Bulwark Takes - Trump’s Kennedy Center Fight Is Barreling Toward a Constitutional Showdown (w/ Nathaniel Zelinsky)

Episode Date: September 19, 2026

Bill Kristol talks with Nathaniel Zelinsky, the lead counsel challenging Trump’s efforts at the Kennedy Center, about the president’s demolition threats, the judge putting new limits on what the administration can do, and what happens if Trump simply refuses to obey a court order. Zelinsky explains why this fight over one building could become a much bigger test of the rule of law.

Hi, Bill Crystal here, editor at large at the bulwark. I'm very pleased to be joined for this special Friday afternoon podcast discussion about what's going on at the Kennedy Center by my friend, Nathaniel Solensky, who is the principal and managing counsel, the Washington Litigation Group, and the lead counsel for Representative Beatty, who's been fighting President Trump over the future of the Kennedy Center. So Nathaniel, thanks for taking 15 minutes out of your busy day to join me. It's been a week, Bill. I think you joked to me that you didn't have on your bingo card, right? Spending lots of time, like, trying to prevent the Kennedy Center from being destroyed.

You're defending civil servants. You're defending the rule of law. You're defending a million different things, you know? Yeah, it's the gift that keeps on giving. Would it help maybe just to give you an overview of what's happened and where we are? Yeah. So tell us where we are. So we're talking just so people know we are early mid-afternoon Friday and there'll be a demonstration tonight.

But so you've had court cases this week and stuff. So where do we stand? So on Tuesday, and it's been a whirlwind week, lots have happened. On Tuesday, Judge Cooper issued an order that said that the latest effort to rename the Kennedy Center violated his previous decision that he issued in May, which was very clear. The Kennedy Center is named for John F. Kennedy by law, and it can't be named for anyone else. President Trump had tried to get around that by adding his name to the Kennedy Center. This time, it was going to say, endowed by Donald Trump or restored and renovated by Donald Trump. I liken it to those hotels that are, you know, the resort by Hilton. It was going to be Kennedy Center by Trump. And what Judge Cooper said is his words were that's linguistic gymnastics. And it doesn't get around his opinion and it doesn't get around the law. Moments later, about an hour later, there was a board meeting.

And the board meeting was another effort to shutter the Kennedy Center. And these two things are linked. Donald Trump has said that he wants the Kennedy Center closed immediately. and no renovations will occur unless his name goes on the Kennedy Center. And we think that the real reason they need to shut down or want to shut down is to hide the financial mismanagement that is the direct result of his name going on the Kennedy Center. So we think these two things, the renaming and the shutdown are intimately linked. And this is all came after he took over the board a year ago, right?

Yeah, so a year ago, he takes over the board. He stocks it with loyalists. I mean, you've got Laura Ingram, you've got another Fox News host, you've got members of his administration who are on there, Steve Wynne's wife. It is a clown car of who's who of flunkies. So, you know, what ends up happening is they vote in May to shut down, or sorry, March. In May, Cooper says that wasn't lawful. And they didn't evaluate the things that a prudent board that really was doing this. would evaluate. And then they voted again in August to shut down. We don't think that was

proven either. And then on Tuesday, they were holding another vote to shut down. Now, I wasn't in the room, but my client was. She's on the board, right, as an ex-officio member. That's right. She serves because she's one of the members of Congress who serves on the board. There are a handful of folks who, by virtue of their office, serve on the board and are not presidential appointees. So it's sort of a stop gap, if you will, to the presidential appointees, the 36 of whom, you know, the president can fire and replace, you know, she cannot be fired. And so she is in the meeting. She's objecting to the shutdown and it gets very heated. And, you know, there's been a little bit of public reporting on that. And so then

we think everything is over. But then it turns out that on late Tuesday night, early Wednesday morning, they have started to shut down the Kennedy Center. The very thing that Judge Cooper had told them they couldn't do. And we filed an emergency motion in front of Judge Cooper that said they're shutting down the Kennedy Center and you said they couldn't do that. Judge Cooper ordered the government to respond by Thursday. On Wednesday night, before the government responded, photographers, obviously outside of Air Force One were able to catch a photo that had Donald

