What Trump Missed at the Kennedy Center
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
Les Misérables is that rarest of things: a global phenomenon that gets political. The show—not just a musical but a megamusical; not just a drama but a melodrama—is an impassioned argument in the guise of an epic story. Like the Victor Hugo novel that inspired it, the musical rails against autocrats and the systems that elevate them. It resents injustice, inequality, and inhumanity. It does so loudly and extravagantly, and has no use for subtlety. Its gaudiest villain is a greedy innkeeper. Its true villain is unchecked power. And its collective protagonists are protesters who flow into the streets, shouting that their lives matter. Ever popular and ever lucrative, Les Mis has little need for a rebrand, though if it did, it could very well go by: Woke Mob! The Musical.
But Hugo loved a good plot twist. And a performance last night at the Kennedy Center provided one: In the audience to celebrate a new staging of Les Mis was President Donald Trump, a man who treats woke as a slur, wealth as permission, and the American presidency as a kingdom in waiting. Trump appeared at the opening partly in a personal capacity (he is, famously, a fan of the show) but primarily in a professional one. This past winter, soon after his return to the White House, the president ousted the chair of the Kennedy Center's board, installing himself in the role. He now runs, in addition to 'the country and the world,' one of the nation's most powerful arts institutions. And last night's performance doubled as a fundraiser. In advance of it, according to reporting by The Atlantic's Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer, board members received a letter urging them to contribute $100,000; other donors were invited to contribute up to $2 million.
Trump's attendance also came as real-world protests simmered on the other side of the country he leads. On Saturday, in response to demonstrations in Los Angeles against his administration's treatment of immigrants, Trump made an announcement: He was ready to counter the protests with military force. By the time the president slipped into his VIP box at the Kennedy Center, 4,000 members of the National Guard and 700 Marines had been ordered to mobilize.
That sound you keep hearing might be Hugo not just rolling in his tomb but protesting from it. Hugo was suspicious of kings, and for good reason: He completed Les Mis in exile, having opposed the coup that installed Napoleon III to power. That Trump would be in the audience for the musical is irony enough; that he would be attending as a champion of the show is a mordant bit of revisionism. In the musical, the 'master of the house' brings comic relief. In the bigger theater—of our nation, of geopolitics—he brings the stuff of Hugo's nightmares.
Yet Trump's love of Les Mis is not much of a surprise. Irony, for one thing, does not seem to preclude his aesthetic appreciation. (Trump has also said that Citizen Kane, Orson Welles's pitying satire of a wealthy mogul turned politician, is his favorite film.) The president often discusses his love of Broadway shows and of megamusicals in particular. He has, at various points, also claimed Evita, Cats, and The Phantom of the Opera as favorites. Those musicals arose in the era that made Trump into a celebrity: the late 1970s and the '80s. Trump himself has conducted an 'off-and-on flirtation with the theater world,' The New York Times noted in 2016, a flirtation that has included a brief stint as a Broadway producer in the early '70s, as well as repeated discussions about turning his life into a musical.
Until The Trump Follies makes its debut, though, the president has channeled himself through the political stylings of Les Mis. He has used one of the show's signature songs, 'Do You Hear the People Sing?' in rallies since the days of his 2016 campaign. He used it, in fact, when announcing that he would be running for the White House in the 2024 election. And out of context, the song works:
Will you join in our crusade? Who will be strong and stand with me? Beyond the barricade Is there a world you long to see? Then join in the fight That will give you the right to be free!
These are unobjectionable lyrics. They are widely applicable lyrics. But their obviousness can abet misreadings, as well. Where the song refers to 'the right to be free,' a person might fill in the words 'from oppression,' 'from hatred,' 'from fear'—or 'from the woke mob.' When it refers to 'crusade' and a better world, audiences might apply those ideas to their own sense of how things are. Les Mis, Hugo wrote, is 'a progress from evil to good, from injustice to justice, from falsehood to truth, from night to day, from appetite to conscience, from corruption to life.' But evil and good have no fixed meaning. Les Misérables, as a title, is commonly translated as, among others, 'The Miserable' or 'The Wretched' or 'The Poor.' Some translations, though, choose a different word: 'The Victims.'
