The judge required notice before a Kennedy Center demolition
The September 17 order denied an emergency hearing but required written notice more than 30 days before the defendants implement a change to the project plans previously presented to the court, including demolition of the main building. It did not decide whether demolition would be lawful.
This story rests on filings in Beatty v. Trump and D.C. Preservation League v. Trump; the court's May 29 opinions; the board's August meeting record; the August 28 joint report; the September 16 scheduling order; federal statutes governing the Kennedy Center; the September 17 minute order's operative sentence as reproduced by UPI and quoted in part by Beatty's counsel; and the coverage records checked against those documents.
The September 17 minute-order text on the page comes from UPI's reproduction; Beatty's counsel quotes part of the same sentence.3116
The request and the ruling
The judge refused the hearing and added an advance-notice rule
Beatty asked for an emergency hearing after the main building closed and after the board voted to close it for renovation. The defendants answered that the immediate closure was separate from the renovation decision. Executive Director Matt Floca described it as a temporary safety measure and declared that structural deterioration created acute risks to public safety. He said the initial closure would last seven days unless extended.145
Beatty asked for an emergency hearing after the main building closed and after the board voted to close it for renovation. The defendants answered that the immediate closure was separate from the renovation decision. Executive Director Matt Floca described it as a temporary safety measure and declared that structural deterioration created acute risks to public safety. He said the initial closure would last seven days unless extended.145
5Declaration of Charles Matthew Flocaacute risks to public safety resulting from continued structural deteriorationwhich will last for seven days, unless extended
The filing also put two public signals before Cooper. Trump had told reporters that without recognition for his administration's role in the renovation and fundraising, the building would close and end up being ripped down. The filing included a photograph of him reading a placard that appeared to say “Kennedy Center DEMOLISHED.” ABC reported that the published images did not show the entire placard and that the visible word was cut off at “DEMOLIS.” A Kennedy Center spokesperson separately said that nothing was being demolished.32934
The filing also put two public signals before Cooper. Trump had told reporters that without recognition for his administration's role in the renovation and fundraising, the building would close and end up being ripped down. The filing included a photograph of him reading a placard that appeared to say “Kennedy Center DEMOLISHED.” ABC reported that the published images did not show the entire placard and that the visible word was cut off at “DEMOLIS.” A Kennedy Center spokesperson separately said that nothing was being demolished.32934
Cooper denied the hearing. He nevertheless ordered the defendants to give plaintiffs in both cases written notice before implementing a covered change.31
Cooper denied the hearing. He nevertheless ordered the defendants to give plaintiffs in both cases written notice before implementing a covered change.31
31UPI on the notice orderBeatty's request for a hearing was deniedprovide such notice in writing to Plaintiffs in both cases
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper·September 17, 2026·Minute order, as reproduced by UPI; bracketed explanations are UPI's
To avoid any confusion on that score given more recent events, the Court hereby ORDERS Defendants [the Kennedy Center board] to provide such notice in writing to Plaintiffs in both cases more than 30 days before the implementation of any changes to the scope of the project plans presented to the Court in D.C. Preservation League [a separate case], including but not limited to any 'demolition' of the Center's main building.31
The order also required the administration to update Cooper by September 23 on the status of the temporary closure and emergency repairs.29 Beatty's counsel said Cooper “ordered discovery into the Board’s actions related to a potential demolition.”16 UPI published only an excerpt of the order; the “ordered discovery” wording is counsel's account.31
The order also required the administration to update Cooper by September 23 on the status of the temporary closure and emergency repairs.29
Beatty's counsel said Cooper “ordered discovery into the Board’s actions related to a potential demolition.”16
UPI published only an excerpt of the order; the “ordered discovery” wording is counsel's account.31
The court had relied on a promise of no full demolition or rebuilding
In May, Cooper denied preliminary relief in the preservation case after considering sworn statements about the project. The opinion said the building's footprint and overall shape and size seemed unlikely to change permanently, and it described the anticipated open-space changes as relatively limited. The court said those findings were tentative and could change if the facts changed.9
In May, Cooper denied preliminary relief in the preservation case after considering sworn statements about the project. The opinion said the building's footprint and overall shape and size seemed unlikely to change permanently, and it described the anticipated open-space changes as relatively limited. The court said those findings were tentative and could change if the facts changed.9