Trump in the window looking at a poster board of some kind. that said across the top, Kennedy Center demolished and then had some kind of graphic underneath it. As well, Donald Trump has been routinely threatening to demolish the Kennedy Center if he doesn't get his way. And right before he boarded Air Force One, he told the pool reporters, if my name doesn't go up there, we might have to demolish this thing. It's sort of like a, it's my, what a wonderful Kennedy Center you have there. Shame if it had to get demolished. So we brought that to Judge Cooper's attention early on Thursday, morning, even before the government filed their brief. The government filed their brief at 10 a.m.

on Thursday, we filed a reply shortly thereafter, about two hours later. I have a wonderful team of lawyers. And I should say, I'm litigating this alongside my friends at Democracy Defenders Fund or Democracy Defender's Action on whose board you sit, Bill. And so you own a little bit of the glory here. And it was an extraordinary lift on the part of our teams. We filed the reply in two hours, highlighting this new demolition threat. Judge Cooper ultimately ordered three things. He ordered that first, the government would have to appear before him or submit a sworn declaration next week attesting to the alleged safety concerns. They've said that the building has sort of immediate safety concerns that make an uninhabitable. We think those are not true.

We think that's inaccurate. It's a pretext. But Judge Cooper has said, explain to me on Wednesday of this coming week, what you find. Additionally, Judge Cooper also ordered that there not be demolition. So the technical way the order is written is that if the scope of the project is changed, including if any demolition is to occur, we have to get 30 days notice. This is really, really, really important because it means that, at least as a legal matter, Donald Trump can't do what he did to the East Wing. He can't just show up, wreck the thing, and move on, sort of making it a fiat complete. And then lastly, Judge Cooper gave us discovery into the demolition plans. So we get to know, are they planning to do demolition? What is going on? And hopefully

get to the bottom of some of us. So the case is now barreling forward on an extraordinarily expedited discovery schedule. Judge Cooper also entered that order on Wednesday, the expedited discovery schedule. So we get to get some facts finally. We got to get to the truth. And it's going to be a fair amount of work. And you think you really can get facts and get to the truth? They won't fight discovery and say it's inappropriate and they can't, you know, reveal all their internal discussions and all that kind of thing. Well, look, they've already said discovery was inappropriate. They've already tried to fight it. And I had every assessment that they're going to fight me tooth and nail as they've been fighting us tooth and nail throughout this proceeding. I mean,

you know, look, the Department of Justice has fought at every step of the way. And the president's fought at every step of the way. I mean, the president has become wholly fixation. on this. There were three separate attempts, first the initial resolution to put his name on the building, then again, the attempt in August, and there was actually an attempt that they withdrew after we notified the court in September to propose 10 different ways that his name could go on the front facade. He is fixated on this. So to be honest, I expect the Department of Justice to keep fighting us every step of the way because he is so just grotesely fixated on putting his name a memorial to a slain president who gave the last full measure of devotion in the line of duty.

It is extraordinary. And it is extraordinary that, I mean, I guess he's the president. So the whole federal government is, but they've done a good job from their point of view, I would say, of mobilizing the whole government. And this has in other areas, right? So the post office gets involved in their plans for the election. And DHS does its thing and they're doing stuff at DOD. And justice, the degree to which it's an unfair fight. I mean, I really admire what you've done and what Norm Eisen and the democracy defendants, have done, but, and luckily, been able to get the resources to fight this, but they have the huge, don't they? I mean, how big a, it makes me wonder if it weren't something of this

prominent and if Representative Beatty actually hadn't been as courageous as she's been in standing up to Trump, and she really did it kind of alone, I think, right? You can talk about that a bit if you want, but it just, it brings home to me how dangerous having a president like this in charge of the entire federal government, and unlike in the first term, having stocked the entire federal government with loyalists and having not just at the top level, but then they've stocked it down levels and levels of levels. Well, how does that look to you? You're fighting, you're litigating against the Justice Department. I'll say a few words about all those things. Yeah, I mean, I'll say two things. The first is, look, the Justice Department is the biggest law firm in the country,