[Read: America now has a minister of culture]
Justice, in Hugo's time as in ours, is a slippery aspiration. Woke can mean whatever people want it to mean. So can freedom. For many Americans, Trump included, the January 6 rioters are freedom fighters and political prisoners. For many of those same Americans, Trump is fighting tyranny rather than establishing it. 'I don't know whether it will be read by everyone,' Hugo wrote of Les Misérables, 'but it is meant for everyone.' He most likely did not envision that people of the future would take him so literally. If you remove history from the equation, though—if you strip away reality as a context—Les Mis can say anything. The show's red-white-and-blue color scheme (in context, a reference to the French flag) can seem to be American. Its climactic protests (in context, a recounting of the June Rebellion of 1832) might read like the siege of January 6.
So many things, these days, have Rorschachian edges, which is to say blurred ones. So many things can be shape-shifted into political convenience. Les Mis's lyrics—'Who cares about your lonely soul / We strive toward a larger goal'—might refer to anyone's cause. So might another line: 'Our little lives don't count at all.'
[Stephen Marche: America's cultural revolution]
Les Mis, published in 1862, emerged from a period of constant upheaval: revolutions, counterrevolutions, coups, widespread poverty, displacement. France was a monarchy and a republic and a monarchy again; along the way, chaos reigned. Hugo's novel distills the human costs of that instability. It considers what happens when 'rule' becomes hopelessly unruly.
As a morality play, Les Mis lives in the tension between the spirit of the law and the letter of it. The story radiates from a single, consequential moment: Its central figure, Jean Valjean, steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family. He is arrested and imprisoned—the theft, in the eyes of the law, is a crime—and the event is so stark in its morals that it reads like an ethics case study. Who is more just, the man who tried to feed his family or the man who arrested him for it? Which is the true crime, one man's taking of a bit of food or the circumstances that led to the theft?
The resonances to today's world are striking. Early in Les Mis, Valjean is released from prison after a 19-year confinement. Announcing himself as 'Jean Valjean,' he is sharply corrected by the story's prime antagonist, Inspector Javert—to whom Valjean is, and always will be, Prisoner 24601. You might think, today, of the people who are defined not as people at all, but as 'illegals,' or of the protesters dismissed as 'looters' and 'rioters' and 'terrorists.' Javert and Valjean are doubles of each other: incarnations of Hugo's interest in the connections between the just and the unjust, the dark and the light. Valjean, and nearly all of Les Mis's other characters, are not served by the state's sense of justice; they are oppressed by it. Javert, in enforcing the law, compounds injustice. His morals are so unfeeling that they lead him to immorality.
[Read: The Kennedy Center performers who didn't cancel]
Little wonder that 'Do You Hear the People Sing?' has become a protest song the world over, its words invoked as pleas for freedom. The crowds in Hong Kong, fighting for democracy, have sung it. So have crowds in the United States, fighting for the rights of unions. The story's tensions are the core tensions of politics too: the rights of the individual, colliding with the needs of the collective; the possibilities, and tragedies, that can come when human dignity is systematized. Les Mis, as a story, is pointedly specific—one country, one rebellion, one meaning of freedom. But Les Mis, as a broader phenomenon, is elastic. It is not one story but many, the product of endless interpretation and reiteration. With the novel, Hugo turned acts of history into a work of fiction. The musical turned the fiction into a show. And American politics, now, have turned the show into a piece of fan fic.
Hugo-like protest, to some degree, was a theme at last night's performance. Several Les Mis cast members, when Trump's presence was confirmed, announced that they intended to boycott the show. Some audience members—including a group of drag queens seated in the orchestra section—attended as an act of protest as well. Trump himself came to the show with an entourage including first lady Melania Trump, Vice President J. D. Vance, second lady Usha Vance, and several advisers. As they took their seats, clad in tuxes and gowns, many in the crowd booed. In response, Trump stood and grinned and waved, treating the greeting as an ovation. He then took his seat to enjoy a roughly three-hour indictment of autocracy.