In May, Cooper proceeded on the understanding that full demolition and a complete rebuilding were not in the cards.9 In September, his order required more than 30 days' notice before the defendants changed the scope of the project plans presented in that case, including demolition.31 The May opinion said that if the Center were slated to be demolished and rebuilt, the League “might have a strong ultra vires claim” under the federal law requiring express congressional authority before a building is erected on federal public grounds in Washington.9
In May, Cooper proceeded on the understanding that full demolition and a complete rebuilding were not in the cards.9
In September, his order required more than 30 days' notice before the defendants changed the scope of the project plans presented in that case, including demolition.31
The May opinion said that if the Center were slated to be demolished and rebuilt, the League “might have a strong ultra vires claim” under the federal law requiring express congressional authority before a building is erected on federal public grounds in Washington.9
31UPI on the notice ordermore than 30 days before the implementation of any changes to the scope of the project plans presented to the Court
The opinion called it “far-fetched” to read the roughly $257 million appropriation for repair, restoration, the maintenance backlog and security structures as congressional approval of demolition and rebuilding.9
The opinion called it “far-fetched” to read the roughly $257 million appropriation for repair, restoration, the maintenance backlog and security structures as congressional approval of demolition and rebuilding.9
On August 24, the Justice Department argued that without the administration's work and recognition, the Center would deteriorate until it was “required to be taken down.” The filing said some people had proposed replacing it with a large outdoor amphitheater overlooking the Potomac River.22
On August 24, the Justice Department argued that without the administration's work and recognition, the Center would deteriorate until it was “required to be taken down.” The filing said some people had proposed replacing it with a large outdoor amphitheater overlooking the Potomac River.22
The parties' August 28 joint report made the relevant promise explicit: the defendants would inform the plaintiffs and the court if the board's plans reversed the position that the building would not be demolished and no new structure would be built.7
The parties' August 28 joint report made the relevant promise explicit: the defendants would inform the plaintiffs and the court if the board's plans reversed the position that the building would not be demolished and no new structure would be built.7
7Joint meet-and-confer reportDefendants have pledged to inform Plaintiffs and the Courtbuilding will not be demolished and that no new structure will be constructed
Congress appropriated about $257 million for capital repair, restoration, the maintenance backlog and security structures, with the money available through September 30, 2029.28
Congress appropriated about $257 million for capital repair, restoration, the maintenance backlog and security structures, with the money available through September 30, 2029.28
The Atlantic reported that the new tax filing showed more than $516 million in total revenue and a $48 million bad-debt expense, that program-service revenue fell from nearly $105 million to about $89 million, and that the annual audit was unfinished.37
The Atlantic reported that the new tax filing showed more than $516 million in total revenue and a $48 million bad-debt expense, that program-service revenue fell from nearly $105 million to about $89 million, and that the annual audit was unfinished.37
37The Atlantic on the Kennedy Center tax returnmore than $516 million in total revenue$48 million “bad debt expense,”Program-service revenuethe annual audit was not completed by the time of filing
The August minutes say that keeping the main building partly open would leave the appropriation covering only about half of the work, with a $124 million shortfall after utilities. The minutes put the closure estimate at about $285 million.13
The August minutes say that keeping the main building partly open would leave the appropriation covering only about half of the work, with a $124 million shortfall after utilities. The minutes put the closure estimate at about $285 million.13
How the notice order aroseThe dated sequence in the court and board records.
DateDecision
Sept. 2025The Center says renovation work has begun. It announces work on the building's columns; the court later says staff apparently sought no federal planning-agency input for that work.
Feb. 1Trump announces a two-year closure proposal. He says the main building would close for construction starting in July, subject to board approval.
March 16The board votes on the closure proposal. The May opinion later enjoins implementation of this vote.
May 29The court denies preliminary relief in the preservation case. The ruling relies on sworn representations that the main building would not be demolished and no new structure would be built.
Aug. 13The board votes 23 to 3 to close the main building for renovation. Programming would continue at the Center's expansion campus, known as the REACH, and off site.
Aug. 28The parties file a joint status report. The defendants again say the building will not be demolished and no new structure will be constructed.
Sept. 15The board votes again to close the main building. Its chairman says renovation is to wait while an appeal proceeds.
Sept. 16The main building closes temporarily. The executive director says the initial safety closure will last seven days unless extended.
Sept. 17The judge denies an emergency hearing and orders advance notice. Covered project-scope changes require written notice more than 30 days before implementation.
Sept. 23Status report due. The court requires a sworn declaration addressing the temporary closure and emergency repairs.
