JD Vance booed at Kennedy Center after Trump takeover
Jeers rang out as the US vice-president sat down with his wife, Usha, ahead of a concert by the National Symphony Orchestra at the site in Washington on Thursday evening.
It comes after Mr Trump sacked the chairman of the Kennedy Center board and its 13 trustees last month – making himself chairman and Richard Grenell its interim leader.
Mrs Vance was also made a board member, having previously served on the board of the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra between 2020 and 2022.
Mr Grenell criticised the audience for booing, accusing them of being 'intolerant'.
Following the shake-up in February, Mr Trump said: 'So we took over the Kennedy Center.
'We didn't like what they were showing and various other things. We're going to make sure that it's good and it's not going to be woke. There's no more woke in this country.'
Such public outbursts are highly unusual at classic music concerts, where audiences are expected to be quiet and cordial.
However, it demonstrates the backlash generated by Mr Trump's overhaul of the venue.
Critics have included the producers of Hamilton, the American history musical, who cancelled an upcoming run of the show at the concert hall.
Mr Grenell accused Lin-Manuel Miranda, the show's creator, and Jeffrey Seller, its producer, of orchestrating a 'publicity stunt'.
The vice-president responded to the hostile reception by waving, pointing at the crowd and smiling awkwardly at his wife.
The boos lasted for several moments, with one person heard shouting: 'You ruined this place'.
The concert had already been delayed by nearly 30 minutes because of Secret Service checks as Mr Vance's motorcade pulled in.
Audience members later joked about the concert's all-Russian line-up, given Mr Vance's stance on the war in Ukraine.
Shortly after Russia's invasion of the country in February 2022, Mr Vance said: 'I gotta be honest with you, I don't really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.'
The Republican was also involved in the row between Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president, and Mr Trump in the Oval Office last month.
Since the White House confrontation, Mr Vance has been targeted by angry members of the public on several occasions.
Pro-Ukraine protesters confronted him as he walked with his family in Cincinnati over the weekend, while he was also jeered during a recent skiing holiday in Vermont. One protester told him: 'Go and ski in Russia'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
23 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
UK military chief meets US counterparts for Ukraine talks
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin met senior US defence officials alongside other European military chiefs in Washington DC on Wednesday to discuss military options to secure peace in Ukraine. He later attended a virtual meeting of Nato's military committee, described by its chairman Italian Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone as 'candid'. On Tuesday evening, Admiral Radakin, the chief of the defence staff, had dined with his US counterpart General Dan Caine. The meetings come amid renewed planning for a 'coalition of the willing', led by the UK and France, that would guarantee Kyiv's security in the event of a ceasefire. Earlier in the week, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron co-chaired a meeting of the coalition, in which members of the group also discussed the possibility of further sanctions on Russia. Western security guarantees, strongly resisted by Moscow, are one of the central issues for any peace deal for Ukraine, which fears Russia could otherwise use a ceasefire to regroup and launch a renewed invasion. So far, only the UK and France have indicated they could commit troops to a peacekeeping force in Ukraine. In an interview on Tuesday Donald Trump ruled out an American ground contribution but suggested the US could be willing to provide some form of air support. His special envoy, Steve Witkoff, had earlier suggested the US could offer Ukraine a mutual defence agreement similar to Nato's Article 5, without Kyiv formally joining the alliance. Renewed talks among the 'coalition of the willing' follow last week's summit between Mr Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska as the US president continued to push for an end to a conflict he had promised he could finish on his first day in office. Those talks appeared to result in little progress towards a deal, but sparked concern among some in Europe that Mr Trump could seek to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into accepting a deal without sufficient security guarantees. On Monday, Sir Keir and Mr Macron joined other European leaders in travelling to Washington in a show of support for Mr Zelensky during a meeting with Mr Trump. Meanwhile, the UK and Russia traded sanctions as London sought to increase the pressure on Moscow to end its invasion. Europe minister Stephen Doughty unveiled sanctions on a series of organisations linked to Kyrgyzstan's financial services sector, saying they had been involved in Kremlin attempts to 'soften the blow of our sanctions by laundering transactions through dodgy crypto networks'. Russia in turn sanctioned 21 individuals, including former Labour MP Denis MacShane, several journalists, and the Government-appointed independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
'Independence first, everything else later' is doomed to fail
