President Trump is overturning and disrespecting traditions pell-mell, an unparalleled rampage through the great American institutions. Or so says the PBS News Hour.
On Tuesday, reporter William Brangham served as guest anchor to cover Trump adding his name to the Kennedy Center, and brought on an insufficiently identified left-wing presidential historian to flay the president.
William Brangham: Since returning to the White House earlier this year, President Trump has made quick work reshaping Washington, D.C., in his image, in some cases literally. That will be on full display during what he's calling the Trump-Kennedy Center Honors, which is being broadcast on TV tonight. The president hosted the event from the recently and controversially renamed building, one that has roots tracing back to the Eisenhower administration more than 60 years ago. Stephanie Sy takes a closer look at its history and evolution.
Sy was joined by historian Mark Updegrove and asked him, “Is there any precedent for a sitting president to have major cultural buildings named after him, especially ones in which they themselves control the board?”
Mark Updegrove, Presidential Historian: No, not at all. I mean, it would be unthinkable, I think, for a president to even entertain being the chairman of the Kennedy Center board. That was unprecedented….
Updegrove launched into Democratic talking points, using the new phrase that pays, “affordability.”
Updegrove: We shouldn't have our presidents, I think, thinking about things that should be named in their honor. President Trump is barely a quarter into his second term in office, at a time when most Americans are worried about affordability. We saw that as almost -- the off-year elections as a referendum on the Trump presidency and his failure to deliver on the promise of resurrecting our economy, bringing down inflation, boosting our employment numbers….
The historian found what Sy termed “the demolition of the White House East Wing” to be “very concerning, deeply concerning, to see this president, I think, overreach….of President Trump just deciding to do something and doing it without consulting anyone, without looking at the rules, without looking at the precedents. And I think that in itself is dangerous.”
Sy only gave away her guest’s partisan affiliation at the very end.
Sy: That is Mark Updegrove, the president of the LBJ Foundation.
Predictably, Updegrove is a fan of ABC News reporter and Biden suck-up extraordinaire Mary Bruce.
Also on Tuesday’s edition, the News Hour stirred up controversy over Trump abruptly recalling ambassadors from 30 countries. He promised “one perspective on this move,” which turned out to be the only perspective offered in the studio.
After a 15-second reading by Brangham of a State Department statement on the recalls (shown onscreen), Dinkelman said of Trump’s move, “This is unprecedented. This is unheard of. This is a sabotage of the American diplomatic machine. This is an affront to the professional Foreign Service that we have spent decades, a century in building in our country. And I don't know what it foretells.”
Brangham hardly blinked at the loaded word "sabotage," merely repeating it.
William Brangham: Sabotage?
John Dinkelman: Definitely....
Brangham rehashed the State Department's point and invited Dinkelman to attack it.
Brangham: I mean, you heard the State Department's position on this. They're arguing, this happens with every administration. Many of these people were appointed by the Biden administration, and the president wants his own people in there. What do you make of that argument?
Dinkelman: This -- it is entirely incorrect and a misrepresentation of the reality. Every American ambassador submits their resignation to the incoming president, who either chooses to accept or reject those resignations at that time.
Brangham: And all these ambassadors did that?
Dinkelman: All of these ambassadors did that about one year ago right now. And the Trump administration not only refused those resignations, but actually encouraged the individuals to remain. Even within the past few weeks, senior-level Cabinet individuals have visited with these various ambassadors on trips, reaffirming the desire of the administration that they stay in their positions, only to find them getting a phone call and surreptitiously being told they haven't until January to get out.
So in other words, they got an extra year in their positions?
These overwrought, one-sided anti-Trump segments were brought to you in part by BNSF Railway.
Transcripts are available, click “Expand.”
PBS News Hour
12/23/25
7:25:17 p.m. (ET)
William Brangham: Since returning to the White House earlier this year, President Trump has made quick work reshaping Washington, D.C., in his image, in some cases literally. That will be on full display during what he's calling the Trump-Kennedy Center Honors, which is being broadcast on TV tonight.
The president hosted the event from the recently and controversially renamed building, one that has roots tracing back to the Eisenhower administration more than 60 years ago.
Stephanie Sy takes a closer look at its history and evolution.
Stephanie Sy: When the building opened to the public in 1971, the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts stood as a living memorial to the late president. That legacy stood untouched until last week, when the Kennedy Center board, most of whom were appointed by President Trump, followed through on the president's wishes and voted to rename it the Trump-Kennedy Center.
While it takes an act of Congress to make that official, construction teams wasted no time. Within 24 hours, President Trump's name was emblazoned alongside Kennedy's in the marble facade.
For more on this change and how it's part of a larger effort by the president, I'm joined by presidential historian Mark Updegrove.
