Workers erect scaffolding at the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, June 12, 2026.
Andrew Leyden | Bloomberg | Getty Images
President Donald Trump’s name must come off the facade of the Kennedy Center in Washington by Friday night, as a federal appeals court rejected a last-minute bid to block a lower-court judge’s order mandating the removal.
But the three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit left open the possibility that Trump’s name could be added back to the performing arts landmark if the Department of Justice is successful in its appeal of the lower-court judge’s decision.
Earlier Friday, D.C. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper refused to suspend his May 29 ruling that Trump’s name come off the facade by Friday night as the appeals court considered the case.
The DOJ quickly asked the appeals court to stay Cooper’s ruling even as workers set up scaffolding next to the facade to prepare to remove Trump’s name.
Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, in the DOJ’s motion seeking that stay, wrote, “It does not make sense to alter the Center’s name and signage now, only to potentially revert the name again after what should be a successful appeal.”
Hours after the filing, the appeals panel said, “It is ordered that the motion for an immediate administrative stay be denied.”
The panel included Judge Gregory Katsas, whom Trump appointed to the D.C. Circuit in 2017, as well as two judges appointed by former President Barack Obama: Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins.
The panel did not explain the reason for its decision, but directed Rep. Joyce Beatty, the Ohio Democrat who had sued Trump over the name change, to file a response to the DOJ’s emergency motion for a stay pending appeal by June 22. The DOJ was ordered to file any reply to Beatty by June 29.
Cooper, in his order earlier Friday rejecting the DOJ’s request to pause his ruling, wrote, “Defendants have not carried their burden to establish that a stay of the Court’s … permanent injunction concerning the Kennedy Center’s renaming is warranted pending an appeal of the underlying ruling to the D.C. Circuit.”
“Most notably, for the detailed reasons laid out in the Court’s ruling, Defendants have not ‘made a strong showing that [they] are likely to succeed on the merits,'” the judge wrote.
Cooper also noted that the administration has “apparently taken substantial steps toward complying” with his order that Trump’s name be removed, such as taking the president’s name off official materials at the center.
“What’s more, issuance of a stay pending appeal would not be in the public interest, which is rarely served by the ‘perpetuation’ of ‘unlawful’ governmental action.”
CNBC has requested comment from the DOJ.
The center had been renamed the Trump Kennedy Center in December, 10 months after Trump removed several trustees from the board and appointed himself as a trustee.
Beatty, who is an ex officio Kennedy Center trustee, sued to block the renaming, as well as to block the closure of the center for renovations and to reverse her being stripped of her voting rights by the board in May 2025.
Cooper, in his May 29 ruling in Beatty’s favor, wrote, “Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it.”
“The Kennedy Center’s organic statute makes crystal clear that the Center is to be named for President [John] Kennedy, and it cannot bear any other formal name or public memorial based on the Board’s unilateral say-so,” Cooper wrote.
Beatty’s lawyers, in a filing Friday morning urging the judge to maintain his order in the face of the administration’s request, wrote, “The Court should deny Defendants’ eleventh-hour request for a stay pending appeal.”
“The Court provided Defendants with an ample fourteen-day window to comply with its order or instead appeal to the D.C. Circuit,” the filing said.
“Defendants initially chose to comply, declined to appeal, and began restoring the Kennedy Center’s digital and physical footprint, consistent with the Court’s instructions. But the night before the deadline, Defendants reversed course,” the filing said. “At nearly the last possible moment, after filing a notice of appeal, they moved the Court for the ‘exceptional relief’ of a stay pending appeal.”
“This latest gambit is frivolous. The Court should deny the motion,” Beatty’s lawyers wrote.