logo
These young Oakland musicians got invited to Trump's Kennedy Center. Here's what they decided

These young Oakland musicians got invited to Trump's Kennedy Center. Here's what they decided

When President Donald Trump assumed control of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts this year, many left-leaning artists on its lineup faced a defining choice: Stay on the bill and risk forever linking their name to the president, or cancel and forfeit the chance to voice dissent from Trump's own stage.
Ahead of a Friday, July 18 concert at the flagship Washington D.C. venue, Oakland Rising faced that exact dilemma. Of the seven-person music collective, three members plan to perform, while four have opted to refrain. Each had to articulate their own principles while giving grace to others who made the opposite decision.
What's more, these musicians are taking this consequential stand at very young ages — one of its members can't even drive yet.
B DeVeaux, 24, called the Kennedy Center invitation 'a moment where you decide what side of history you're going to be on.'
That kind of predicament would have seemed unimaginable just a year ago for a youth group that only first performed at last year's Hardly Strictly Bluegrass music festival in San Francisco.
Oakland Rising was formed under the aegis of two-year-old nonprofit Follow the Music in collaboration with Hardly Strictly. The goal, said Follow the Music Executive Director Phil Green, was to 'change the narrative' around Oakland by spotlighting the prodigious talent of its young musicians, who could cycle in and out of the group as a career stepping stone. Current members' styles range from folk to jazz, bluegrass to R&B.
After national booking agents Jaime Kelsall and Bruce Solar of Paladin Artists saw clips of the collective's debut in Golden Gate Park, the pair began helping Oakland Rising secure other gigs, including at the Kennedy Center, where Paladin had a relationship that long predated the Trump administration.
'We're not Trumpers. We're the furthest thing from,' Solar told the Chronicle. But after Trump's takeover, he explained, 'It is not our choice to tell (Oakland Rising) to do it or not do it.'
Oakland Rising isn't the first to face the to-perform-or-not quandary and justify its decision publicly. In February, when Trump appointed himself chair of the center's board, decrying its previous 'woke' programming, specifically targeting LGBTQ content. These moves turned what had long been a bipartisan cultural institution into a highly politicized stage and quickly spurred many artists to withdraw any association.
In March, Lin-Manuel Miranda scrapped a run of 'Hamilton,' telling the New York Times, 'We're not going to be a part of it while it is the Trump Kennedy Center.' Meanwhile, Oakland comedian, author and TV host W. Kamau Bell went ahead with a stand-up appearance, posing a moral question in defense of his choice via his Substack: 'Is not showing up in the face of evil always the moral thing to do?'
Naima Nascimento, 15, pointed out that there's a big difference between those artists and her. They're famous, and she's not. 'If I don't do it, no one's really going to care, because no one knows who I am,' she explained. A celebrity's absence is leverage; hers would just mean she's sitting at home, influencing little.
August Lee Stevens, 25, was the third musician to decide to perform, alongside Naima and DeVeaux. She recalled asking herself, 'What is the intention behind it, and what is it that we want to say?' Done thoughtfully, it was a huge opportunity to represent themselves, their art and Oakland positively, she concluded.
'There sometimes feels like such a gap between my voice and the rest of the world,' she said. 'If I'm being presented this stage where I can go and speak up and make some kind of difference or stand on what I believe in … then I personally thought that was a good opportunity to take.'
Micaiah Dempsey, 21, was one of the Oakland Rising members who declined to perform at the Kennedy Center.
'I don't like the idea … of being censored as an artist,' she said. She sees her music as for the people, broadly defined, and 'I just couldn't picture how that would fit in to the Kennedy Center and what currently they were standing for,' referring to the administration's array of 'rash moves' and its policing of artists' free expression.
The two sides' reasonings sound similar. Both want to use their art to help others. They just came to very different conclusions about the best means to that end.
Dempsey, who notes she's 'proud' of her collaborators for their different but 'beautiful' decision, acknowledges the shared principles.
'There's a bridge, and one person went across it, and the other person said, 'You know what? I'll wait till you reach the other side,'' she said.
For the three performing in D.C., their concert might feel different than any other — the momentous decision they've made, being inside the walls of an administration they oppose.
'We're just three Black people from Oakland,' said DeVeaux, who uses gender-neutral pronouns. 'Our music and who we are, simply being on that stage is offense enough to whatever (Trump) may think he's upholding.'
DeVeaux has sung in all-white spaces before, they noted, thinking especially of a performance in Eugene, Ore., of a song they wrote called 'Queen' that's dedicated to dark-skinned women who've been told they're not good enough. Being outside of their echo chamber, they said, 'makes me go harder or makes me want to be more purposeful and more punchy.'
Three days after the Kennedy Center gig, DeVeaux, Naima and Stevens are scheduled to open for Pulitzer Prize-winning musician Rhiannon Giddens — who in February canceled her own spring Kennedy Center gig — at Mountain Winery in Saratoga.
Dempsey was philosophical about what the diverging experiences might mean for the collective.
'As artists, we have the right to protest in doing and not doing. … If (D.C.) ends up being an amazing opportunity for them, that was in their plan,' she said. 'I know my door is coming.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Donald Trump Hit By Legal Roadblock
Donald Trump Hit By Legal Roadblock

