this when the judge said, "You know what? You're right. Take it down." And I just want to give her a shout-out for one particular reason.

[00:09:18]When they tried to shut her down, she said it wasn't about me. It was about arts and it's bigger than this and it wasn't fair and she was the only one that had enough cajones to say >> chutzpah >> chutzpah >> testicular fortitude >> testicular fortitude. Thank you, friends. To say, "You know what? It's not right and someone should do something about it. She said Donald Trump was on the meeting when she was actually trying to object and he was trying to intimidate her with looks and she still went ahead. So, shout out to her for saying something is wrong, let's do something about it and it should do something for all of us Americans who feel like we're not happy with what's going on.

[00:09:54]>> are not surprised that Donald Trump is putting his name on everything. I mean, >> [laughter] >> I mean, it's just like it's laughable for us. I mean, his name is everywhere.

[00:10:01]I've gone to a Trump Grill and Abby, I've never seen this before, I ordered a hamburger and on [cough and clears throat] the bun, God bless him, >> and on the bun, they take a they char it with his with his profile. Like I so I'm I'm eating President Trump. But, you know what? I'm with Scott, too. Like, you got to have a very little going on in your life on a Friday [laughter] night that you're standing in front of the thing whistling. I mean, >> I mean, >> [snorts] >> I don't watch everything but CNN. Do something productive with your time.

[00:10:29]>> I mean, you can argue that that's the case, but these are also American citizens. Maybe they care about the law.

[00:10:35]Maybe they care about Maybe they care about Maybe they care about what the judge said is is the the plain text of the law. The quote, "The Kennedy Center's organic statute makes it crystal clear that the senator the center is to be named for President Kennedy." We also gave the center its name, only Congress can do >> And we also acknowledge that for since its inception, the Kennedy Center has been a place where the arts have flourished.

[00:11:00]>> Yeah.

[00:11:01]>> It has not been a place of partisan politics. Nobody ever said, "We're going to go to the Kennedy Center because John F. Kennedy was a great Democrat." No one ever says that. They go to celebrate the arts.

[00:11:12]>> One of the quickest ways for a politician to create a controversy is to make something about themselves that voters believe should belong to everyone. That's the situation Republicans suddenly found themselves defending this week because what started as a symbolic gesture quickly turned into a much larger debate about power, priorities, and whether public institutions exist to serve the country or to celebrate political leaders. The problem for Republicans is that voters are already frustrated about much bigger issues. They're worried about housing costs, grocery bills, healthcare expenses, and economic uncertainty. In that environment, the last thing party strategists want is a new cycle dominated by arguments over naming rights, court battles, and accusations of political vanity. What's fascinating is how this controversy evolved. The administration appeared convinced that attaching Trump's name to a major national institution would be viewed as a tribute. Instead, it generated lawsuits, public criticism, internal disputes, and ultimately a legal challenge that attracted far more attention than anyone expected. That's often what happens when political leaders underestimate how voters perceive symbolism. What looks like recognition to supporters can look very different to independents and undecided voters. The irony is remarkable because Trump built much of his political brand around attacking elites who he claimed were disconnected from ordinary Americans. He spent years criticizing politicians for focusing on themselves instead of the people they represented.

[00:12:44]Yet many voters now see stories like this and wonder why so much time, energy, and attention are being spent on personal legacy projects while everyday concerns continue piling up. Whether that criticism is fair or not almost becomes irrelevant politically because perception often matters more than intent. Another challenge for Republicans is that legal defeats tend to amplify stories that might otherwise disappear quickly. A routine decision can become national news once courts become involved. Suddenly, the conversation isn't just about the original action. It's about whether rules were followed, whether authority was exceeded, and whether officials respected existing laws. Those questions create political problems because they shift the discussion away from policy achievements and toward questions of judgment. What's really interesting is that many voters don't need to know every legal detail to form an opinion.

[00:13:37]Most Americans aren't reading court filings or studying statutory language.

[00:13:41]They simply see another controversy, another lawsuit, and another fight that appears disconnected from the problems affecting their daily lives. That's why stories like this can have a larger impact than political insiders sometimes expect. Voters often judge priorities rather than technicalities. The broader issue for Republicans is timing. If approval ratings were soaring and voters felt optimistic about the economy, a story like this might barely register.

[00:14:08]But, that's not the environment they're operating in. Many voters remain concerned about affordability.

[00:14:14]Independent voters appear increasingly skeptical. Some traditional Republican voting groups are showing signs of frustration. In that context, every controversy carries greater political risk because it reinforces an existing narrative that Washington is focused on the wrong things. What makes this especially difficult is that Republicans can't easily change the subject. The more attention a controversy receives, the harder it becomes to redirect public focus toward issues they would rather discuss. Instead of talking about economic plans, they're responding to questions about court decisions. Instead of highlighting accomplishments, they're explaining legal disputes. That's rarely where a governing party wants to be.

[00:14:57]Maybe the story fades quickly. Maybe voters move on to other issues. Politics has a short attention span and controversies don't last forever. But, if you're looking at the political landscape from a Republican strategist's perspective, it's easy to understand the frustration. The administration already faces challenges on economic messaging, voter confidence, and approval ratings.

[00:15:20]Adding another unnecessary controversy to that list doesn't help solve any of those problems. That's why this moment matters beyond the legal ruling itself.

[00:15:29]It's another example of how political capital gets spent. Every administration has a limited amount of public attention and credibility to work with. The most successful leaders usually spend that capital on issues voters care deeply about.

[00:15:44]When voters start feeling that energy is being spent elsewhere, skepticism grows.

[00:15:49]And once skepticism begins spreading through independent voters and frustrated supporters, every future controversy becomes easier to believe, and every future explanation becomes harder to sell. That's the political reality Republicans are confronting right now. And it's one reason seemingly symbolic fights can end up carrying consequences far beyond the original headline.