Mark, it's a pleasure to have you on the show.
Comment on this move. Is there any president for a sitting president to have major cultural buildings named after him, especially ones in which they themselves control the board?
Mark Updegrove, Presidential Historian: No, not at all.
I mean, it would be unthinkable, I think, for a president to even entertain being the chairman of the Kennedy Center board. That was unprecedented. The president is presiding over the nation. He has some big problems to resolve. And I think the American people would agree that that is not the function of a president. We don't want to see our president acting as the chairman of the board for the Kennedy Center.
We want him addressing the challenges and the problems that come across his desk, as being not only the president of our nation, but, for all practical purposes, the leader of the free world. So this is unprecedented on so many levels.
Stephanie Sy: From a historian's perspective, why do you think it matters that the name of this building is being changed?
Mark Updegrove: We shouldn't have our presidents, I think, thinking about things that should be named in their honor.
President Trump is barely a quarter into his second term in office, at a time when most Americans are worried about affordability. We saw that as almost -- the off-year elections as a referendum on the Trump presidency and his failure to deliver on the promise of resurrecting our economy, bringing down inflation, boosting our employment numbers.
He hasn't accomplished that, but what he has done is renamed institutions in his honor, not something that we see from a president. I think of humility as an American value and part of the American brand. But, of course, narcissism is really part of the Trump brand. This shouldn't surprise us, but it should alarm us.
Stephanie Sy: Tell me more about this building and how it originally came to be named after President Kennedy.
Mark Updegrove: The Kennedy Center was not something that President Kennedy had imagined. Rather, it was the thinking of Lyndon Johnson, President Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded President Kennedy after his assassination.
President Johnson wanted to do something to reflect the best of the arts in America and named the Kennedy Center in -- for President Kennedy, partly to get it through Congress, but partly to honor the accomplishments of our 35th president, John F. Kennedy.
Stephanie Sy: This is not the first time in recent months that the president has shown what critics say is disregard for historical and cultural sites, the demolition of the White House East Wing, for instance.
As a historian, how would you frame all of these changes taken as a whole?
Mark Updegrove: I think it's very concerning, deeply concerning, to see this president, I think, overreach.
Fifty years ago, we called the Nixon presidency the imperialistic presidency, but it really pales in comparison to what we have seen from Donald Trump. The demolition of the East Wing of the White House is another example of President Trump just deciding to do something and doing it without consulting anyone, without looking at the rules, without looking at the precedents.
And I think that in itself is dangerous.
Stephanie Sy: Mark, but, of course, Trump was elected. He was elected twice, and he has millions of supporters. We also know that, as a real estate magnate, he was long known to put his name on his properties. Of course, we're talking about government buildings now, including the Institute of Peace building, which bears his name.
His picture is now, by the way, in front of many buildings, like at the Department of Agriculture. But, as much as Trump critics say this is something that looks like we'd see in authoritarian regimes, haven't we seen a lot of renaming of monuments in the last several years, for example, to more align with what is viewed as politically correct today?
I mean, do you see parallels or contrast there?
Mark Updegrove: No, I don't see any parallels.
I think there are renaming of institutions. And a couple of examples are the JFK Airport, which was named for President Kennedy, like the Kennedy Center, after his assassination. It was posthumously named for President Kennedy. The National Airport in Washington, D.C., was renamed Reagan National. Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's early in the 1990s, and so it was renamed for President Reagan in 1998, when President Clinton was in office.
So President Reagan was still very much alive, although ailing from Alzheimer's. We don't generally see these things until a president has left office and has rendered a legacy. In President Trump's case, he is only one-quarter through his second term in office. We have yet to see the legacy he will render as president.
And I think he would do well to think that -- not about being remembered for his name being on a building, but what he does in the office of the presidency of the United States to better the American people in our nation and around the world.
Stephanie Sy: That is Mark Updegrove, the president of the LBJ Foundation.
Mark, thank you so much for joining us.
Mark Updegrove: Thank you very much.
*
PBS News Hour
12/23/25
7:12:07 p.m. (ET)
William Brangham: In an unusual move, the Trump administration is recalling the ambassadors from nearly 30 countries around the world. According to the Associated Press, nations in Africa are losing the most diplomats, followed by Asia, then Europe, the Middle East, and here in the Western Hemisphere.
The State Department told the "News Hour" in a statement that -- quote -- "This is a standard process in any administration. An ambassador is a personal representative of the president, and it is the president's right to ensure that he has individuals in these countries who advance the America first agenda."
So, for one perspective on this move, we turn to John Dinkelman. He is the president of the American Foreign Service Association. He had a nearly four-decade diplomatic career with the U.S. State Department.
John, thank you so much for being here.
