Sen. Bernie Sanders announced Friday that he will introduce legislation to bar sitting presidents from naming federal buildings after themselves, escalating a political and cultural fight sparked by a recent decision involving the Kennedy Center. The move comes just one day after the Kennedy Center’s board voted to add President Donald Trump’s name to the iconic Washington, D.C., arts venue—a decision that immediately ignited backlash from Democratic leaders, members of the Kennedy family, and arts advocates.
In a sharply worded post on X, Sanders called the board’s decision “arrogant and narcissistic,” arguing that public institutions funded by taxpayers should not be used to burnish the legacy of a sitting president. “This is not how a democracy honors its public spaces,” Sanders wrote. “Federal buildings belong to the people, not to any one individual in power.”
The proposed legislation would prohibit sitting presidents from naming—or renaming—federal buildings, monuments, or institutions after themselves while in office. Supporters say the measure is intended to reinforce norms against self-dealing and self-promotion, while critics frame it as a political response aimed squarely at Trump.
The controversy centers on the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, a federally chartered institution that receives public funding and has long been regarded as a nonpartisan symbol of American culture. The board’s vote to add Trump’s name to the venue stunned many observers, not only because of its speed, but also because of questions surrounding the board’s authority to make such a change without congressional approval.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries was among those who quickly pushed back, arguing that any renaming of a federally chartered institution requires explicit authorization from Congress. “You cannot unilaterally rewrite the identity of a national institution,” Jeffries said. “That authority rests with the legislative branch, not with a board acting on political impulse.”
Several members of the Kennedy family also publicly condemned the decision, calling it a betrayal of the center’s mission and legacy. In statements released following the vote, family members emphasized that the Kennedy Center was established to honor the late President John F. Kennedy’s commitment to the arts, not to serve as a political trophy. They warned that attaching the name of a sitting president risks politicizing a space meant to unify Americans across ideological lines.
Legal experts say the dispute raises complex questions about governance and precedent. While the Kennedy Center operates with a board structure, its federal charter and public funding create limits on unilateral actions—particularly those that could be construed as altering the institution’s foundational purpose. “There’s a real question here about process,” said one constitutional law scholar. “Even setting aside politics, the issue is whether the board overstepped its legal authority.”
Sanders’ proposal seeks to settle that question more broadly by drawing a bright line. Under the bill, naming rights for federal buildings would be restricted until after a president leaves office, ensuring that honors—if they come at all—are conferred by future generations rather than by contemporaries. Sanders framed the measure as a safeguard against abuses of power, not a partisan attack.
“This isn’t about one person,” Sanders said in a statement. “It’s about preventing a dangerous precedent where presidents use public institutions to glorify themselves while they still hold power.”
Republicans and Trump allies pushed back swiftly. Some dismissed the legislation as performative and unnecessary, arguing that existing norms and political accountability already serve as checks. Others accused Democrats of hypocrisy, noting that many federal buildings bear the names of former presidents and lawmakers. “This is manufactured outrage,” one Republican strategist said. “If voters don’t like it, they can make their voices heard.”
Yet supporters counter that timing is everything. Naming a building after a president decades after their service, they argue, is fundamentally different from doing so while that president remains in office and wields influence over appointments, funding, and boards. “The conflict of interest is obvious,” said a former ethics official. “It’s about power honoring itself.”
Public reaction has been swift and polarized. On social media, critics of the renaming called it a breach of tradition and a politicization of the arts, while supporters praised the decision as a bold assertion of presidential legacy. The debate has spilled beyond Washington, with artists, donors, and cultural institutions weighing in on whether national landmarks should remain insulated from political branding.
For now, the future of the Kennedy Center’s name—and Sanders’ bill—remains uncertain. The legislation faces an uphill climb in a divided Congress, and the renaming itself could be tied up in legal challenges if lawmakers assert congressional authority. Still, the episode has reopened a broader conversation about ethics, power, and the symbolic use of public spaces.
As the fight unfolds, one thing is clear: what began as a board vote has become a flashpoint in a larger struggle over norms and accountability. Whether Sanders’ proposal becomes law or not, the question it raises is likely to linger—who gets to decide how America honors its leaders, and when does recognition cross the line into self-glorification?
Leave a Reply