Rep. Joyce Beatty is asking a federal judge to force the Trump administration to turn over communications about the president’s management of the Kennedy Center, arguing that executive privilege should not shield his decisions as the institution’s chair because the storied arts institution is not a part of the executive branch.
In a court filing Tuesday, the Ohio Democrat’s attorneys said the administration has improperly withheld information about President Donald Trump’s role in the decision to close the performing arts center for two years. They also pointed to a newly disclosed consultant report that they say undercuts the administration’s justification for the shutdown.
Beatty’s lawyers argued that Trump’s communications with Kennedy Center staff about renovations and the closure fall outside the scope of presidential communications privilege because he was acting as the center’s board chair, not in his capacity as president.
“It would do a terrible disservice to the rule of law—to say nothing of disserving the search for truth in this important litigation about a national memorial to a slain President—to permit Defendants to hide the ball in this way,” Beatty’s lawyers wrote, referencing the administration’s “sweeping claim of executive privilege.”
Trending
Sign up for The Washington Sun Metro newsletter for essential coverage of the D.C. region.
Beatty’s filing is the latest development in the lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s control of the Kennedy Center, including its efforts to rename the institution and close its main building for renovations.
The administration has invoked presidential communications privilege to withhold information sought by Beatty’s legal team. Her attorneys argued Tuesday that the administration has failed to adequately identify the specific communications it seeks to protect or establish that Trump personally invoked the privilege for each of them.
Beatty’s attorneys also argued that the privilege, which protects a president’s confidential deliberations, should not extend to the daily management of a performing arts institution that operates outside the executive branch.
The dispute has taken on new significance following the disclosure of a report prepared by real estate consultant JLL on Aug. 20. Beatty’s attorneys said the report, which was not provided to the Kennedy Center’s board, found that a phased renovation was feasible and appeared to contradict information presented to trustees.
The report was not disclosed to Beatty’s legal team until Oct. 19, after depositions had already taken place, according to the filing.
Beatty’s attorneys also cited a document in which JLL was told by Kennedy Center management that “Q3 2028 reopening is absolute; driven by Presidential mandate.”
The statement, they argued, raises questions about whether the two-year closure timeline was independently determined by the center’s consultants or dictated by Trump before the board considered its options.
The filing said Matt Floca, the Kennedy Center’s executive director, testified that Trump had decided on the two-year closure. Beatty’s attorneys argued that the newly disclosed JLL report was directly responsive to their discovery requests about renovation alternatives, scheduling and costs.
They also questioned why Floca did not disclose the report during his deposition, despite being asked about the consultant’s findings.
The administration has maintained that the board’s decision was supported by expert analysis. But Beatty’s attorneys said the evidence raises questions about whether the consultants’ work was independent or shaped by Trump’s preferred outcome.
Beatty’s attorneys argued that the board could have breached its responsibilities as trustees if it relied on a predetermined recommendation while ignoring evidence supporting alternatives.
The filing also renewed concerns about Trump’s threats to demolish the center if his name is not added to the building. Beatty’s attorneys said they need access to communications about those threats to determine whether the renovation plans could change based on the outcome of the separate dispute over the institution’s renaming.
Author