What changes in practice
The plaintiffs get warning; the parties dispute the immediate safety closure
The reproduced order gives the plaintiffs in both cases a warning period before the defendants implement a covered project-scope change. It adds written notice to the earlier pledge to report a reversal of the position against full demolition or rebuilding.317
The reproduced order gives the plaintiffs in both cases a warning period before the defendants implement a covered project-scope change. It adds written notice to the earlier pledge to report a reversal of the position against full demolition or rebuilding.317
The May opinion records Floca's estimate that between 75 and 175 of roughly 300 employees would be affected by the closure. It also says several performance contracts would be affected, the Center had laid off at least 2 groups of staff including programming personnel, and 10 programming staff remained.10
The May opinion records Floca's estimate that between 75 and 175 of roughly 300 employees would be affected by the closure. It also says several performance contracts would be affected, the Center had laid off at least 2 groups of staff including programming personnel, and 10 programming staff remained.10
10Memorandum opinion in Beatty v. Trump75 to 175 of roughly 300 employees at the Center would be affectedThe closure will affect several existing performance contractslaid off at least two tranches of staff membersjust ten members of the programming staff remain
The opinion also identifies lost ticket and tourist revenue, trouble retaining audiences, the possible permanent loss of specialized arts professionals and long-term donor attrition among the downsides described in sworn testimony.10
The opinion also identifies lost ticket and tourist revenue, trouble retaining audiences, the possible permanent loss of specialized arts professionals and long-term donor attrition among the downsides described in sworn testimony.10
10Memorandum opinion in Beatty v. Trumplost ticket and tourist revenue; chronic challenges in audience retentionpotentially permanent loss of highly-specialized arts professionals; and long-term attrition of donors
The August board plan keeps the REACH, the Center's expansion campus, open for educational and artistic programming, supports National Symphony Orchestra performances at off-site venues, and moves the Kennedy Center Honors and Mark Twain Prize off site while the main building is closed.1013 The plan also moves the Kennedy memorial to the REACH and says it will remain open to the public.13
The August board plan keeps the REACH, the Center's expansion campus, open for educational and artistic programming, supports National Symphony Orchestra performances at off-site venues, and moves the Kennedy Center Honors and Mark Twain Prize off site while the main building is closed.1013
The plan also moves the Kennedy memorial to the REACH and says it will remain open to the public.13
13Kennedy Center board meeting minutesshall continue to present educational and artistic programming at the REACHthose performances offsiteKennedy Center Honors and the Mark Twain Prize for American Humorthe Memorial to President John F. Kennedy be temporarily relocated to the REACH where it will remain open to the public
In a public statement, the 8 preservation plaintiffs said the court should consider a receiver or replacement leadership if the Center's leaders would not protect the building. They also named a limited receiver, independent monitor or other neutral officer. They framed those measures as steps for the court to consider.23
In a public statement, the 8 preservation plaintiffs said the court should consider a receiver or replacement leadership if the Center's leaders would not protect the building. They also named a limited receiver, independent monitor or other neutral officer. They framed those measures as steps for the court to consider.23
23Preservation plaintiffs’ public statementthe court should consider appointing a receiver or replacing that leadershipa receiver, limited receiver, independent monitor, or other neutral officer
The defendants called the September 16 safety closure separate from the renovation decision. Floca's staff email said the closure would let operations staff determine whether another severe safety incident was imminent and said it was not a decision to carry out the board's separate renovation-closure vote.25 Beatty's reply answered with a chronology: the building remained open for 12 days after the September 4 plaster fall, the Walter P Moore analysis dated from June and July, and the defendants identified no meaningfully new information between the incident and the closure. The closure came the day after the board vote.46
The defendants called the September 16 safety closure separate from the renovation decision. Floca's staff email said the closure would let operations staff determine whether another severe safety incident was imminent and said it was not a decision to carry out the board's separate renovation-closure vote.25
