Kennedy Center and Washington National Opera Trade Blame in Bitter, Messy ‘Divorce’

WASHINGTON — Kennedy Center Chairman Richard Grenell announced that the performing arts center has ended its partnership with the Washington National Opera (WNO), citing years of significant financial losses.

The move comes after the WNO announced on Friday that it would move its programming to other venues, characterizing the split as an amicable separation.

Grenell justified the decision by stating that the WNO’s exclusive contract was no longer economically viable. In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Grenell claimed the agreement cost the Kennedy Center $64 million over the last 10 years and noted the WNO is projected to end the 2025 fiscal year with a $7.2 million deficit.

WNO leadership offered a different perspective, noting that ticket sales have dropped from previous levels of 80-90% down to 60% since the Trump administration took control of the center in February 2025.

WNO Director Francesca Zambello attributed the decline to a loss of confidence among the organization's donors.

Grenell used social media to attack media coverage of the split, specifically targeting New York Times reporter Peter Baker. To support his claim that he had proposed ending the deal as early as last November, Grenell posted a screenshot of private communications.

Grenell later stated that his X account had been hacked following his initial posts about the matter.

The friction between the Kennedy Center and the Washington National Opera (WNO) is far more than a standard breach of contract; it serves as a high-profile microcosm of the cultural schisms currently fracturing American institutions. Long perceived as a non-partisan sanctuary for the arts, the Kennedy Center has evolved into a strategic battleground under the chairmanship of Richard Grenell, a prominent Trump loyalist. The public sparring over which party initiated the termination of their residency is merely the tip of a much larger iceberg: the aggressive politicization of legacy cultural organizations.

Grenell’s approach—characterized by social media broadsides, the disclosure of private correspondence, and reflexive accusations of media bias—mirrors the combative political playbook of the Trump era. This departure from traditional arts management signals a shift toward institutional capture. By prioritizing narrative control and ideological alignment, Grenell is operating less as a custodian of culture and more as a political operative. While his fiscal justifications may carry some weight, they increasingly appear as a tactical veneer for decisions rooted in partisan friction.

The exit of the WNO, a foundational partner, marks a watershed moment. It underscores a growing reality where mainstream arts organizations find themselves ideologically incompatible with spaces under direct partisan influence. This development portends a broader "decoupling" of American culture. As the arts are balkanized along political lines, the sector risks losing its historical function as a bridge for civic discourse, further entrenching the nation's deep polarization.

While this development doesn’t have a direct economic impact on the nail salon industry or the flow of remittances, it serves as a stark reflection of the deep political polarization currently gripping the United States—a reality that the Vietnamese-American community is navigating as well. Like any other demographic, our community is far from a monolith and holds a diverse range of political viewpoints. This cultural friction at a national landmark like the Kennedy Center proves that no public space, from our own hubs in Little Saigon to the country's most prominent institutions, is immune to these growing divisions.