Trump, in translating Les Mis for himself, erodes Hugo's own claims to the story. The convictions that grounded Hugo's own sense of freedom—his resentment of unaccountable power, his sense that all justice is social justice—recede, just a bit more, toward the backstage. But Hugo remains. So does Les Mis, the historical artifact. The Los Angeles protests have been spreading throughout the country. More protests are planned for this Saturday, to coincide with a military parade that Trump has arranged in the nation's capital. The parade will coincide with his birthday. The protests against it have a nickname: 'No Kings.'
*Lead image credit: Illustration by Allison Zaucha / The Atlantic. Sources: Hulton Archive / Getty; SSPL / Getty; The Ohio State University Library; Getty.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
25 minutes ago
- Axios
Public media funding cuts hit Chicago: WBEZ, WTTW brace for impact
President Trump and the Republican-majority U.S. House moved one step closer to cutting funding for public media, putting local organizations in limbo. The latest: The House passed a bill Thursday afternoon to cancel over $1 billion in funding for PBS and NPR, via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This funding was included in the 2025 fiscal year budget, but this action removes it. Why it matters: Federal funding for public media could vanish — and Chicago stations like WBEZ and WTTW are bracing for the fallout. The big picture: The move breaks decades of bipartisan tradition treating CPB funding as apolitical and throws public media companies into budgetary chaos. What they're saying: "If approved, this cancellation of funding would eliminate critical investments, stripping resources that we use to power independent journalism, educational programming, emergency alerts and the infrastructure that supports the entire network of newsrooms nationwide," Chicago Public Media CEO Melissa Bell wrote to station members. "This could threaten the ability of PBS, and member stations like WTTW, to operate autonomously," a WTTW spokesperson said in a statement. By the numbers: The cuts would amount to about 6 percent of Chicago Public Media's budget, which the organization estimates to be about $3 million annually. That's not factoring in possible syndication costs handed down by National Public Radio, which is also losing funding from this bill. For WTTW, 10% of its 2024 budget came from federal funding. Zoom in: Chicago Public Media and WTTW (which also includes WFMT-FM) are among the largest public media organizations. Chicago Public Media (WBEZ/Sun-Times) reported revenue of $70 million for 2024, while WTTW had a total operating budget of $32.7 million. Both organizations receive significant revenue from member donations. Yes, but: Smaller Illinois radio stations, such as WILL-FM in Urbana, WUIS-FM in Springfield, and WNIJ-FM in DeKalb, have significantly higher federal funding, in some cases accounting for half of their budgets. Those stations are attached to local universities. Zoom out: It's unclear if the organizations will supercharge fundraising to attract more private donors or cut back on programming and staff. Chicago Public Media recently cut staff at both the Sun-Times and WBEZ. The intrigue: The rescission package aims to claw back funding that Congress previously approved for fiscal year 2025. It primarily consists of cuts identified by DOGE, which include funding for foreign aid programs such as USAID. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting's funding is usually allocated every two years, so this cuts the second year of funding and puts future allocations in serious doubt. The rescission bill is rare in government. Trump attempted to use it during his first term, but was defeated in the Senate. Between the lines: Republicans have increasingly painted public media as left-leaning and biased, citing PBS programs like "Sesame Street" as "woke propaganda." The other side: Public media offers a variety of independent programming from news, culture, food and children's programs, funded to avoid programming influenced by corporations and commercials.
