A Biden-era legal win paved the way for Trump’s Kennedy Center board firings

A Biden-Era Legal Win and Its Unintended Consequences: How Trump Leveraged the Precedent to Reshape the Kennedy Center

The legal landscape under President Joe Biden underwent a significant shift when a court decision enabled the president to fire certain board members, a power that later became a tool for President Donald Trump to reshape key institutions. The case in question, Spicer v. Biden, was brought by former Trump press secretary Sean Spicer and Russ Vought, who served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget under Trump. Spicer and Vought were appointed by Trump to serve on the Board of Visitors for the Naval Academy, positions that came with fixed terms. When Biden took office in 2021, he sought to remove them, sparking a legal battle that would ultimately set a precedent with far-reaching implications.

Spicer and Vought refused to resign when the Biden administration requested their departure, arguing that their statutory terms protected them from termination. America First Legal, a conservative legal advocacy group founded by Stephen Miller, a former Trump aide, stepped in to support the pair. Spicer explained that the lawsuit was not about retaining their positions but about establishing a legal precedent. The goal, he said, was to "send a message to the President of the United States" and ensure that future Republican presidents would have the authority to "clean house" upon taking office. The suit was designed to lose in court, with the ultimate aim of creating a legal foundation for Trump to wield greater power over appointments during his second term.

Trump’s Strategic Overhaul of the Kennedy Center

Fast-forward to Trump’s second term, and the precedent set by Spicer v. Biden became a powerful tool for the former president. Trump took advantage of the legal victory to overhaul the Kennedy Center’s board, removing several members and appointing himself as chairman. This move was part of a broader effort to reshape cultural and artistic institutions in his image, a strategy that drew both criticism and praise. Ric Grenell, a Trump ally, previewed the changes as a "golden age of the arts" under Trump’s leadership, signaling a shift toward a more conservative and partisan approach to the arts.

The Kennedy Center, traditionally a bipartisan institution, became a battleground in Trump’s broader campaign to assert control over executive branch appointments and institutions. The legal victory from Spicer v. Biden empowered Trump to bypass the usual constraints and appoint loyalists to key positions. John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation observed that while the move was unprecedented, there was little legal standing to challenge it, as the Kennedy Center’s board structure allowed for such changes. Trump’s appointment of himself as chairman was seen as a bold assertion of authority, cementing his influence over one of the nation’s most prestigious cultural institutions.

The Broader Battle Over Executive Power

The legal and political struggles surrounding the Kennedy Center are part of a larger debate over the scope of executive power in the United States. Since taking office for his second term, Trump has faced over 70 lawsuits challenging his executive orders and directives, many of which aim to clarify the limits of presidential authority. The judiciary has increasingly become a battleground, with courts sometimes blocking Trump’s efforts to fire federal employees or reshape independent agencies. For instance, the Supreme Court recently paused the Trump administration’s attempt to dismiss Hampton Dellinger, a Biden appointee, from the Office of Special Counsel.

In another significant move, the Trump Justice Department has sought to overturn a landmark Supreme Court case to grant the president greater control over independent federal agencies. This effort aligns with the broader legal and political strategy to advance the "unitary executive theory," which holds that the president has complete authority over the executive branch. Proponents of this theory argue that Article II of the Constitution vests all executive power in the president, allowing them to hire and fire officials as they see fit. This ideology has been central to Trump’s approach to governance, as he seeks to consolidate power and ensure loyalty across the executive branch.

Spicer’s Role and the Legacy of Trump’s Approach

Sean Spicer, reflecting on the legal battle he waged against Biden, framed it as part of a larger effort to empower conservatives to fight back against perceived overreach by Democratic administrations. He credited Trump with inspiring this mindset, recalling how Trump’s unconventional approach to politics emboldened conservatives to take a more aggressive stance. "Trump basically told conservatives, ‘Stop being such wusses and learn to fight back,’” Spicer said, emphasizing that the lawsuit was a strategic move to test the limits of presidential authority.

The outcome of Spicer v. Biden and its implications for Trump’s actions at the Kennedy Center highlight the lasting impact of this approach. By leveraging the legal system to establish a precedent, Spicer and America First Legal created a pathway for Trump to exert greater control over executive branch appointments and institutions. While the judiciary continues to grapple with the limits of presidential power, the legacy of this legal Strategy may shape the balance of power in Washington for years to come.

The Future of Executive Power and the Unitary Executive Theory

The ongoing legal battles over executive authority underscore the deep polarization surrounding the role of the presidency in modern governance. Trump’s efforts to expand presidential power, whether through executive orders, appointments, or legal challenges, have met with fierce resistance from courts, Congress, and civil liberties groups. However, the unitary executive theory remains a powerful ideological force, particularly among conservatives who argue that a strong presidency is essential for effective governance.

As the courts continue to weigh in on these issues, the stakes remain high. The ability of future presidents to shape the executive branch and its institutions will depend in part on how these legal and constitutional questions are resolved. For now, the precedent set by Spicer v. Biden and Trump’s subsequent actions at the Kennedy Center serve as a reminder of the enduring influence of legal strategy and political boldness in shaping the presidency. The question of whether this approach will prevail in the courts and in the court of public opinion remains to be seen.