A federal judge ruled Saturday that Ohio Rep. Joyce Beatty can sit in on Monday's Kennedy Center board meeting, receive documents about President Trump's plan to close the center for two years of renovations, and even speak her piece. What the judge did not do: force the board to let her vote.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper concluded that Beatty, an ex officio member through her position in Congress, is entitled to participate. But he drew the line at compelling a vote, finding she hadn't carried her burden on that front.
"The Court finds, however, that Beatty has not carried her burden as to her right to vote, at least at this very early stage."
Cooper added that the "marginal harm" to Beatty from not voting is limited since she can lodge objections on the record and attempt to persuade her colleagues. In other words, she gets the microphone but not the ballot. A distinction that tells you everything about the strength of her legal position, as CNBC reports.
Beatty sued to preclude the Trump administration from excluding her from Monday's session, where the board is expected to decide whether to approve the president's proposal to shutter the Kennedy Center on July 4 for a two-year renovation. She told reporters outside the courthouse that she went to court "to stand up for the rule of law and democracy."
Her lawyer, Nathaniel Zelinsky, framed the request as routine:
"We're not asking for something unusual. It's my friends on the other side you are asking you to deviate from the norm."
But let's be honest about what this lawsuit was really about. One Democratic congresswoman wanted to insert herself into a board decision she disagrees with. She got access, which is fine. She didn't get veto power, which is better.
During Thursday's arguments, Cooper pressed Justice Department lawyer William Jankowski on why Beatty hadn't been given details about the closure plan. "Why not just give her the information?" the judge asked. "How is the government harmed?" Jankowski responded that the information "should be provided to Beatty and other meeting participants by Monday," adding cryptically that "an action isn't final until it's final."
The Kennedy Center saga is one of the more interesting subplots of the second Trump term. During his first stint in office, Trump paid the institution little mind. Some honorees threatened to boycott if he participated, and he ended up skipping all four of the annual honors awards programs during that period. The relationship was, at best, indifferent.
This time around is a different story entirely. Since returning to the office in January 2025, Trump has shown a far higher level of interest than any recent president. Consider what he's done:
In December, the board voted to add Trump's name alongside Kennedy's on the building's exterior. It was done the following day.
On Friday, Trump announced that Richard Grenell, the ally he appointed as the center's president, will step down and be succeeded by Matt Floca, who manages the Kennedy Center's facilities operations. That transition is expected to be finalized at Monday's meeting.
Trump has complained about the building's appearance, and the complaints aren't without basis. The building has fallen on hard times. Numerous artists have canceled performances. Attendance has dropped off. A $257 million renovation commitment isn't the act of someone trying to destroy a cultural institution. It's the act of someone trying to save one that the people who claim to love it have allowed to deteriorate.
That's the part Beatty and her allies would rather not discuss. They want to frame this as an assault on the arts. What it looks like, from the outside, is a president who secured a quarter-billion dollars in funding, installed competent leadership, and proposed a renovation plan to restore a building that needs it.
Beatty told reporters: "I want to know where your money, our money, is going." A fair question in the abstract. But she's an ex officio member of a board that has a chairman, appointed leadership, and congressional funding already in place. Her lawsuit wasn't about transparency. If it were, she'd have been satisfied with the judge's order granting her access to documents and a seat at the table.
She wanted a vote. The court said no.
Monday's meeting will proceed. Beatty will be in the room. She'll have her documents, her speaking time, and her objections on the record. What she won't have is the power to block a renovation that Congress already funded.
Sometimes a seat at the table is exactly what it sounds like: a chair.