San Francisco Chronicle
25 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Unrest in the Middle East threatens to send some prices higher
Israel's attack on Iran Friday has catapulted their long-running conflict into what could become a wider, more dangerous regional war and potentially drive prices higher for both businesses and households. Oil and gold surged and the dollar rose as markets retreated, signaling a flight to investments perceived as more safe. After years of sky-high inflation in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, Americans have become increasingly leery about the economy this year due to President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs, though the impact so far has been muted. The latest escalation in the Middle East has the potential to cause widespread price increases that could set consumers back again. Here's a look at some of the sectors that could face an outsized impact from the escalation in the Middle East, and what that might mean for consumers. Energy Oil prices surged Friday to their biggest gain since the onset of Russia's war on Ukraine began more than three years ago. If or when Israel's attack on Iran could impact gas prices, which have been in decline for nearly a year, isn't entirely clear. Iran is one of the world's major producers of oil, though sanctions by Western countries have limited its sales. If a wider war erupts, it could significantly slow or stop the flow of Iran's oil to its customers. Energy prices have been held in check this year because production has remained relatively high, and demand for it low. A widening conflict could tilt that balance. 'The loss of this export supply would wipe out the surplus that was expected in the fourth quarter of this year,' analysts for ING wrote in a note to clients. In the past, conflicts in the Middle East have sent energy price soaring for extended periods but in recent years, because of the huge supply of oil, those spikes have been more fleeting. Earlier this month, the countries in the OPEC+ alliance decided to increase production again, which often pushes crude prices down. They hit a four-year low in early May. That usually means cheaper gas, of which there is currently a surplus. According to the auto club organization AAA, the average price for a gallon of gas in the U.S. on Friday was $3.13 per gallon, down from $3.46 a year ago. Shipping Shipping costs were already on the rise for a number of reasons. Cargo is being rerouted around the Red Sea where the U.S. began conducting air strikes on Yemen's Houthis, the Iran-backed rebels who were attacking ships on what is a vital global trade route. And this year, companies have scrambled to import as many goods as possible before Trump's tariffs kicked in, pushing demand, and prices to ship, higher. The Baltic Dry Index, a key indicator of dry bulk shipping demand that tacks the movement of coal, iron ore, grains and more, is hitting eight-month highs. The window for companies seeking to ship goods before the year's end is coming to a close this month. A widening conflict in the Middle East would only drive prices higher as those companies jostle to get goods from overseas as geopolitical tensions in the region rise. Shares of ocean shipping companies like Teekay and Frontline rose sharply following Israel's attack. Consumer goods Higher energy prices can lead to elevated costs for a wide range of products because just about everything is made and transported using oil or natural gas. Government data this week revealed that Trump's tariffs have yet to cause a broader rise in inflation. Still, many companies have announced price hikes due to the tariffs. Walmart has already raised prices on some goods and said it will do so again as the back-to-school shopping season begins. J.M. Smucker, largely due to the impact of tariffs on coffee from Brazil and Vietnam, said it's also raised prices and will do so again. Combined with the higher shipping and production costs that could result from the escalated Middle East conflict, prices will almost certainly rise further, analysts say. 'Inventory buffers may have allowed firms to put off decisions about raising prices, but that won't be the case for much longer,' the ING analysts said. 'We expect to see bigger spikes in the month-on-month inflation figures through the summer,' they added, noting that The Fed's recent Beige Book cited widespread reports of aggressive price hikes already in the pipeline. Federal Reserve Federal Reserve officials meet next week to make their next interest rate decision, and the vast majority of economists still think the U.S. central bank will leave its benchmark rate where it is for the fourth straight time. The Fed has been juggling its dual mandate of supporting the labor market while keeping inflation at bay. That goal may become increasingly difficult to achieve if prices for gas, food and other essential rise due to the Israel-Iran conflict. If prices go up, Fed officials may be inclined to raise its benchmark rate, raising borrowing costs for businesses and consumers. That could lead to businesses to cut jobs, particularly in the high-growth tech sector, and force Americans to pull back on spending, which drives more than 70% of economic activity in the U.S. Travel Perhaps contrary to conventional wisdom, one cascading effect of the heightened Middle East tension may be that the cost of traveling, even if fuel prices rise, will come down. Airlines have been downgrading their travel forecasts as businesses and families tighten their travel budgets in anticipation of tariff-related price hikes. Several major air disasters also have made some wary of getting on a plane. Most major U.S. airlines have said they plan to reduce their scheduled domestic flights this summer, citing an ebb in economy passengers booking leisure trips. Last month, Bank of America reported that its credit card customers were spending less on flights and lodging. And because of the Trump tariff wars, the dollar has fallen almost 10% this year when measured against a basket of foreign currencies, making it more expensive for Americans to travel abroad due to unfavorable exchange rates.
