Judge denies last-minute bid to keep Trump's name on Kennedy Center

A federal judge has denied the Trump administration's final bid to keep President Trump's name displayed on the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, upholding a previous order for its removal.

U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper rejected a request for a stay of his permanent injunction pending appeal. Cooper ruled last month that the addition of President Trump's name to the center was illegal and set Friday, June 12, 2026, as the deadline for compliance. His decision on Friday means the order will not be paused, and the name must come down as mandated. "Most notably, for the detailed reasons laid out in the Court's [initial] ruling, Defendants have not 'made a strong showing that [they] are likely to succeed on the merits' of any appeal," the judge wrote in his brief order, adding, "Nor have Defendants demonstrated that they 'will be irreparably injured absent a stay.'"

The Trump administration had appealed the ruling on Thursday. The Kennedy Center, managed by a board of trustees aligned with Trump, voted in December to rename the institution the Trump-Kennedy Center. This decision was challenged in court by a Democratic member of Congress serving on the board. In May, Cooper ruled that only Congress possesses the authority to approve such a name change.

In anticipation of the deadline, workers were observed erecting scaffolding outside the building on Friday. The Kennedy Center's website has already begun scrubbing the president's name from much of its online content. Lawyers for the center had previously instructed staff to commence the process of reverting the facility's name to its original title, according to a memo obtained by CBS News. Cooper's original order also blocked plans for a nearly two-year renovation closure of the center.

“

Most notably, for the detailed reasons laid out in the Court's [initial] ruling, Defendants have not 'made a strong showing that [they] are likely to succeed on the merits' of any appeal. Nor have Defendants demonstrated that they 'will be irreparably injured absent a stay.'