Newsweek

time2 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Donald Trump Hit By Legal Roadblock

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Trump administration suffered a legal blow on Friday when a New York district court judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking its move to cut National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) grants from Authors Guild members on First Amendment grounds. Judge Colleen McMahon issued the injunction which is expected to remain in place until the case is heard in full. Newsweek contacted the NEH and President Trump, via the White House press office, for comment on Saturday outside of regular office hours. The Context With Republicans enjoying slim majorities in both the Senate and House in addition to their control over the White House, the courts have emerged as one of the chief impediments to Trump administration policy. In recent months, courts have struck down punitive measures introduced by President Trump against legal firms previously involved in cases against him, blocked a bid to strip thousands of Haitian migrants of legal protection and struck down sanctions aimed at International Criminal Court employees. What To Know Judge McMahon's preliminary injunction prevents funds previously awarded to Authors Guild members, and subsequently removed by the Trump administration, from being reallocated until a trial is held on the merits of the case itself. The money was allocated by the NEH, a federal agency that funds research and education across the humanities, before some was stripped back by the Trump administration. President Donald Trump speaking to the media as he arrives at Glasgow Prestwick Airport on July 25, 2025 in Prestwick, Scotland, UK. President Donald Trump speaking to the media as he arrives at Glasgow Prestwick Airport on July 25, 2025 in Prestwick, Scotland, UK. Andrew Harnik/GETTY McMahon ruled much of this was politically motivated, with Termination Notices handed to intended recipients making reference to Trump Executive Orders targeting "DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] programs" and "Radical Indoctrination." She said a grant to one academic working on a book about the history of the Ku Klux Klan was flagged by the administration as being connected to DEI, while other intended recipients had grants withdrawn because they were issued under the Biden administration. A class-action lawsuit was filed by the Authors Guild against the NEH and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), formerly led by Elon Musk. What People Are Saying In her judgment McMahon said: "Defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients' perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas. This is most evident by the citation in the Termination Notices to executive orders purporting to combat 'Radical Indoctrination' and 'Radical' … DEI Programs,' and to further 'Biological Truth.'" She continued: "Far be it from this Court to deny the right of the Administration to focus NEH priorities on American history and exceptionalism as the year of our semiquincentennial approaches. "Such refocusing is ordinarily a matter of agency discretion. But agency discretion does not include discretion to violate the First Amendment. Nor does not give the Government the right to edit history." What Happens Next A trial on whether the Trump administration has the authority to strip NEH grants from Authors Guild members as it did is expected to take place in due course.

Peter Thiel's political hiatus is over. Here's where his money's flowing now.
Peter Thiel's political hiatus is over. Here's where his money's flowing now.

Business Insider

time2 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

Peter Thiel's political hiatus is over. Here's where his money's flowing now.

Peter Thiel's vacation from politics is over. The conservative tech billionaire made his first publicly disclosed political contribution in two and a half years in February, giving $852,200 to House Speaker Mike Johnson's joint fundraising committee. That group, called "Grow the Majority," then distributed almost 90% of that money to other campaigns. All told, Thiel's money has now made its way into the coffers of the Republican National Committee, House Republicans' main campaign arm, over a dozen state parties, and nearly 30 GOP House members. It's a significant shift for Thiel. After spending tens of millions of dollars to support Blake Masters and now-Vice President JD Vance during the 2022 midterms, the PayPal and Palantir cofounder came away from the experience apparently disillusioned with politics. In 2024, he even gave an interview to The Atlantic in part to lock himself into not donating to any candidate that year. "By talking to you, it makes it hard for me to change my mind," he told the interviewer. "My husband doesn't want me to give them any more money, and he's right." Vance even publicly urged Thiel to "get off the sidelines" and spend money to back Trump in the 2024 race, but no public donations ever emerged, despite his past financial support for Trump. Thiel also said last year that he would support Trump, and he predicted that the election wouldn't be close. "I've decided not to donate any money politically, but I'm supporting them in every other way possible," he said at the time. A spokesperson for Thiel did not respond to a request for comment about why the tech billionaire changed his mind. During a recent interview with The New York Times' Ross Douthat, Thiel said that he was "schizophrenic" about political giving. "I think it's incredibly important, and it's incredibly toxic," Thiel said. "So I go back and forth." Here's where Thiel's money went: $310,100 to the National Republican Congressional Committee, the main campaign arm for House Republicans; $54,600 to the Republican National Committee; $10,000 apiece to GOP state parties in 14 states, including Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin; $7,000 apiece to 29 House Republicans, most of whom represent competitive districts; $7,000 apiece to committees set up for the eventual GOP nominee in 12 other competitive House districts.