Vox
25 minutes ago
- Vox
Will the US get drawn into the Israel-Iran war?
is a senior correspondent at Vox covering foreign policy and world news with a focus on the future of international conflict. He is the author of the 2018 book, Invisible Countries: Journeys to the Edge of Nationhood , an exploration of border conflicts, unrecognized countries, and changes to the world map. In announcing Israel's strikes against Iran's military leadership and nuclear program last night, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the case that Israel had 'no choice but to act, and act now' in response to recent advances in Iran's capabilities that put his country at risk of a 'nuclear holocaust.' It's far from clear that the Trump administration shared Netanyahu's sense of urgency. President Donald Trump waved off Israeli plans for a strike in April, amid ongoing efforts to negotiate a new deal over Tehran's nuclear program. Just hours before the attack was launched, Trump still seemed committed to the diplomatic path, saying he would 'rather that [the Israelis] don't go in in order not to ruin it.' One of the biggest questions in the days to come — and perhaps the one with the highest stakes for Israel — is whether Trump will come to embrace the war he publicly opposed. Initially, reporting on the lead-up to the attack suggested that the Trump administration was aware the attack was coming but did little to stop it. The first high-level US response to the strikes, from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, was relatively noncommittal, stating that the Israelis 'believe this action was necessary' but that the US was 'not involved in strikes against Iran.' On Friday morning, however, Trump seemed more enthusiastic about the strikes, posting that he had warned Iranian leaders of the consequences of making a deal but that they 'couldn't get it done.' He added, 'the United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and that Israel has a lot of it.' This appears to be a case of Trump associating himself after the fact with what appears to be a remarkably successful military operation. The hope in the Trump administration seems to be that the Israeli operation will force Iran to make concessions at the negotiating table. Trump urged Iranian leaders to take a deal 'BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE,' and US officials reportedly still hoped that planned talks in Oman on Sunday will still go ahead. A meeting on Sunday, at least, seems unlikely. Iran has threatened retaliation for the strikes and made clear that it doesn't believe Washington's disavowals of involvement. Netanyahu's government is also clearly hoping for a more active US role. 'The president seems to still hope that his preference for a diplomatic solution can be salvaged,' said Nimrod Novik, a former foreign policy adviser to the Israeli government. 'Few in the political-security establishment here share that hope.' He added: 'From an Israeli vantage point, it seems that the better the operation looks, the more Trump wants to own it.' The question in the days to come is just how long the US will stay on the sidelines. How the American role in the conflict could escalate According to the New York Times, the Israeli attack plan that Trump rejected in April, 'would have required U.S. help not just to defend Israel from Iranian retaliation, but also to ensure that an Israeli attack was successful, making the United States a central part of the attack itself.' The conventional wisdom has long been that a military strike to destroy or seriously degrade Iran's nuclear enrichment capability would require US involvement: Iran's key enrichment sites are located in fortified facilities deep underground, and destroying them would require heavy bunker-buster bombs. Israel doesn't have those bombs or the heavy bombers required to carry them, but the US does. But that's not the approach Israel took, at least initially. Analysts say Israel does not appear to have struck the most heavily fortified compound at Fordow, or its nuclear site at Isfahan. A third key nuclear enrichment site, Natanz, sustained only light damage. Instead, Israel's strikes targeted Iran's top leadership, including the commander in chief of its military and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and prominent nuclear scientists. Several military bases around Tehran were hit, as well as air defense systems. 'This was not a campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities,' said Nicole Grajewski, an expert on the Iranian nuclear program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'This was a campaign against Iranian command and control and leadership.' This was, however, just the opening salvo of a campaign that Netanyahu said 'will continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat.' The operation's aims could very well expand. 'This is day one,' noted Raphael Cohen, a military analyst at the RAND Corporation. 