Beatty's reply answered with a chronology: the building remained open for 12 days after the September 4 plaster fall, the Walter P Moore analysis dated from June and July, and the defendants identified no meaningfully new information between the incident and the closure. The closure came the day after the board vote.46
25Matt Floca’s staff emaildetermine whether any other severe safety incident is imminentthis is not a decision to effectuate the Board's separate vote
6Plaintiff’s reply in support of an emergency hearingkept the building open for twelve days after September 4identified no meaningfully new informationwas completed in June and July of 2026immediately followed the Board’s closure vote
Floca identified two immediate safety grounds: an engineering assessment of the roof-terrace canopy and the September 4 failure of a five-by-four-foot piece of ceiling plaster after water damage. The same declaration reported severe corrosion in 46 of 278 panels and said one-third of the panels required immediate replacement.5 Cooper denied the requested hearing. Neither UPI's reproduced order text nor counsel's release reports a resolution of the parties' factual dispute.3116
Floca identified two immediate safety grounds: an engineering assessment of the roof-terrace canopy and the September 4 failure of a five-by-four-foot piece of ceiling plaster after water damage. The same declaration reported severe corrosion in 46 of 278 panels and said one-third of the panels required immediate replacement.5
Cooper denied the requested hearing. Neither UPI's reproduced order text nor counsel's release reports a resolution of the parties' factual dispute.3116
5Declaration of Charles Matthew Flocaa roof terrace canopy assessmentfailure of a five-by-four-foot piece of one-inch-thick ceiling plaster on September 4severe corrosion in 46 panelsOne-third of all panels require immediate replacement
Bridget Kennedy-Bailey, whose declaration supported Beatty's motion, said she saw fencing block the building and saw a forklift hit exterior pillars several times.2
Bridget Kennedy-Bailey, whose declaration supported Beatty's motion, said she saw fencing block the building and saw a forklift hit exterior pillars several times.2
The board's August minutes record 26 votes cast: 23 in favor and 3 opposed. Another 2 trustees were present but did not vote, and several were absent. The resolution directed closure of the main building for restoration and renovation and authorized legal steps to dissolve the injunction that prevented that closure.13
The board's August minutes record 26 votes cast: 23 in favor and 3 opposed. Another 2 trustees were present but did not vote, and several were absent. The resolution directed closure of the main building for restoration and renovation and authorized legal steps to dissolve the injunction that prevented that closure.13
13Kennedy Center board meeting minutesMotion carried by roll call, 23 in favor, 3 opposedPresent, not votingseeking to dissolve the preliminary injunction
That vote came with acknowledged gaps. Beatty said she received 2 slides 2 days before the meeting, Whitehouse listed 6 baseline requirements, and Larsen said the board lacked the full four-year analysis. The defendants later said the full Delta report went to trustees on August 31.1320
That vote came with acknowledged gaps. Beatty said she received 2 slides 2 days before the meeting, Whitehouse listed 6 baseline requirements, and Larsen said the board lacked the full four-year analysis. The defendants later said the full Delta report went to trustees on August 31.1320
13Kennedy Center board meeting minutesonly two PowerPoint slides, received two days priorsummarizing his request in six pointscharacterized these as baseline requirementsdid not have the full four-year analysis
What the coverage got right, and what it got wrong
The notice-order check uses 6 coverage records. 3 receive verdict cards below. ABC supplied the status-report detail and the placard limitation; CBS carried the Center's no-demolition response; and the earlier USA Today report carried Trump's ripped-down remark, which was checked against the filing that put it before the court. Another 2 AP reports document the next-day protest and Trump's response to a demolition question.29343233536
Associated Press via PBS NewsHour, September 17, 2026
reported that the order required 30 days' notice before any major physical change. It identified the recognition proposals as an inscription crediting Trump with the renovation and restoration, a second inscription conditional on the Trump Kennedy Center Fund reaching $100 million, and President Donald J. Trump Plaza, then said all three were shot down.
Mislabeled. The notice description is too broad: the order says more than 30 days and follows the project scope presented to the court.
The recognition account is wrong: two proposals were enjoined, while the endowment inscription request was denied as unripe.
