Republicans Seek To Rename Kennedy Center Opera House For Melania Trump
Republicans in the US House of Representatives sought Tuesday to rename the opera house in Washington's John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts after First Lady Melania Trump.
The Republican-led House Appropriations Committee voted to advance language that would condition funding for Washington's premier cultural institution on the name change as it debated the 2026 budget.
Idaho congressman Mike Simpson, who introduced an amendment to call the venue the "First Lady Melania Trump Opera House," said it was an "excellent way to recognize her support and commitment to promoting the arts."
The move marked the latest front in President Donald Trump's hostile takeover of the Kennedy Center, after he fired board members in February and appointed himself chairman, and replaced its longtime president with ally Richard Grenell.
Trump, who accused the institution of being too "woke," also picked White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino and Second Lady Usha Vance to serve as trustees.
The president was met with cheers and boos at the center in June as he attended an opening night performance of hit musical "Les Miserables."
Republicans have been keen to flatter Trump and help the president cement his legacy in his second term, including by introducing legislation to rename the capital region's Dulles International Airport after him.
There have also been efforts in Congress to replace Benjamin Franklin with Trump on the $100 bill, to carve Trump's likeness on the iconic Mount Rushmore, to name a national holiday after him and to reimagine Washington's Metro train service as the Trump Train.
The Kennedy Center change was added to legislation principally providing 2026 funding for the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency.
But the 2,364-seat theater -- the second-largest at the Kennedy Center complex -- would only get its new designation if the change was approved by both chambers of Congress.
Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate and spending bills require 60 votes to pass, meaning Democrats may be able to strip the name change out of the text before any final vote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
22 minutes ago
- India Today
Trump warns of 'higher tariffs' if countries fail to open markets to US products
US President Donald Trump has once again warned that countries refusing to open their markets to American products will face even higher tariffs. On Wednesday, several nations, including South Korea, rushed to finalise trade agreements with the US before the August 1 negotiation a strongly worded post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump stated, "I WILL ONLY LOWER TARIFFS IF A COUNTRY AGREES TO OPEN ITS MARKET. IF NOT, MUCH HIGHER TARIFFS! Japan's Markets are now OPEN (for first time ever!). USA BUSINESSES WILL BOOM!"advertisementHis post came just a day after he announced a new trade deal with Japan, which includes a 15 percent "reciprocal" tariff on Japanese goods entering the United States. This new rate is 10 percentage points lower than what had previously been announced. According to Trump, Japan will invest USD 550 billion in the US, with 90% of the profits going to the United GREAT POWER OF TARIFFS: TRUMPTrump also defended his use of tariffs as a negotiation tool. In another post, he wrote: "Another great power of Tariffs. Without them, it would be impossible to get countries to OPEN UP!!! ALWAYS, ZERO TARIFFS TO AMERICA!!!" The president has been arguing that tariffs help create leverage in international trade talks, forcing other countries to remove trade barriers and give US businesses a fair shot in foreign markets. According to Trump, the goal is always to eliminate tariffs altogether—but only when other nations do the approach is putting pressure on countries like South Korea, which is working to avoid the harsh consequences of US tariffs. The Korean government is particularly concerned about proposed 25 percent reciprocal tariffs, as well as separate duties on steel, aluminium, and automobile exports. These sectors form the backbone of South Korea's economy, which heavily relies on House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt backed Trump's remarks during a press briefing. She said, "If not, they will continue to face tariffs and pay a steep price to do business in the United States of America, which remains the best market on the face of the planet."- EndsTune InMust Watch
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
22 minutes ago
- First Post
EU, US inch closer to 15% trade deal amid looming tariff threats
The European Union and the United States are heading towards a trade deal that would result in a broad tariff of 15% applying to EU goods imported into the United States. read more The European Union and the United States are nearing a trade agreement that would introduce 15 per cent tariffs on European imports, mirroring a deal struck earlier this week between US President Donald Trump and Japan, the Financial Times reported on Wednesday. While negotiations continue, the EU is also preparing a countermeasure, a potential 93 billion euro ($109 billion) package of retaliatory tariffs with rates reaching up to 30 per cent should talks fail to produce a deal before the August 1 deadline, the report said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Neither the White House nor a European Union spokesperson responded to Reuters' requests for comment. Reuters also said it could not independently confirm the FT report. Earlier on Wednesday, the European Commission reiterated that its priority remains finding a negotiated settlement with Washington to avoid the 30 per cent tariffs President Trump has threatened to impose on EU goods beginning August 1. In 2024, US imports of vehicles and auto parts from Japan exceeded $55 billion, while the figure from the EU stood at 47.3 billion euros ($55.45 billion). By contrast, US-made cars have a limited share in both the EU and Japanese markets.
The Hindu
22 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Danger of thought: on the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill
The Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024 follows the disturbing pattern of executive overreach in the name of security. Existing laws are often misused against political opponents and critics of the ruling party, including commentators. Charges are often vague and sweeping, and the process itself becomes the punishment in many of these cases. Given this pattern, the move by Maharashtra's Mahayuti government led by the BJP to create an entire law to criminalise a certain kind of thought portends danger to freedom and democracy. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has said that the new law would only target those who try to undermine the constitutional order, but the possibility — indeed the probability — of its misuse is apparent. The State says that it is seeking to prevent Maoists from brainwashing youth, professionals, and civil servants through front organisations. As in the proposed law, which is now awaiting the assent of the Governor before coming into force, the State government can declare any suspect 'organisation' as an 'unlawful organisation'. Offences under the proposed law include membership of such organisations, fundraising on their behalf, managing or assisting them, and committing unlawful activities. The Bill's focus is on people and organisations that act as a front for Maoists, and what is unlawful is so broadly defined that anyone can be its target. Among other things, according to the Bill, 'unlawful' is 'any action taken by an individual or organization whether by committing an act or by words either spoken or written or by sign or by visible representation or otherwise, which constitute a danger or menace to public order, peace and tranquility'. Offences are cognisable and the accused can be arrested without a warrant. Punishment includes jail terms of two years to seven years, along with fines ranging from ₹2 lakh to ₹5 lakh. The State argues that Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha have enacted Public Security Acts and banned 48 Naxal frontal organisations. The Opposition parties offered feeble resistance to the Bill and raised some broad concerns regarding its misuse but it was passed in the Assembly through a voice vote. As an afterthought, the Congress and the Shiv Sena (UBT) protested on the floor when it was taken up in the Legislative Council. The Bill had gone through a long deliberative process, but as it turns out, all parties appeared to be in agreement, barring the lone CPI (M) MLA who protested against it on the floor of the Assembly. The idea that thought and speech, howsoever unpalatable they might be to the ruling establishment, should be policed poses a grave danger for India as an open society.
