Which federal buildings and programs have been renamed or rebranded under the Trump administration and by what process?
Executive summary
The Trump administration has placed the president’s name and branding on a range of federal buildings and programs in 2025–26 — most prominently the John F. Kennedy Center and the United States Institute of Peace, while also launching branded programs such as “TrumpRx,” the “Trump Gold Card” visa and children’s “Trump accounts” — actions that have provoked legal challenges and questions about the proper process for renaming statutorily named institutions [1] [2] [3] [4]. The methods used range from board votes and executive-branch proclamations to program rebranding and proposed executive actions, but statutory name changes and some property-name alterations typically require congressional action or face lawsuits and administrative limits [5] [1] [6].
1. Which buildings were renamed or rebranded, and who made that decision
The most visible moves were the Kennedy Center adding “Trump” to its name after a board vote that followed a broader board takeover by administration allies, and the United States Institute of Peace building being relabeled the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace after the administration seized control of the institute’s governance — both moves widely reported and legally contested [1] [6]. The administration also draped and rebranded multiple federal buildings in Washington and put the president’s image on the Interior Department’s 2026 America the Beautiful park pass, actions taken through executive-branch agencies rather than through Congress [4] [7] [3].
2. Federal programs rebranded with Trump’s name
Beyond buildings, several federal programs and initiatives were relaunched under Trump branding: a government-run drug-pricing website called TrumpRx (expected to launch in 2026), a fast-track investor visa marketed as the “Trump Gold Card,” and Treasury-managed savings deposits for children — colloquially described in reporting as “Trump accounts” — all billed by the administration as programmatic achievements carrying the president’s brand [7] [3] [4].
3. Proposed ship names, coinage and other symbolic acts
The administration announced plans for a new “Trump-class” of Navy warships, including a named vessel like the U.S.S. Defiant, and circulated draft designs for a commemorative $1 coin bearing the president’s likeness for the 250th anniversary; both items are largely symbolic at present and would still traverse longstanding Navy procurement and Treasury processes if pursued [7] [3]. Historians and analysts noted that naval-class or coin decisions can be reversed or never reach production, and the ship program is still in design phases [3].
4. The legal and procedural constraints: Congress, statutes and courts
Many of the most contentious renamings collide with legal limits: the Kennedy Center’s statutory name and the Institute of Peace’s congressional founding mean formal renamings normally require congressional action, and multiple sources report lawsuits and federal-court scrutiny over the administration’s takeovers and name changes [5] [1] [6]. Administrative rebrandings by agency fiat—like the park pass portrait and TrumpRx website—can be done within executive authority but have prompted legal challenges alleging statutory violations or procedural lapses [4] [2].
5. Political motives, backlash, and alternate readings
Supporters frame these moves as celebration of achievement and modernization of federal programs; critics call them legacy-building, ego-driven, and in some cases a misuse of executive power that tramples statutory protections and bypasses Congress [7] [8]. Reporting also documents quid-pro-quo bargaining claims — for example, that the president sought renaming rights for Dulles Airport and Penn Station in exchange for releasing Gateway tunnel funds — which opponents characterized as transactional and legally improper [9] [10].
6. What remains unresolved and how durable these changes are
Several actions are already in litigation or under review, and experts point out that statutory name changes require Congress and that some agency-led rebrandings may be reversed by courts or future administrations; in short, many of the president-branded names are politically potent today but legally and administratively fragile tomorrow [5] [6] [3]. Where the sources are silent on permanent outcomes, reporting accurately limits certainty: some items remain proposals or design-stage concepts rather than irreversible changes [3] [7].