Eight national preservation organizations are pushing to place the Kennedy Center under court-appointed receivership after its board shut the building down a second time, a move the plaintiffs say puts an iconic American landmark at risk of "irrevocable loss."
The coalition, which includes the American Institute of Architects, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and six other architectural and preservationist groups, issued a joint statement Thursday calling on Kennedy Center leadership to step aside or face a judicial takeover. Their attorney, Greg Werkheiser of Cultural Heritage Partners, told reporters the groups will "likely soon" file a formal receivership motion in federal court, The Hill reported.
The statement did not hold back. If the center's current leaders cannot "exercise fiduciary duty to protect the historic building and the grounds," the plaintiffs argued, "the court should consider appointing a receiver or replacing that leadership."
The escalation follows a week of rapid developments. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled for a second time that the Kennedy Center board cannot place President Trump's name on the building or grounds without congressional authorization. Trump then said he would withhold congressionally funded renovations unless that ruling is overturned and would refuse to raise additional funds.
By Wednesday, fencing went up around the building after the board voted, for the second time, to shut the main facility down for emergency repairs. Executive Director Matt Floca cited "acute risks to public safety" from structural damage in a court declaration. The closure is expected to last at least one week.
Congress has set aside $257 million for Kennedy Center repairs. That money, Werkheiser stressed, belongs to the American people. Yet the building now sits behind fencing, closed to the public, while the standoff over naming rights grinds on in court.
The Department of Justice defended the closure, saying Floca's decision aligns with Judge Cooper's prior order preventing the center from being closed for a prolonged period. How a fresh shutdown squares with an order barring prolonged closures remains an open question neither the DOJ nor the Kennedy Center has publicly addressed in detail.
Werkheiser framed the receivership option in practical terms. A court-appointed receiver would not be chosen by the plaintiffs or the government, he said, but by the judge. And receivership does not require bankruptcy, it is a judicial tool to protect a property when the people in charge are failing to do so.
"In requiring independent protection, the court could consider measures to put someone else, not someone that we pick, not someone that the government picks, but someone that the court picks and vets, put them in charge of preserving the historic building."
That distinction matters. The plaintiffs are not trying to seize the Kennedy Center. They are asking a federal judge to step in because, in their view, the current board has abdicated its responsibilities. Whether the court agrees will determine the center's near-term future.
The broader fight over how the federal government manages Washington's public spaces adds weight to the dispute. The Kennedy Center is not just a concert hall. It is a living memorial to a former president, held in public trust, and its board members carry legal obligations that go beyond rubber-stamping executive preferences.
Werkheiser characterized Judge Cooper's earlier statements from the bench as a direct warning to the board. The judge, Werkheiser said, told trustees they "aren't mere figureheads" and are "duty-bound to fulfill their roles with due care and some modicum of independence, especially when they're managing property held in trust for the American people."
That language, as relayed by the plaintiffs' attorney, paints a picture of a board that has been put on notice. Cooper invited the coalition to raise additional requests for relief if new facts warranted judicial intervention. The plaintiffs now believe those facts have arrived.
Werkheiser said he felt an obligation to make one final public appeal before filing.
"We feel an obligation, no matter how realistic we think it is, to first publicly and clearly call, one last time, on the trustees to particularly focus on their legal fiduciary duties."
He added simply: "But circumstances are changing rapidly."
Meanwhile, a separate lawsuit filed by Rep. Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat who serves as an ex officio board member, has added another dimension to the legal fight. Court filings in Beatty's case included photos showing President Trump aboard Air Force One reading a placard that read "Kennedy Center DEMOLISHED." The context and origin of that placard, who made it, who presented it, and when, remain unclear from available court filings.
Werkheiser acknowledged the photo but was careful not to overreact. "My mom didn't raise the smartest person, but I know, always, that we have to wait for verification of those things before we can really express any strong opinion," he said.
The caution is notable. Even as the plaintiffs escalate their legal strategy, their lead attorney is signaling that the coalition is driven by preservation law, not politics. Whether that restraint holds as the case intensifies will say a great deal about the strength of their position.
The Hill reached out to both the Kennedy Center and the White House for comment. Neither had responded as of the article's publication Thursday. That silence, combined with the fencing, the closure, and the unresolved $257 million in repair funds, leaves the public with few answers about when, or whether, the center will reopen on stable footing.
The eight plaintiff organizations represent a cross-section of the architectural and preservation world: the American Institute of Architects, the American Society of Landscape Architects, the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, the DC Preservation League, Docomomo US, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Society of Architectural Historians, and the Cultural Landscape Foundation. Three law firms, including Cultural Heritage Partners, represent the coalition.
Their collective argument is straightforward. The Kennedy Center's board has a legal duty to maintain the building and honor its purpose as a performing arts center and memorial. If the board cannot do that, because of political pressure, institutional paralysis, or simple neglect, then a court should find someone who can.
Washington has seen no shortage of institutional vacuums and power struggles in recent months. The Kennedy Center dispute is different in kind but familiar in pattern: a public institution caught between political forces, with the people who depend on it left waiting.
Werkheiser put the stakes plainly. Trump has the "extraordinary responsibility" to use his power to keep the center running, he said, "not extraordinary leverage to demand the institution honor him." That framing, responsibility versus leverage, sits at the center of the entire dispute.
The question of how political conflicts reshape Washington's landmarks is not new. But a federal court weighing whether to strip a sitting board of control over a national performing arts center would mark a significant escalation, one that could set precedent for how public trusts are managed when leadership fails.
Receivership is a serious remedy. Courts do not impose it lightly. The plaintiffs know that, which is why their public call for voluntary resignations came first. If the board ignores it, the next move belongs to the judge.
A building held in trust for 330 million Americans should not be a bargaining chip in a naming dispute. If the people charged with protecting it will not do their jobs, the court may have to find someone who will.
