The removal of Donald Trump’s name from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts has sent tremors through the British heritage sector. The Washington institution, a symbol of American cultural diplomacy, voted to excise the former president’s association following his role in the January 6 Capitol breach. The decision, unprecedented in the centre’s history, has reignited debates in the United Kingdom about the governance of cultural assets and the politicisation of public spaces.
The Kennedy Center’s board acted with near unanimity, reflecting a broader institutional reckoning in the United States. For British heritage bodies, the event is a cautionary tale. The National Trust, which manages over 500 historic sites, has faced similar pressures to review statues, portraits, and endowments linked to contested figures. A spokesperson for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport told The Times: “We are monitoring the situation but have no plans to amend our heritage protocols at this stage.”
The cultural war that erupted in the United States over Trump’s legacy has parallels in the UK’s own battles over statues of Cecil Rhodes and Winston Churchill. In 2020, Black Lives Matter protests prompted a surge in demands for removal, but no official body has taken the definitive step of stripping a living former leader’s name from a major cultural institution.
Critics argue that the Kennedy Centre’s decision sets a dangerous precedent. Sir Jonathan Jones, a former Treasury solicitor, warned in a recent lecture that “retrospective purging of names risks politicising heritage. We must distinguish between art and the artist, or in this case, the institution and its patron.”
Supporters, however, point to the unique circumstances of Trump’s two impeachments and his unsubstantiated claims about the 2020 election. “This is not about political disagreement,” said Professor Sarah Churchwell, a historian of American culture. “It is about maintaining institutional integrity when an individual’s actions fundamentally contradict the values of the institution they once represented.”
For the British heritage sector, the practical implications are significant. Charities such as Historic England and the National Gallery rely on private donations, many from figures with controversial records. The risk of donor flight or naming disputes could reshape fundraising strategies. Already, the British Museum has faced calls to remove the name of Sir Henry Tate, whose sugar wealth came from slave labour. The Kennedy Centre’s move may accelerate such demands.
Meanwhile, the UK government remains cautious. Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries has emphasised that “British heritage is about preserving history, not erasing it.” Yet the Kennedy Centre’s decision, with its careful legal and procedural groundwork, offers a template for how institutions might handle similar controversies without parliamentary intervention.
The episode also highlights the broader fragility of soft power. The Kennedy Center is a cornerstone of American cultural diplomacy, and the removal of Trump’s name risks alienating his supporters domestically. For the UK, which prides itself on global soft power through institutions like the British Council and the BBC, the lesson is clear: heritage is never truly apolitical. As one senior diplomat put it, “If America can do this, nobody is safe.”
The reverberations will be felt across the Atlantic for years. The British heritage sector, long seen as a bulwark of stability, now faces its own moment of reckoning. Whether it chooses to follow Washington’s lead or forge a different path, the era of uncontested institutional names is over.