if not the world. So, yes, you don't want to be going up against the Department of Justice. But, and what I will say is that the efforts to intimidate major law firms has had real consequence. There has been efforts to intimidate law firms so that, good lawyers are not in the business of suing and being on the other side of Justice Department. My law firm exists, the Washington Negation Group, because I was at a law firm, they signed a deal, and I said, I am not going to be at a firm that signs a deal with the administration. And so we founded this firm, my colleagues and I, precisely so that we could provide big law-level representation in these type of cases. So when you said, I don't think it's a fair fight,

My answer is it's not a fair fight for them on the other side. My guys outclass them. And I firmly believe that. We've been able to hire the best lawyers in the business, and I'm proud, extremely proud of the work we put forward. But you're absolutely right. There is in some of these cases there can be an imbalance because the other side has just a lot of bodies. On the other hand, we've also seen a flight of really good lawyers from the Department of Justice. I'm not going to talk about the opposing counsel I'm on in this case, but I will say generally that we've seen, you know, there has been,

and it's been publicly reported, it's been difficult for the Justice Department to recruit. Long time people have left. And I will also say that, you know, every case you tie them up here, that's another case they can't litigate. So it's a bit of a mix. You know, our side's been able to do a good job, but you're absolutely right. You know, it is, there's a bit of an imbalance. And they've been trying to create an imbalance. As to the congresswoman, she's been incredibly courageous.

She is a strong and phenomenal person who has stood up for what she believes. She has a caucus that is behind her in doing this, colleagues who are behind her in doing this. But she personally has invested time and energy and effort. And I have a deep admiration for her. Yeah, no, it's impressive. It's not as if, you know, the Kennedy Center is not in her district, so to speak. It's not like she's getting, you know, the voters in Ohio necessarily think that's great. I mean, probably approve of what she's doing, but admire her.

But no, it is. And I wish more people were willing to take on these kinds of fights. And you guys who's done a great job. But, yeah, it isn't. And as you say, maybe you have better quality, if not all the quantity that the justice whoever it has. But the degree to which, I mean, are you a little surprised? Well, how surprised are you by what's happening?

Just the whole thing. I mean, you were never for Trump. You were against him. I was, we were all in the same place. I think in January, January 20th, 22,025, which was very alarmed about what could happen in a second time. Well, I think you and I were there January 20th, 2017. So it's been a while.

Totally. But second term was going to be worse than the first and all. But I guess I'm proud to say for myself, look. looking across the government, the degree to which they have in a kind of goofy way and somewhat ham-handed way and losing a lot of good people, which is helpful, honestly, and that's that they don't get, they don't do it quite as well. The degree to which they've just pushed everything, though, at every level and in every front, so to speak, in their agenda, this is true of immigration, it's true of election subversion, this is true of just Trump's personal

obsessions with glory or whatever. That's, it's, it's pretty striking. I completely agree. I mean, And when you look at the gamut of litigation that just my firm alone is involved in and the number of precedents they're trying to overturn or institutions they're trying to destroy, it's extraordinary. I am struck, however, by how much this president is obsessed about this building. Yes, I'm saying a little bit of a lot of that. Generally about memorializing himself. I mean, you know, this is a guy who's in the middle of a war. He's got a looming debt crisis. He's got a cost of living that's just out of control.

And he's getting onto board calls. talking about putting his name on this building. And, and, you know, it's, it's like his obsession with the ballroom, right? There's some aspects of him. It has a sort of Rome is burning, you know, Nero is dancing kind of vibe. The Mad King is out. And, you know, it's just, it's extraordinary. It makes no sense to me.

And at the end of the day, you know, this case has occupied his attention in the same way it's caught the public limelight. And it's, it's, I don't quite understand why he. he's so fixated on it. Yeah, I guess they're interesting psychological theories about him and whatever. And it either shows his incredible, overweening imperial confidence in himself or the opposite, actually. You know, and I've been a little involved in the fight on the arch. We're there, too.