In their view, Scotland should focus purely on achieving a Yes vote, leaving all questions about what an independent Scotland would look like to be settled afterwards. But that's a losing strategy, one that kept us stuck in a self-destructing UK back in 2014 and is keeping us stuck there now. In 2014, the campaign's instinct was to avoid scaring voters. We were told to 'reassure', to keep the pitch narrow, and avoid anything controversial. The hope was that by keeping our plans bland, we would make independence a safe, neutral choice. It didn't work, we offered a technical case (Scotland's Future publication) without painting a compelling enough vision of what life would be like after independence. The Yes campaign lacked any vision for radical change even though most independence supporters had their own personal vision founded on their personal core beliefs but we've been conditioned to be scared to share it, when speaking from the heart is what makes the difference. READ MORE: UN case will determine who is entitled to call an indy referendum We've got to stop trying to run the most conservative independence campaign in political history. Believe in Scotland is publishing the results of our 2025 Big Indy Survey. We posted that 92% of 7200+ Yes supporters want Scotland to be a republic, many commented that it harmed the cause to say so, as we need to stick to the 'independence first, everything else later' mantra. Wrong: in December we commissioned a poll by Norstat and the standard Yes/No question came back 54% Yes. When we asked the same respondents the Yes/No question if independence meant Scotland becoming a republic, Yes rose to 59%. The evidence for going big on key policies SINCE 2014, we've tested different messages and the evidence is clear. When we combine independence with bold, popular policies, independence support rises. A Republican Scotland: Polling shows that independence support increases 5% when tied to the promise of becoming a republic. This is because it's not just about removing the monarchy, it's about building a modern democracy, a society based on wellbeing and merit and not one headed up by inherited political power and massive wealth by birthright. Rejoining the EU: Brexit has been a disaster, and a clear majority in Scotland wants back in the EU. Linking independence directly to rejoining turns it from a vague change into a concrete route back to freedom of movement, cooperation, and prosperity. Thought to be worth 5% to the Yes cause as most new indy supporters cite Brexit as the reason for their change of heart. Wellbeing Economy and Wellbeing pension: A wellbeing economy, one that measures success by health, happiness, and fairness and not just GDP speaks directly to people's concerns. Coupling that with a wellbeing pension, protected from Westminster cuts, older voters will see that independence improves their standard of living. These policies connect to voters' real hopes and fears. They make independence a means to an end, not an end in itself. Takes independence support to 66%, (+12%). The trap of process-only politics SOME argue that adding specific policies now will 'divide the movement.' They fear alienating potential Yes voters who disagree on one or two points. But the truth is the opposite. A 'vote Yes, then we'll decide' approach alienates people by asking them to commit without knowing what they're signing up for. By refusing to commit to a bold vision now, we risk signalling that independence might just be the status quo with a saltire on top. That's not inspiring, the undecided will just see a set of Westminster politicians they don't trust, losing powers to a set of Holyrood politicians they don't trust – big deal. Breaking out of the deadlock BREAKING the deadlock means making independence the delivery vehicle for the radical changes that people desire for Scotland. We are selling a new Scotland so our campaign must be a campaign for a better Scotland and not just for a technical exercise in constitutional change. A winning vision – based on the will of the people. Building it with the people is the solution and that's why Believe in Scotland is campaigning for a Scottish Citizens' Convention. The Citizens' Convention is key to engaging the public in a new national conversation just as we did in 2014 when grassroots supporters moved the polls by sharing their hopes and dreams for a better, fairer, prosperous Scotland. It's a democratic process bringing together civic Scotland and citizens' voices from across Scotland to design the type of Scotland we want. Workers, communities, businesses, academics, and campaigners all have a seat at the table. And you will absolutely find that if we get the nation dreaming of a better Scotland that they will dream of an independent Scotland. READ MORE: Could Scotland challenge hotels housing asylum seekers? A legal expert explains This is how we co-create a credible, inclusive vision with the people. And here's the crucial part: the outcome can be put back to the people as a manifesto for independence. Because more than 80% of what the people will say they want can't be delivered without independence. That makes independence not just a political pitch, but a nation in agreement on what independence will deliver from day one. It should also lead to a festival of democracy– a series of confirmatory referendums on the key issues, such as joining the EU etc, so the people can say yes to the bigger picture but reject individual parts of it if they want to. The cost of timidity IF we stick with 'independence first, everything else later,' we risk another 2014. We'll be cautious when we need to be bold, defensive when we need to be visionary, on the backfoot in every debate like we were in indyref1. And we could lose again, not because independence isn't the answer but because we refused to give independence a moral purpose, and failed to give them a reason to believe. The stakes are too high, we are not just fighting for some academic technical constitutional change. We are fighting for the chance to transform Scotland into a fairer, greener, happier, healthier and more democratic place to live and work. That transformation must be built into the case for independence from the very start and the Citizens' Convention is the best tool to do that. Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp is an economist, the CEO of Business for Scotland, the founder of the Believe in Scotland campaign consisting of 143 local and national Yes Groups, and the author of Scotland the Brief
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Ukraine shows Scotland why independence cannot wait