John Dinkelman, President, American Foreign Service Association: Thank you for having me.
William Brangham: How unusual is this to recall nearly 30 ambassadors one year into an administration? Is this standard practice?
John Dinkelman: This is not standard practice. This is unprecedented. This is unheard of.
This is a sabotage of the American diplomatic machine. This is an affront to the professional Foreign Service that we have spent decades, a century in building in our country. And I don't know what it foretells.
William Brangham: Sabotage?
John Dinkelman: Definitely. When individuals have spent their lives devoted to a profession, to representing our country overseas, and, en masse, you tell those who have qualified to represent our country, to carry out our policies, to execute any administration, any president's goals in any given country, when you tell them all summarily that for some reason they don't qualify, something is definitely wrong.
William Brangham: I mean, you heard the State Department's position on this. They're arguing, this happens with every administration. Many of these people were appointed by the Biden administration, and the president wants his own people in there.
What do you make of that argument?
John Dinkelman: This -- it is entirely incorrect and a misrepresentation of the reality. Every American ambassador submits their resignation to the incoming president, who either chooses to accept or reject those resignations at that time.
William Brangham: And all these ambassadors did that?
John Dinkelman: All of these ambassadors did that about one year ago right now. And the Trump administration not only refused those resignations, but actually encouraged the individuals to remain.
Even within the past few weeks, senior-level Cabinet individuals have visited with these various ambassadors on trips, reaffirming the desire of the administration that they stay in their positions, only to find them getting a phone call and surreptitiously being told they haven't until January to get out.
William Brangham: We know that the U.S. already had about 80 vacant ambassadorships before this event. Then this comes. What is your sense of what the impact is going to be on our ability to project American power in ways, soft and hard, all over the world?
John Dinkelman: Simply put, we're taking our star players off the field before we can even enter the game.
These individuals will not be able to exercise the personal and professional bona fides and relationships that they have established over decades. And what will be very interesting is who replaces them.
If it's a member of the professional Foreign Service, I have to worry, as the president of the Foreign Service Association, what kind of loyalty oath are they going to be required to take that demonstrates their fidelity to the administration, in addition to the fidelity that they should have sworn to the Constitution in the first place?
William Brangham: Have you seen any evidence that there is such a loyalty oath being passed around to potential candidates?
John Dinkelman: I have not yet seen that, and I am looking for it closely.
William Brangham: Have you been hearing -- I imagine your phone must be ringing off the hook?
John Dinkelman: Incessantly, yes.
William Brangham: And what are they saying to you?
John Dinkelman: They're hurt. They're concerned. Many of them are afraid. There is a wonder as to what in the world they could have done that would have caused the ire of our leaders.
They have done everything they could to carry out the policies of the president, as they would for any elected leader of our country, because that's what the Foreign Service does. But, in this case, they are left stumped, as am I, as to what would have caused this en masse dismissal of our leaders in our Foreign Service.
William Brangham: Is it possible, just playing devil's advocate, that, to take the State Department's stated position, that some of these people were not enacting what President Trump believes is an America first agenda in their positions?
John Dinkelman: I find it inconceivable.
Individuals like myself who have spent decades trained to make sure that they're advocating on behalf of our leaders, on behalf of the elected leaders of the United States, it is incomprehensible to me that individuals would do this, much less 30 or 40 of them en masse all at once. It simply cannot happen.
William Brangham: At the beginning, I put the list up of all those nations that were -- where the ambassadors have now been pulled. Are there particular nations, when you look at that list, that you're -- that concern you specifically
John Dinkelman: There's various that concern me, but I'm particularly interested in what's going on in Guatemala, where not only our ambassador, but our deputy chief of mission, both senior Foreign Service officers with decades of experience each, have been summarily told that they are to leave the post.
Given the immigration crisis that the administration says we are in and the key role that Guatemala plays in that crisis, how we could determine that the individuals in charge of our mission there, on the other side of that problem, working with the other side of the equation, are no longer going to be there and who will fill that gap is beyond me.
William Brangham: You mentioned earlier to one of my colleagues the concern that you have that, if every new administration comes in and basically guts the corps, civil service, what that does to America's ability to enact its foreign policy. What did you mean by that?
John Dinkelman: It will politicize us as a profession. We come into the service sworn loyal to the Constitution and nothing else. And when presidents change -- I myself have been through six different presidents and have served willingly under each one of them.
I know that the thousands of men and women in the Foreign Service will continue to do so, because that's what they were sworn to do. If, on the other hand, we start to move our people in and out with every administration, it's going to deplete our ability as diplomats to get the job done. It will hurt our credibility and it will hurt our nation in general.
William Brangham: John Dinkelman, thank you so much for being here.
John Dinkelman: Thank you.
