Ben Folds Slams Trump’s Kennedy Center Takeover Before Congress: ‘When You Politicize Art, You’ve Got Propaganda’
Singer-songwriter Ben Folds testified before Congress on 21 July, criticising Donald Trump's overhaul of the Kennedy Center as having turned it into a "hyper-politicized environment." Folds, formerly artistic advisor to the centre's National Symphony Orchestra, said he resigned after concluding he could no longer guarantee performers' safety from political retribution, warning lawmakers that "when you politicize art, you've got propaganda." His testimony formed part of a wider congressional forum examining what Democrats have called Trump's costly "vanity projects."
Trump removed several board members and installed himself as chairman of the Kennedy Center in February 2025. Folds cited the case of singer Yasmin Levy, who was allegedly booed by paid hecklers during a September performance after criticising the board's changes in correspondence with Trump-appointed interim director Richard Grenell. The forum, chaired by Senator Richard Blumenthal, also heard testimony on other contested spending, including White House renovations and changes to the Lincoln Memorial's reflecting pool.
- Ben Folds testified to Congress against Trump's Kennedy Center takeover
- He resigned as NSO artistic advisor over fears of political retribution
- Forum also examined Trump's spending on other landmark projects
New here? Start with this
Trump reshaped the Kennedy Center's leadership earlier in 2025, removing board members and taking the chairmanship himself. The Washington venue has long been the United States' main national cultural centre for performing arts, and the change prompted concern from artists and staff that its programming would become politically influenced rather than independent.
Ben Folds, a musician who had served as an artistic adviser to the centre's National Symphony Orchestra, resigned from that role and has now given testimony to Congress about his reasons, as part of a broader hearing into government spending decisions under the Trump administration. Other witnesses at the same session addressed separate spending matters, including renovations to the White House and changes made to the Lincoln Memorial's reflecting pool.
The hearing matters because it touches on wider questions about the independence of publicly funded cultural institutions and how political appointments can affect them. It also sits within an ongoing debate in Washington, led in part by Democratic lawmakers, over the cost and justification of various administration projects.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those sympathetic to Folds' testimony argue that the Kennedy Center has long functioned as a bipartisan cultural institution precisely because its leadership was insulated from the political currents of any single administration, and that installing the President himself as chairman erodes that independence. They contend that when artists fear reprisal for expressing views, or when hecklers are allegedly organised to punish performers who criticise management, the chilling effect on free expression harms the institution's core mission of showcasing art on its own merits. From this vantage point, safeguarding artistic space from partisan pressure is essential to preserving public trust in a national cultural body funded by taxpayers of all political persuasions.
The case against
Those who support the changes, or at least question Folds' framing, would argue that the Kennedy Center receives substantial federal funding and its board has always been subject to presidential appointment, so a president reshaping its leadership is an ordinary exercise of accountable oversight rather than an unprecedented takeover. They may contend that previous boards and programming choices already reflected a particular cultural and political sensibility, and that correcting this imbalance is a legitimate corrective rather than propaganda. On this view, critics like Folds are entitled to their opinion but their departure reflects a policy disagreement over artistic direction and management style, not proof that the institution has been irreparably politicised.