The Kennedy Center: A History of Politics and Art (2026)

The notion that the Kennedy Center is a pristine sanctuary untouched by politics is a myth that has persisted for decades! For over fifty years, a significant segment of New Yorkers has viewed the center with a critical eye, even likening its architectural style to that of Albert Speer, the Nazi architect, a sentiment captured by the phrase 'gemütlich Speer.'

It seems hardly a day passes without news of performers making a public statement about their refusal to grace the stage at what some now refer to as the 'Trump Kennedy Center,' or media outlets framing a canceled event through that lens. This week, for instance, composer Philip Glass declared he would not permit the National Symphony Orchestra to perform one of his symphonies, a piece written in honor of Abraham Lincoln. Similarly, a touring production of the musical Hamilton was called off in March 2025, with producer Jeffrey Seller explaining that 'some institutions are sacred and should be protected from politics.' Other notable figures and groups reportedly withdrawing their participation include musician Rhiannon Giddens, the Martha Graham Dance Company, and banjoist Bela Fleck, who articulated on social media that 'Performing there has become charged and political, at an institution where the focus should be on the music.'

It's true that a portion of today's artists, much like a segment of the broader population, harbors disapproval of the current administration. If these artists opt not to perform at the Trump Kennedy Center, no one is compelling them to do so, assuming they adhere to the terms of any pre-existing contracts. However, to assert that the current administration is the sole instigator of politics within the supposedly sacred and apolitical Kennedy Center is, frankly, a rather naive and uninformed perspective.

But here's where it gets controversial... Was the presidential box during the Obama administration exclusively occupied by the president's most ardent critics? Unlikely. And are Democrats not themselves eager to reclaim control of the center to leverage it for their own purposes? The most definitive way to ascertain the extent of political influence would be to propose a bill that privatizes the center, selling it to the highest bidder in the entertainment industry. That, however, seems improbable.

Having authored a book about President Kennedy, I can offer some historical context regarding the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. To put it plainly: a performing arts center established by Congress on federal land, with federal funding for its parking garage, and a board appointed by politicians, is inherently political. It's as simple as that.

The very proponents of building a performing arts center in Washington were quite open about the political motivations behind the project. Agnes Meyer, the chairman of the District of Columbia Auditorium Commission, testified before a House subcommittee on February 7, 1957, stating, 'Washington is not only the Capital of the United States. It is the capital of the free world.' Meyer, a former reporter for The New York Sun whose husband owned The Washington Post and had chaired the Federal Reserve, spoke during the early years of the Cold War, emphasizing that America needed to 'capture the imagination of all free peoples.'

In a January 31, 1957, report to President Eisenhower titled 'Plans for a National Civic Auditorium and Cultural Center,' Meyer—who was also the mother of the renowned Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham—wrote that a cultural center in Washington would 'enhance its prestige throughout the world.' The report cautioned that 'in the past, some foreign visitors have left the United States with an impression of American cultural poverty.' It proposed a Great Hall where 'the Government may act as host to officials of many nations.' Meyer discussed what would become the Kennedy Center in a manner akin to how President Trump discusses his plans for a new White House ballroom: as a venue for events 'of high ceremonial importance,' such as the Inaugural Ball.

Upon its grand opening, named in honor of a politician, the center was met with a rather frosty reception from New York. One can surmise that the cultural capital perceived a threat from the political capital, especially with federal subsidies, encroaching on what had traditionally been New York's artistic domain. The architecture critic Ada Louise Huxtable, in a front-page review in The New York Times on September 7, 1971, made a striking comparison in her opening paragraph, referencing the Nazi architect Albert Speer: 'Albert Speer would have approved.' She later intensified this critique, describing the building as 'gemütlich Speer.'

As if the Nazi allusions weren't enough, Huxtable also drew parallels between the new building and Soviet Communist structures, describing its spaces as 'disquietingly reminiscent of the overscaled vacuity of Soviet palaces of culture.' Huxtable's assessment was stark: '[T]he building is a national tragedy. It is a cross between a concrete candy box and a marble sarcophagus in which the art of architecture lies buried.'

And this is the part most people miss... The utilization of art for arguably political purposes is a practice that predates the Nazis, the Soviets, and even the Nixon administration's 1971 dedication of the Kennedy Center by millennia. Its roots can be traced back to Solomon's Temple, ancient Greece, the Egyptian pyramids, and the Medici family's patronage during the Italian Renaissance. Just as with the political figures who act as patrons, the resulting art can sometimes be brilliant, and at other times, merely mediocre.

So, what are your thoughts on this historical perspective? Do you believe that naming public institutions after politicians is inherently problematic, or is it a necessary way to honor significant figures? Let us know in the comments below!