They're just, I mean, the degree to which it would be easier for them to, you know, slow down and go through the process. And they probably, they might be able to build that thing. If they've stacked all the relevant, just like with the Kennedy Center Award, the relevant commissions and so forth. But they're racing to do it. And actually that creates some opportunities legally for our friends, my friends, to say, well, wait a second, you're not following this rule and that one. Courts are pretty friendly, don't you think, whatever, their own views for the merits, to sort of, you know, yeah, you should follow the processes that are in law and in the books.

Well, that's much of administrative law. I mean, much of administrative law in this country is process-based. It's not, you know, outcome-determinate, but it's process-based and there are processes. And that makes sense, right? We're a rules-based country, and you're supposed to follow the rules. and within the bounds of reason you got a certain amount of policy discretion, but the rules are rules. I mean, what I will say too, right, is we're also lurching in some of these cases toward a potential constitutional crisis, because what happens if the president defies an order?

Now, I don't want that to occur, but the president has been talking about ripping down the structure. Obviously, right now, the president's been filing orders, but they've been voting to re-add his name back onto the Kennedy Center, despite being told that was unlawful by a judge. So they're skirting as close as they can to the sun without actually getting there. In other cases, they've also skirted very close. And that's very, very, very serious. I did not have on my bingo card that the Kennedy Center was going to be one where we were going to have to worry about defiance of a court order. And that might be, you know, a potential constitutional moment.

Yeah, it wasn't the one rep the most we're thinking about. And also from their point of view, I suppose that, you know, whatever, if they can establish the president in one place, they can do it. other places as well. I'm stepping back from anything you want to say about the Kennedy Senate case would be great, but also stepping back from it. I'm very curious. You're been a very close student and observer of what's been happening for the last decade as a young lawyer and a law student and a clerk and then a young lawyer and involved in a lot of these issues.

Where do you think it stands? I mean, just broadly speaking, the sort of the assault. What worries you the most about the possible successes in the assault on the rule of law? what reassures you that maybe that we will not lose things that are awfully important to this country over the next two years? I guess the thing that worries me most is the unpredictability, right? The fact that I don't know if the rules are going to get followed, I don't know in any given case whether they're going to just bold facetly lie. I mean, they've been making representations in litigation in certain cases that, you know, to me do not appear credible. And those are the kind of

breakdowns of the orderly process of litigation. And I should add, by the way, I think, think, you know, there are real questions to be had about the ethical obligations of lawyers in this moment. You know, I'm reminded of the work of people like Timothy Snyder and others who talk about, you know, in authoritarian moments, the obligation of professionals to abide by professional ethics. And so, you know, you can't lie as a lawyer. You can't mislead the court. You can't mislead your opponents. And so the unpredictability of it all concerns me. Also, the fact that the federal government has a lot of guys with guns, that concerns me, right? I mean, just, you know, you've talked about the whole of government approach.

You've got DHS. You've got the National Guard. You've got a lot of other agencies out there that have weapons. That obviously is concerning, right? Especially when you have an executive that is increasingly unbounded by the rules. The flip side, the things that make me feel good is that I think we've seen in many respects a sort of grassroots bottom-up aspect of civil society addressing the moment. I think elite lawyers have largely pulled back. We've seen lots of small law firms get involved.

I want to give you one example. I'm heartened because there's an employment law bar here in D.C. Who represents civil servants who have been fired, dozens and dozens civil servants. The employment bar in D.C., they're not people who make a lot of money. They're small firms. We're talking firms that have four or five people in them. And this is real money out of their pocket when they take on a pro bono case. there are law firms across this city, tiny, tiny firms that have stepped up.

And so that's where I get a little bit of hope every day is sort of watching people. And I'll just name a few firms, Cater Parks and Wright, Korea Puth, Gilbert, Jim Eisenman, at the Alden Law Group. These folks have done an incredible amount of pro bono work. And I think that that deserves a lot of praise. And when this history is written, it's going to be those small firms, small firms like mine and like the one that you're on the board of that are really, you know, holding the line. Well, that is heartening. And do you think among the bigger firms and the, you know, elites more broadly, do you see some erosion in some sense that maybe they've decided they went a little far in the accommodation or at least it's maybe they shouldn't keep on doing that or pull back a bit or not much yet?

