Trump aides reportedly floated renaming Ford's Theatre after president

Trump Reportedly Eyes Ford's Theatre for Name Placement

Publication Date: 2026-09-23

President Trump is reportedly seeking to affix his name to Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C.—the site where former President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865.

According to MS NOW, the theatre is one of several establishments floated by aides as potential targets for the "Trump" name. The proposal to label historic buildings with "Trump" underscores the president's well-documented narcissism and susceptibility to flattery.

"Why would I say no? Everybody's trying to please me," one former administration official said of Trump's worldview. No official decision has been made on renaming Ford's Theatre, and it remains unclear what other buildings have been considered.

This follows Trump's previous failed naming attempts, most notably his effort to rename the Kennedy Center the "Trump-Kennedy" Center, which was legally rejected. In response, he tried to place "renovated and restored by President Donald J. Trump" somewhere on the historic venue. That was also struck down in court, leading him to shut down the center indefinitely for "renovations" (in reality, spite). Now, aides most willing to appease him are searching the city for other buildings he can claim.

Ford's Theatre would be a particularly disrespectful target, as it was the site of one of the most brutal presidential assassinations in history—and involved a president far more widely beloved than Trump. Some speculate Trump may feel a kinship with Lincoln given attempts made on his own life. Regardless, it is evident that Trump's ego takes precedence over actions that would positively impact American citizens.

The White House has denied MS NOW's reporting, calling it "completely false."

Editor's Pick: Trump Throws "F—king Crazy" Tantrum at Kennedy Center Meeting

DOJ Defends Trump's Press Ban with Weak Evidence

President Donald Trump claimed that the media outlets he banned from the White House threatened national security—without providing any actual evidence.

In a court filing Tuesday, the Department of Justice defended Trump's decision to ban CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House. However, a closer examination of the supporting evidence reveals a weak basis for this argument, Politico reported.

"The President determined that Plaintiffs have failed to maintain minimum professional journalistic standards by publishing classified and national security information," Trump's brief states.

The DOJ attached letters addressed to each outlet citing the stories that were the basis for their removals. The letters, which were unsigned and did not appear on official letterhead, did not claim that the cited stories contained classified information—in fact, some had nothing to do with national security at all.

For example, the letter addressed to Politico complained about a report describing the "bad vibes" at the Republican midterm convention in Texas.

The DOJ also cited a Politico article about security improvements made to Trump's ballroom, but the supposedly "intricate" and "internal" document was actually a handout given to Senate Republicans.

Other reports the DOJ cited—such as those about depleted U.S. munition stockpiles and the FBI investigating leaks to a reporter that led to an unflattering article about Kash Patel—have been repeatedly refuted by the Trump administration. If the stories are not true, it raises questions about how publishing them threatens national security.

The letters, purportedly sent out Tuesday before filing, grant each media outlet an opportunity to contest their removal by end of day Friday. The three outlets go to court Wednesday to ask a judge to overturn the ban.

Read more about the ban: Why Trump's White House Reporter Ban Matters So Little

Trump Clashed with Architect Over Ballroom Safety Codes

President Trump refused to adhere to building safety codes for his White House ballroom and fought with its original architect until he resigned.

The Washington Post reports, citing anonymous sources, that James McCrery II withdrew from the project in October after repeatedly warning that the ballroom Trump wanted lacked adequate emergency exit routes and fire containment measures. The president reportedly dismissed McCrery's concerns, stating that building codes did not apply to anything built at the White House.

"I am the code," Trump said.

Trump has directed much of his time and attention to the ballroom. The Post obtained documents, including early ballroom designs with black Sharpie markings in the president's handwriting. The reporting indicates that Trump is bypassing or overruling federal agencies that typically handle White House construction and renovations, which are legally required to follow national building safety standards to the "maximum extent feasible" except for national security reasons.

Trump's White House construction projects are going through the Executive Residence, which is not a federal agency and is not subject to its rules. Buildings on federal property fall outside District of Columbia jurisdiction, meaning they are not subject to local building codes. That responsibility falls on the contractors hired to design and build them, and Trump currently has them working almost around the clock to meet his deadlines.

After McCrery resigned, the White House continued to discuss safety concerns about the ballroom's design for months afterward, according to the Post. It is unclear whether more recent designs from the architecture firm that took over, Shalom Baranes Associates, addressed those concerns.

Trump has been wholly focused on the expensive ballroom, going back on promises that it would be financed entirely by private donations and invoking national security justifications that have been debunked. If he is overruling safety codes, he is actually risking national security.

Editor's Pick: Zelenskiy Tries Not to Roll His Eyes as Trump Rants About Ballroom

RFK Jr. Diverted $12 Million from Minority Health Office for Personal Security

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. redirected millions of dollars from the Office of Minority Health to bolster his own personal security.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Kennedy moved $12 million from the office, which was created by Republican President Ronald Reagan to address higher Black infant mortality rates. HHS informed Congress earlier this year that it would use the funds to cover RFK Jr.'s security costs, which grew from $10 million in 2025 to $17 million in 2026, according to the Journal's sources.

In response to the report, HHS spokeswoman Emily Hilliard said the cuts to the key agency "reflect HHS priorities and programmatic assessments—not the Secretary's security needs."

"Secretary Kennedy faces a security environment that differs significantly from that of previous HHS secretaries," Hilliard added. "His protection reflects the threats he faces, his extensive travel, and the security required for him to safely carry out his duties nationwide."

When he first started, Kennedy Jr. requested protection from the U.S. Marshals Service rather than the security provided by the Office of the Inspector General.

Kennedy stopped speaking at outdoor events after a man wearing a bike helmet rushed at him last year.

Editor's Pick: Measles Scare Hits Children's Hospital as RFK Jr. Does Nothing

Miller Blames Thune for Potential GOP Midterm Losses

Donald Trump told Republicans to vote as if he were on the November ballot. But Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, does not want that directive lingering as the party heads toward a potentially brutal November upset.

"If the Republicans lose the midterms it'll be because [Senate Majority Leader] John Thune didn't get the SAVE America Act passed," Miller wrote on X Tuesday, adding that the predicted loss for the conservative caucus "rests solely on John Thune's shoulders."

It is easy to see why Trump's deportation chief would promote the SAVE America Act as an election cycle Hail Mary.

The original iteration of the SAVE America Act proposed numerous amendments to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, chief among them a requirement that voters bring either a passport or birth certificate to register to vote. Critics argued that the mandate would unduly restrict millions of Americans from voting, pointing out that half of the country's population lacks a passport and that the legislation would make it difficult for anyone who changed their name—including married women—to register at all.

Nonetheless, the White House heralded the voter restriction bill as a critical component to ensuring America's election integrity and voter security. Trump went so far as to predicate his support for any other legislative efforts on the SAVE Act's passage, repeatedly insisting it should be Congress's top priority for the year.

The initiative came to a standstill over the summer when, after many failed efforts to pass the bill on its own, House Republicans tied it to the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. That, in turn, has stalled the typically uncontroversial defense bill in the upper chamber.

Now the SAVE America Act is just one of 650 bills awaiting Senate action.

Meanwhile, Republicans are expecting some significant losses during the midterms. Attention has recently shifted toward Alaska and Ohio—states historically considered reliably red—and away from purple regions such as North Carolina, which Politico reported Tuesday has been perceived as a "money sink for Dems."

[Content truncated]