Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont announced Friday that he will introduce legislation barring sitting presidents from naming federal buildings after themselves, sharply escalating a political and cultural dispute sparked by the Kennedy Center board’s decision to add President Donald Trump’s name to one of Washington’s most iconic arts institutions.
Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, revealed the proposal just hours after the Kennedy Center confirmed that new signage now reflects the name “Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.” The move, approved unanimously by the board, immediately ignited backlash from artists, lawmakers, and critics who view the renaming as a break with long-standing norms around public memorials.
“What arrogance,” Sanders wrote on the social platform X. “What narcissism.” He added that he would be introducing legislation to prohibit federal buildings from being named after sitting presidents, arguing that public institutions should not be used for personal glorification by those currently holding power.
Sanders’ post included a Reuters video detailing the board’s vote, which formally added Trump’s name alongside that of President John F. Kennedy, after whom the performing arts center was originally dedicated. The Kennedy Center, long regarded as a bipartisan cultural landmark and a symbol of American artistic achievement, has historically avoided overt political branding tied to living political figures.
The decision to add Trump’s name has been framed by supporters as a recognition of presidential authority over federal cultural institutions, but critics argue it crosses a line—transforming a national memorial into a vehicle for political self-promotion.
Sanders’ proposed legislation would codify what has traditionally been an informal rule: that federal buildings, monuments, and landmarks are not named after sitting presidents. Historically, such honors have typically been reserved for figures long after they leave office, allowing time and distance for public judgment and historical perspective.
“This is not about partisanship,” Sanders allies say. “It’s about basic democratic norms and humility in public service.” They argue that allowing sitting presidents to attach their own names to national institutions opens the door to abuse of power and undermines the idea that federal buildings belong to the public, not to individual leaders.
The Kennedy Center controversy has reignited broader debates about Trump’s approach to power, legacy, and public institutions. Critics have long accused Trump of blurring the line between personal brand-building and public office, pointing to his extensive use of his name in private business, political messaging, and now, critics say, national landmarks.
Supporters of the president, however, dismiss Sanders’ reaction as performative outrage. Some conservatives argue that the Kennedy Center board acted within its authority and that Trump, as president, has earned the right to shape federal institutions during his tenure. They also accuse Sanders and Democrats of selectively defending norms only when politically convenient.
The Kennedy Center itself sought to downplay the controversy, confirming the signage change while emphasizing that the institution remains committed to its artistic mission. Still, the optics of pairing Trump’s name with that of John F. Kennedy—a president closely associated with arts patronage, public service, and civic idealism—has struck many observers as jarring.
Arts organizations and performers have also voiced concern that the move risks politicizing a space traditionally seen as a refuge from partisan battles. Several prominent artists privately warned that the renaming could discourage participation or donations, particularly from communities that already feel alienated by the administration’s cultural policies.
Sanders’ proposal, while unlikely to pass quickly in a divided Congress, serves as a symbolic counteroffensive. By focusing on a clear, narrowly defined rule, Sanders is attempting to reassert a boundary many lawmakers believe has been eroded: that public office should not be used to cement personal legacy while power is still being exercised.
Legal experts note that while Congress has authority over federal property and naming conventions, any such legislation would almost certainly face political resistance and potential legal challenges. Still, the bill would force lawmakers to publicly take a position on the issue, effectively turning the controversy into a referendum on presidential restraint.
The timing of Sanders’ announcement is also significant. With trust in political institutions at historic lows, issues of ethics, symbolism, and accountability carry outsized weight. What might once have been dismissed as a naming dispute now resonates as part of a larger argument over how power is wielded—and displayed—in modern American politics.
For Sanders, the issue fits squarely within his long-standing critique of concentrated power and political ego. Throughout his career, he has framed politics as a public trust, warning against leaders who treat government as a stage for self-aggrandizement. His sharp language—calling the move “arrogant” and “narcissistic”—reflects both moral outrage and political calculation, energizing supporters who see Trump’s presidency as a sustained assault on democratic norms.
Whether the legislation advances or stalls, its introduction ensures the Kennedy Center decision will not quietly fade from view. Instead, it is likely to become another flashpoint in the ongoing struggle over presidential power, cultural institutions, and the meaning of public service.
As the debate unfolds, one question looms larger than the signage itself: should any sitting president be allowed to inscribe their own name onto the nation’s civic landscape—or should history, not incumbency, decide who is honored?
Leave a Reply