I will say I haven't seen it in the law yet, right? So just taking the law firms, I have not yet seen a resurgence in law firms that are saying, oh, now we want to do this work. I'm not having them clamoring at my door and saying, can we join your cases? Can we offer you resources? There are a handful of firms that have done it. And those firms, again, deserve a lot of praise. And, you know, one firm that comes to mind is Cooley, an Elizabeth Freelager shop at Cooley has been a phenomenal, phenomenal advocate. Small firms, again, people like Paul Clement, who's really stuck to his guns. And again, you know, those two, names. One was a Solicitor General in a Blue Administration. One was a Solicitor General and a Red administration. This is a bipartisan coalition very much. But it's, you know, I haven't seen the rest of elite law show up to the fight. Looking more broadly, I'm not sure I'm seeing institutions within America necessarily start to stand up. I mean, Harvard is a notable exception, and I say that to a Harvard man, and I'm a Yale man. So I'm a bit chagranged to say that. My wife is a Harvard person. So, you know, we all, we all can claim some credit. But, but, you know, I think Harvard's a notable exception of an institution in this country that has stood up for itself. The news

networks are starting to. ABC suing, I think that's important. And I think I would hope to see more. On the flip side, you've seen a lot of groups that are basically, you know, think about the folks who gave to the ballroom. That was pretty corrupt, right? Think about all the corruption that's going on. To me, that's something that needs to be called out, and hopefully that that reverses. Yeah. We'll see. The public's been ahead of the elites in some ways. I mean, he's lost, you know, he's gone from 50% to 38%. The public's looking up and saying, this is bad, you know, and I wish more elites would have the same, but they have more of an investment in a way, I guess, right? Once you go down the path of accommodation, it's a little hard, I suppose, both psychologically and even

practically maybe to just reverse course. But what I will say is, right, at a certain point there is going to become a truth tell, right? I mean, we have to, a certain point, right, institutions that have subpoena power are going to come into existence. And, you know, whether it's a Congress that wants to get involved and subpoena, whether it's another administration in the future. And whatever the corruption is, it's going behind closed doors, that's going to come out. And so, you know, I hope that elites in America who are accommodating start thinking about it. And I also hope that, you know, there are people who are going along with the administration in government, career civil servants who are doing things that they shouldn't be doing. I hope those people are thinking about

their ethics and where they're standing. No, that's important, I think, and I'm glad we got to touch on that. There's a demonstration schedule, I think, for 630 tonight at the Kennedy Center. From your point of view, what's the demonstration happens or whatever? The action stays in the court. It's very fast, right? Next week, you're back in court? Well, you know, look, next week, the government's going to have to file something. We're going to then be on expedited discovery. We could be back in court soon. You know, we've got an appeal that's going on forward in the D.C. Circuit. So it's moving very fast and it's requiring a ton of resources and effort and time on the part of, you know, both the lawyers and my client, Congressman Beatty. So it's a full hands-on-deck operation.

But this is where we are going to outlawy the other side. And I'm very hopeful. Good. No, keep up the good work. And it's really important. It's a symbolic. I mean, it's not symbolic. It's a real place.

The Kennedy Center and it matters. But also it's an important precedent, I think, and you guys are finding it so well. So I really admire that. To my mind, it's a case that matters because even though it doesn't involve someone's life or liberty or, you know, the structures of our government, it's a very tangible, visible symbol of the rule of law and the assault of the rule of law. I mean, the law here just couldn't be clearer. And it's an effort by one man to take an institution and corrupted for his own personal aims. And so it's in many ways a visible microcosm for the American people of what they're watching in every aspect of the presidency right now under Donald Trump. That's really well said. Nathaniel, thank you for joining me. Thank you for joining us at the bulwark this afternoon. And good luck on the case. Thank you for having me, Bill.