The removal of Trump’s name from the Kennedy Center is a much-needed act of iconoclasm 56%

By Judith Levine0%

6/16/2026, 2:00:19 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Anecdotal, and Hasty Generalization, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 45.8% saturation with 413 hits. Analysis detected 1,413 faulty-reasoning hits from 901 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.2% and a BS Rank of 56% (9,776 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.30% of the article peer group.

There’s a reason the first two of the Ten Commandments prohibit worshiping false gods and making false idols. 
And a reason iconoclasm  the desecration of the monuments of a hated ruler or regime  is one of the oldest and most powerful symbolic forms of political revolt. 
The revolutionary power of iconoclasm is also why Donald Trump  who understands the manipulation of imagery as well as anyone on earth  has had a huge blue and white tarp draped across the facade of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts while the letters of his name are pried off under court order. 
Sooner or later, the tarp will fall  and with it, more of Trump’s already diminishing prestige. 
The Kennedy Center was temporarily renamed The Donald J Trump and the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in December. 
Accusing the arts venue’s administration of mismanagement  which they denied  the president sacked the center’s chief and members of its board of directors and replaced them with allies, who immediately installed him as chair. 
Along with the shakeup in leadership came the layoffs of staff, the flight of artists, an overhaul in programming and a plummet in ticket sales. 
In February, the board announced the closure of the institution for two years of renovations, beginning 5 July 2026. 
Despite the president’s machinations, however, only Congress has the legal power to rename the institution, and renovations were already in the works, to be completed while the place stayed open. 
Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democratic representative and ex officio board member, sued the Trump administration. 
US District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled Trump’s name be taken off the center’s signage, website and even officials’ signatures, and set a deadline of midnight on 12 June, for the removal of the bronze letters from the facade. 
The judge also blocked the administration from closing the venue for repairs. 
Trump’s lawyers put in a last-ditch appeal to pause the deadline, during which scaffolding was slowly erected. 
When the appeal failed, the Department of Justice filed a certification the court order would be obeyed. 
The crew draped the scaffold with the tarp. 
In its shadow, workers began the demolition. 
The only evidence that this was happening is a photograph taken by the AP through a gap at the side. 
The words “Donald J Trump” are reportedly gone, but the tarp remains in place. 
Public witness to an act of iconoclasm  even if a legal, orderly one rather than the wild strike of a mob  is postponed. 
It is unclear when the drapery will come down  or, for that matter, what will happen to the Kennedy Center going forward. 
The destruction of despised structures and monuments does not a revolution make. 
But it can provide the catharsis that enlivens a resistance movement and tell the world that change is coming. 
When the Declaration of Independence was read aloud in the streets of New York on 9 July 1776, patriots toppled the 4,000-lb gilded statue of King George III. 
It was melted down to make more than 42,000 lead bullets that helped oust the king as ruler of the 13 colonies. 
The French revolutionaries of 1789 laid siege to the crown’s brutality, the Catholic Church’s corruption, and the very bodies of the royals all at once  storming the Bastille prison, trashing Notre Dame Cathedral and other churches across the country, and disinterring the bodies of kings from their tombs beneath the Basilica of St Denis. 
During Hungary’s 1956 October Revolution against the Soviet Union, crowds marked Stalin’s birthday by decapitating and practically pulverizing his statue in Budapest, leaving nothing but his boots intact. 
The 2003 image of Saddam Hussein’s giant, rigid likeness being dragged down with ropes is indelible in modern memory. 
That war was cataclysmic  leading to millions of deaths and a resurgent Islamic State  but the tyrant’s downfall is something to exalt. 
This weekend, lovers of democracy and haters of its enemy in the Oval Office milled around the Kennedy center’s plaza hoping for the big reveal. 
Meanwhile, Trump celebrated his birthday (and, oh yeah, the US’s) alongside family and assorted Cabinet members, billionaire bros, manosphere luminaries and Maga diehards watching half-naked men pummel each other in a cage on the White House lawn. 
The spectacle is unlikely to eclipse everything else that’s happening: the war, the rising gas prices, the falling approval ratings, and yes, the humiliation of a name plucked from view, letter by letter. 
Trump has so far withheld from his opponents a collective, indeed national, experience of joy, relief and triumph. 
He has cannily denied history the recorded evidence of an event that may be seen in the future as a step in the decline of his empire. 
He will keep us on edge for as long as he can. 
But the tarp, like the empire, must finally fall. 
The sheeting may be pulled down by a crew of workers, police, or a gang of vandals. 
And when it does, the blank space above the name of a beloved and admired president will symbolize the vacuity and, at least this once, the defeated vanity and power of a would-be monarch. 
Judith Levine is a Brooklyn-based journalist and frequent contributor to the Guardian. 
Her Substack is Today in Fascism 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.6%Judith Levine: 3.3%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.8%Judith Levine: 3.6%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic17.8%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 1.0%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.0%Judith Levine: 0.3%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias3.0%This article: 6.2%Judith Levine: 1.4%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias6.2%This article: 45.8%Judith Levine: 8.5%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect45.8%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.0%Judith Levine: 0.5%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias1.0%This article: 1.9%Judith Levine: 4.8%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias1.9%This article: 6.4%Judith Levine: 15.4%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Judith Levine: 2.5%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error2.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Judith Levine: 1.4%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Judith Levine: 0.7%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect6.2%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 1.1%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 1.6%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Judith Levine: 2.6%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem7.9%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.0%Judith Levine: 2.6%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority2.0%This article: 2.7%Judith Levine: 1.5%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma2.7%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 1.3%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.0%Judith Levine: 10.0%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization13.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.1%Judith Levine: 5.9%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion2.1%This article: 1.7%Judith Levine: 1.9%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question1.7%This article: 5.2%Judith Levine: 2.7%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.2%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 1.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 14.4%Judith Levine: 2.6%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal14.4%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 1.4%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 1.1%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 1.9%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 9.5%Judith Levine: 11.9%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice9.5%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 2.2%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 1.7%Judith Levine: 7.7%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Judith Levine: 0.2%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

901 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.