33USA Today on the notice orderblocked President Donald Trump from taking immediate action to demolish the Kennedy Center
The next dated steps
The closure and renovation claims moved onto separate tracks
The existing scheduling order had already opened expedited discovery on Beatty's closure claim. It set September 23 deadlines for written discovery requests and deposition notices, September 30 for written responses, October 7 for completed depositions and October 9 for the close of discovery.15
The existing scheduling order had already opened expedited discovery on Beatty's closure claim. It set September 23 deadlines for written discovery requests and deposition notices, September 30 for written responses, October 7 for completed depositions and October 9 for the close of discovery.15
The September 17 order added the update and advance-notice requirements. The September 16 scheduling order separately set deadlines for a motion to vacate the preliminary injunction and for discovery on the closure claim.163115
The September 17 order added the update and advance-notice requirements. The September 16 scheduling order separately set deadlines for a motion to vacate the preliminary injunction and for discovery on the closure claim.163115
On September 18, the defendants filed a motion to dissolve the May preliminary injunction and a renewed motion for partial summary judgment on Beatty's remaining closure and construction claims.1718
On September 18, the defendants filed a motion to dissolve the May preliminary injunction and a renewed motion for partial summary judgment on Beatty's remaining closure and construction claims.1718
Floca says management distributed a packet on September 13 for discussion at the September 15 board meeting and attached it to his declaration as Exhibit B. The declaration dates the packet to the closure deliberations but does not reproduce its contents or identify the recognition proposal.21
Floca says management distributed a packet on September 13 for discussion at the September 15 board meeting and attached it to his declaration as Exhibit B. The declaration dates the packet to the closure deliberations but does not reproduce its contents or identify the recognition proposal.21
The defense filings agree that the board voted again to close the main building, but they quote the timing differently. The statement of facts says it would close to patrons immediately; the supporting memorandum says closure would follow dissolution of the preliminary injunction.2019
The defense filings agree that the board voted again to close the main building, but they quote the timing differently. The statement of facts says it would close to patrons immediately; the supporting memorandum says closure would follow dissolution of the preliminary injunction.2019
The defendants argued that phased closure would create a $300 million funding shortfall, compared with less than $30 million for full closure. These were the defendants' assertions. Floca's declaration identifies an earlier JLL plan and Delta presentation as filed under seal. It says the finalized Delta report and certain appendices were attached as Exhibit A, while appendices with sensitive architectural drawings were excluded.1921
The defendants argued that phased closure would create a $300 million funding shortfall, compared with less than $30 million for full closure. These were the defendants' assertions. Floca's declaration identifies an earlier JLL plan and Delta presentation as filed under seal. It says the finalized Delta report and certain appendices were attached as Exhibit A, while appendices with sensitive architectural drawings were excluded.1921
21September 18 declaration of Charles Matthew Flocaappears under seal on the docketcorrect copy of that report and certain of its appendices is attached to this declaration asappendices that contain sensitive architectural drawings
Later on September 18, thousands joined the Hands Around the Kennedy Center protest, and some formed a human chain around the building. The organizer invited artists, patrons, staff members, union members and volunteers.3524 AP also reported that Duke Ellington students had lost access to Washington National Opera costumes and Millennium Stage performances.35
Later on September 18, thousands joined the Hands Around the Kennedy Center protest, and some formed a human chain around the building. The organizer invited artists, patrons, staff members, union members and volunteers.3524
AP also reported that Duke Ellington students had lost access to Washington National Opera costumes and Millennium Stage performances.35
35Associated Press report on the Kennedy Center protestThousands of people joined outsideformed a human chain around the centerborrowed the beautiful costumes and the beautiful dresses from the Washington National Operaperformed on the center’s Millennium Stage
As of September 19, the filings admitted for this story, including the attachments captured September 18, the declarations and the defense filings, and the coverage saved for this story through that date contain no approved change to the project's scope or demolition plan. Floca's declaration says the earlier JLL report and Delta presentation remained under seal. It also says the finalized Delta report and some appendices were filed as Exhibit A.
As of September 19, the two defense filings do not establish which closure condition appears in the September 15 preliminary minutes; the minutes themselves are not among the records. The two defense filings quote the resolution differently.
Trump's intent remained unresolved on September 18. The Associated Press reported that he did not directly respond when asked whether he planned to demolish the theater.36
Everything this page rests on, numbered where the story cites it. We keep a dated copy of each one.
Primary documents
1Plaintiff motion for an emergency hearing · U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2026-09-16 · Beatty’s request for an emergency hearing over the closure
2Declaration of Bridget Kennedy-Bailey · U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2026-09-16 · firsthand observations submitted with the emergency motion
3Notice of supplemental authority · U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2026-09-17 · the demolition placard and statements put before the court
5Declaration of Charles Matthew Floca · U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2026-09-17 · the sworn safety basis and initial duration of the closure
7Joint meet-and-confer report · U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2026-08-28 · the defendants’ no-demolition and no-new-structure position
8Preservation plaintiffs’ addendum · U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2026-08-28 · the preservation plaintiffs’ contemporaneous response
10Memorandum opinion in Beatty v. Trump · U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2026-05-29 · the closure baseline, employee estimate and practical effects identified in the record
13Kennedy Center board meeting minutes · Kennedy Center Board of Trustees, 2026-08-13 · the closure resolution, vote and acknowledged gaps in the decision materials
14Notice of the September 15 board vote · U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2026-09-15 · the second board action before the emergency motion
19Defendants’ consolidated supporting memorandum · U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2026-09-18 · the funding-shortfall comparison and closure condition quoted in the supporting memorandum
20Defendants’ statement of material facts · U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2026-09-18 · the Delta chronology and immediate-closure language quoted in the statement of facts
21September 18 declaration of Charles Matthew Floca · U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2026-09-18 · the sealed JLL plan and Delta presentation, filed Delta report and appendices, and trustee packet