Under Trump, Uncle Sam is becoming an active investor at a scale not seen outside war or major crises
Under Trump, Uncle Sam is becoming an active investor at a scale not seen outside war or major crises

CNBC

time2 minutes ago

  • CNBC

Under Trump, Uncle Sam is becoming an active investor at a scale not seen outside war or major crises

The Trump administration has taken direct stakes in companies on a scale rarely seen in the U.S. outside wartime or economic crisis, pushing a Republican Party that traditionally championed free-market capitalism to embrace state intervention in industries viewed as important for national security. Japan's Nippon Steel agreed to give President Donald Trump a "golden share" in U.S. Steel as a condition for the two companies' controversial merger. Trump now personally wields sweeping veto power over major business decisions made by the nation's third-largest steel producer. "You know who has the golden share? I do," Trump said at a summit on artificial intelligence and energy in Pittsburgh on July 15. The president's golden share in U.S. Steel is similar to nationalizing a company but without any of the benefits that a company normally receives, such as direct investment by the government, said Sarah Bauerle Danzman, an expert on foreign investment and national security at the Atlantic Council, a think tank focused on international affairs. But the Trump administration demonstrated earlier this month that it is also willing to buy directly into publicly traded corporations. The Department of Defense agreed to purchase a $400 million equity stake in rare-earth miner MP Materials, making the Pentagon the company's largest shareholder. This level of support by the federal government for a mining company is unprecedented, said Gracelin Baskaran, an expert on critical minerals at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "This is the biggest public-private cooperation that the mining industry has ever had here in the United States," Baskaran said. "Historically, DOD has never done equity in a mining company or a mining project." Trump's unique hold over the Republican Party gives him the ability to intervene in companies on a scale that would be difficult politically for a Democratic president, Danzman said. "The Democrat would have been accused of being a communist and a lot of other Republicans probably would not have felt comfortable moving in this particular direction because of their greater commitment to market principles," Danzman said. Trump is expanding the range of what is possible in the U.S. in terms of state intervention in markets, she said. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. More interventions could be on the horizon as the Trump administration develops a policy to support U.S. companies in strategic industries against state-backed competition from China. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in April that the U.S. government might need to make an "equity investment in each of these companies that's taking on China in critical minerals." The Pentagon's investment in MP Materials is a model for future public-private partnerships, CEO James Litinsky said. "It's a new way forward to accelerate free markets, to get the supply chain on shore that we want," Litinsky told CNBC. The U.S. government is helping the mining industry fight "Chinese mercantilism," the CEO said. Meanwhile, the golden share in U.S. Steel is a potential model for foreign direct investment "transactions that really affect our national security but where it's going to be great for our economic growth," Sen. Dave McCormick, R-Pa., said in a May interview with CNBC. "Having taken a stake in US Steel and MP, we're now left to wonder where this administration will find its next investment," Don Bilson, an analyst at Gordon Haskett, wrote in a note to clients earlier this month. Trump proposed in January that the U.S. should take a 50% stake in social media app TikTok as part of a joint venture. China's ByteDance is required under a recently passed law to divest TikTok or the platform will be banned in the U.S. Trump extended ByteDance's compliance deadline until Sept. 17. The U.S. has a long history of intervening in industries, particularly where national defense is concerned, said Mark Wilson, a historian at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, who studies the military-industrial complex. But past interventions were often temporary and typically happened during war, economic crisis or took the form of bailouts to prevent a major player in a critical industry from going bankrupt. The U.S. government bought a majority stake in General Motors to prevent the automaker from collapsing in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, ultimately selling off its shares at a loss to the taxpayer. In the 1970s, defense giant Lockheed and automaker Chrysler received government bailouts. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson nationalized the railroads, but he returned them to private ownership after the conflict. The Roosevelt administration made sweeping interventions during the Great Depression and World War II, from establishing the Tennessee Valley Authority to making big investments in the nation's manufacturing capacity. The U.S. is not fighting an economic crisis or war today, but the return of great power competition with Russia and China and the supply chain disruptions of the Covid-19 pandemic have led to more nationalistic economic policies, said UNC's Wilson. The U.S. has increasingly recognized that China's economic model is based on manufacturing overcapacity that dumps products "onto global markets in ways that make it hard for other markets to compete," Danzman said. The threat posed by China's dominance of the rare-earth supply chain became apparent in April when Beijing imposed export restrictions against the U.S., Baskaran said. Within weeks, automakers warned they would have to halt production due to a rare-earth shortage, forcing the U.S. back to the negotiating table with Beijing, she said. "The historical moment we're in does seem to be one where there is this reassessment of assumptions of the previous generation about the efficacy of markets and free trade to solve all our problems in national security," Wilson said. The question is whether state intervention can solve the failure of the free market to address national security concerns in industries like rare earths, Danzman said. "When you step in to try to address one of these market failures with this kind of government intervention, you can have a cascade of new market failures," she said. "You're distorting the market more."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store