Even the most cursory glance at the letters or comments sections show they are replete with righteous indignation whenever a perceived slight towards Scotland is detected. Such comments also serve as confirmation – were it needed – that as Scots, we often take exception to others speaking on our behalf, not least when their prime motivation is self-serving and to Scotland's detriment. Any sovereign nation is entitled to have its own voice, make its own decisions, instead of others doing it for them, which brings me to Ukraine and the recent flurry of diplomacy surrounding Russia's war on the country. READ MORE: Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: 'Independence first, everything later' is doomed to fail Writing in The National yesterday, my colleague Mark Brown characterised this ongoing diplomacy as little more than 'inter-imperialist rivalries' and the war in Ukraine as being one not of 'liberation' but 'a proxy war between Russia and the nominal West'. On one level I would agree and in this column have often acknowledged that fear of Nato expansionism was undoubtedly a contributing factor behind Russia's land grab and invasion. But whatever really lay behind Russia's motivation, an illegal invasion of a neighbouring sovereign state, which it undeniably was, and Ukraine's subsequent fight to retain its independence free from Kremlin control is both understandable and justified. It's important never to lose sight of this. For as this war has dragged on, the concerns, desires and wishes of Ukrainians themselves seem to have been increasingly overlooked or outright ignored. The war Ukrainians are waging to repel the Russian invasion is not only about the freedom of a people to choose their place in Europe, but as they see it, it's also about defending democracy itself. And speaking of Ukraine's democratic credentials, you need look no further than the recent surge of civic mobilisation that made Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy think again and reverse his decision, restoring the independence of the two bodies responsible for combating corruption. The very fact that these public protests were possible while the country was under martial law and were responded to positively by those in power, speaks volumes about the health of Ukraine's democratic vibrancy. Can you imagine anything comparable happening on the streets of Moscow or St Petersburg on Vladimir Putin's watch? READ MORE: Could Scotland challenge hotels housing asylum seekers? A legal expert explains Watching Ukraine's fate and its people's desire for freedom once again resting on the whims of the Trump administration has been an unedifying spectacle to say the least. Donald Trump and his special envoy sidekick the credulous Steve Witkoff are to diplomacy what a sputtering candle is to a supernova. As was evident in Anchorage and then a few days later at the White House, optics matter more to Trump than substance. The simple inescapable fact is that Trump will never be able to process the fundamental reality that most Ukrainians and other neighbouring countries in the region have long recognised. In short, Ukraine like Georgia and others in the region want to be secure, sovereign and independent, while Russia wants to subjugate and control their destiny. Recognising this, let alone putting in train a diplomatic strategy to assist Ukraine in achieving such aims, is frankly beyond Trump and Witkoff's abilities. Speaking to Ukrainians from here or whenever I visit the country, time and again I hear them say the last thing they need right now is Trump's flip-flopping approach. Just as it's evident in Trump's on-off tariffs and trade relations, so it's the same when it comes to diplomacy over Ukraine, resulting in more chaos and volatility rather than solid moves towards peace and stability. Ukrainians are also acutely aware that Trump's tendency is to reflect the views of the last person he has spoken to or to be more precise, who has flattered him. In Anchorage it was Putin, in Washington it was the Europeans. This is the diplomatic tightrope that Zelenskyy has to walk. Those that opine from afar that Zelenskyy should cede territory for peace need to try putting themselves in his position or indeed that of his fellow citizens. READ MORE: Scottish Labour MSP Colin Smyth issues statement after 'indecent images' arrest To those outside it might seem like small price to pay for ending a war that has lasted three and half years and killed tens of thousands of Ukrainians. But the future of the country's borders and the security implications that come with them is more than the kind of run of the mill real-estate deal that is Trump and Witkoff's raison d'être. Anyway, it is not within Zelenskyy's 'gift' to hand over under Ukraine's territory as any changes would have to be settled inside the country by a referendum, according to Article 73 of the country's constitution. The question can only be put to a referendum by popular initiative if the signatures of three million eligible Ukrainian voters are gathered from at least two thirds of the country's regions. This is not to say that it will never happen as part of any diplomatic process and were Ukraine offered strong and reliable security guarantees, it could become easier for Zelenskyy's government to consider such concessions on territory. While a recent Gallup poll suggested that 69% of Ukrainians favoured a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible, the same polls also unequivocally showed that most Ukrainians are not prepared to formally concede territory in exchange for peace. In other words, it's unlikely that Zelenskyy would accept the loss of any territory putting in jeopardy – as such a move would – Ukraine's future security and his own political survival. These past few days as the international diplomatic band wagon has rolled on, there has been a lot of form but very little by way of content produced so far. If there are grounds for cautious optimism then it should certainly not come at the expense of what Ukrainian themselves want by way of an outcome. This is paramount. They after all are the ones that were invaded, have seen their people bombed, murdered, raped, tortured and abducted by Russian forces. Like any independent, sovereign nation, they must continue to have their own voice heard. They must be a central part of decision making that ultimately affects them most. Above all, they should not be steamrollered by others making such decisions on their behalf purely out of self-interest. To put this in some kind of context for those of us here, would you really expect anything different were Scotland to find itself in such a challenging position?
