CNN anchor Abby Phillip caught Republican strategist Scott Jennings visibly off guard during Friday night’s broadcast of CNN NewsNight, after pressing him on the long-term implications of President Donald Trump’s controversial decision to rename the Kennedy Center to include his own name. What began as a defense of the president’s move quickly turned into a broader debate about precedent, historical memorials, and how far political power can stretch when it comes to reshaping national symbols.
The exchange followed last week’s announcement by Trump that the board of the Kennedy Center—an institution he now chairs—had voted to rename the venue the Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts. For simplicity, the president and his allies have already begun referring to it as the Trump-Kennedy Center. Within a day of the announcement, Trump’s name was physically added to the building, underscoring the speed and confidence with which the change was implemented.
The decision immediately drew scrutiny, not only because of the symbolic weight of the Kennedy Center, but also because of the makeup of its board. Trump has filled the board with close allies and loyalists, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and Fox News host Laura Ingraham. Critics have argued that the vote reflected political allegiance rather than a consensus rooted in tradition or cultural stewardship.
On NewsNight, Phillip zeroed in on what she saw as the larger issue: precedent. Rather than debating Trump’s motives directly, she asked Jennings to consider what might happen when a future Democratic president decides to follow the same logic. Phillip posed a hypothetical scenario in which a Democratic administration arbitrarily renames national landmarks, invoking examples like adding Barack Obama’s name to monuments unrelated to him or slapping Bill Clinton’s name onto historic sites.
Jennings responded sharply, framing such a move as absurd. He suggested that a Democrat putting Obama’s name on a statue that doesn’t depict him would make them look “like the stupidest person that ever lived.” His answer leaned heavily on the distinction between statues and other types of memorials, implying that likeness and physical representation were the key factors in determining what constitutes appropriate naming.
Phillip, however, was quick to challenge that framing. She pointed out that the Kennedy Center is not just a building but a congressionally designated memorial. In 1964, Congress officially named the center in honor of John F. Kennedy, who had been assassinated the year before. The act of Congress explicitly described the center as a “living memorial” to Kennedy, intended to serve as the sole national monument to his memory within Washington, D.C., and its surrounding areas.
When Jennings insisted that the Lincoln Memorial, by contrast, contains a statue and a likeness, Phillip countered that the core purpose remains the same. She argued that the Kennedy Center functions as a memorial to JFK in the same way that the Lincoln Memorial serves as a memorial to Abraham Lincoln. The absence of a statue, she suggested, does not diminish the memorial status or the historical intent behind the naming.
As the exchange continued, Phillip pressed Jennings on whether Republicans would truly be comfortable if a future Democratic president began adding their own name—or the names of party icons—to existing memorials. Jennings, rather than backing away, doubled down. He said he would be ready for Democrats to “misname every statue in America,” adding sarcastically that such actions would only help prove Phillip’s point and, in his view, damage the Democratic Party politically.
The moment was notable not just for its sharp back-and-forth, but for how clearly it exposed the underlying tension surrounding Trump’s decision. At the heart of the debate is a question about whether cultural institutions and memorials should remain insulated from personal political branding, or whether they are fair game for reinterpretation by those in power.
The Kennedy Center’s history makes that question especially charged. Established as a national cultural hub, the center was intended to honor Kennedy’s legacy by promoting the performing arts, reflecting his belief in the importance of culture to public life. The congressional resolution that named the center was explicit in its intent, emphasizing that it would stand as the singular national memorial to JFK in the capital.
By adding Trump’s name to the institution, critics argue, that original purpose has been diluted. Supporters, on the other hand, frame the move as a modernization or expansion of the center’s identity under Trump’s leadership. Jennings’ defense on NewsNight echoed that perspective, treating the controversy as overblown and suggesting that any future misuse of naming power by Democrats would ultimately backfire on them.
The debate also comes amid a broader pattern of symbolic moves by Trump that blur the line between governance and personal branding. Earlier this month, Trump announced that a new class of U.S. battleships would be named after him, a departure from longstanding naval traditions. He went a step further by saying he would be personally involved in their design, explaining that he considers himself “a very aesthetic person.”
Taken together, these actions have fueled criticism that Trump is reshaping public institutions in ways that center his own legacy. Supporters see this as confidence and decisiveness, while opponents view it as an unprecedented personalization of national symbols. The exchange between Phillip and Jennings captured that divide in real time, with Phillip grounding her questions in historical precedent and Jennings responding with partisan bravado.
What made the moment particularly striking was Phillip’s ability to steer the conversation back to facts and context. By reminding viewers that the Kennedy Center is not merely a building but a congressionally named memorial, she reframed the debate away from abstract hypotheticals and toward the concrete legal and historical realities of the institution.
As the controversy continues, it’s clear that the renaming of the Kennedy Center is about more than signage or titles. It has become a flashpoint in a larger cultural and political struggle over who gets to define national memory, how history is honored, and whether power should ever be used to place one’s own name alongside—or above—that of a fallen president.
Whether future administrations will test the precedent Trump has set remains to be seen. What is certain is that the conversation ignited on CNN NewsNight reflects a deeper unease about the boundaries of political authority and the permanence of America’s most cherished memorials.