'On day 20, day 40, day 60, once everything drags on as stockpiles dwindle, that's when we're going to start to see to what extent Israel needs the United States.' How will Iran respond? Iran fired at least 100 drones at Israel on Friday, which, so far, appear to have been intercepted without causing any damage. Notably, it has not yet fired ballistic missiles, its most potent long-range threat. The Iranian leadership is likely still reeling from the losses it sustained. Its capacity to respond is likely also hampered by Israel's success over the past year and a half against Iran's network of proxies across the Middle East. Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based militia that was once the most powerful of these proxies, but was decimated by last year's pager bombings, has been notably quiet so far, in contrast to the wide-ranging rocket barrage it launched immediately after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks. Iran fired missile barrages at Israel twice last year, first in April in response to the bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, and a second, much larger barrage in October in response to the killing of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders in Tehran. Neither caused extensive damage, though in the October strikes, Israeli air defenses were overwhelmed in some places, suggesting that a larger strike could cause serious damage. Iran may have as many as 2,000 ballistic missiles at its disposal, and Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff reportedly warned senators last week that Iranian retaliation could cause a 'mass casualty event.' 'In October, you saw more advanced ballistic missiles being used, but not like the full suite of Iranian ballistic missiles,' Grajewski told Vox. She also noted that during both strikes last year, Israel needed international support to successfully repel those attacks, notably help from the US military in shooting down missiles as well as intelligence support from a previously unlikely alliance of Arab countries sharing intelligence. Though the Trump administration was perfectly willing to cut a quick deal with Yemen's Houthi rebels, despite the group continuing to periodically launch missiles and drones at Israel, a massive attack of the type Witkoff warned is a different story. Israeli policymakers are likely counting on the Trump administration to assist in mounting the kind of multilayered defense that the US did under Joe Biden last year. Could Iran attack Americans? Iranian leaders are plainly not buying US disavowals of involvement in Israel's operation. Military commanders had warned that US forces in the Middle East could be exposed to attack in retaliation for such a strike. In the days leading up to the attack, the US partially evacuated its embassy in Baghdad and authorized the departure of personnel and families from other sites in the region due to that risk. Iran has generally been very wary about taking steps that could draw the US into a direct conflict, preferring to act through proxies. This would suggest a direct strike on US facilities or a drastic move likely blocking the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, which could cause a spike in global energy prices, is unlikely. Attacks by one of Iran's proxy militias in Iran, or a resumption of strikes against US ships by the Houthis, seem somewhat more likely. On the other hand, we may simply be in uncharted waters where the previous rules of restraint don't apply. The Iranian government will almost certainly feel it has to mount some significant response, if only for its own credibility. There have already been some reports of civilian casualties–if those increase, the need to respond will only grow. For Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 'there's a personal element,' said Alex Vatanka, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. 'How do you get yourself out of the situation without being entirely humiliated? … Is he going to do what Qaddafi did and give up his nuclear program, or is he going to say, you know, what, to hell with it, I'd rather die. I'd rather seek martyrdom. It remains to be seen.' How much has Trump changed? Khamenei isn't the only leader whose motives are something of a mystery at the moment. During his first term, Trump authorized the strike that killed senior Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani, a major provocation, but also called off a planned strike on Iranian soil due to concerns about escalation. During his second term, he has been surprisingly unconcerned about coordinating with Israel — cutting deals with the Houthis as well as launching nuclear talks with Iran that Netanyahu was highly skeptical of from the start. His administration this time includes some notably less hawkish voices when it comes to Iran, such as Vice President JD Vance, who has warned against letting Israel drag the US into a war, and described it as a scenario that could 'balloon into World War III.' In 24 hours, Trump has gone from publicly opposing an Israeli strike to taking at least partial credit for it. Netanyahu, who has been advocating an operation like this for years, is likely hoping that continued military success will prompt Trump to abandon his hopes of a big, beautiful deal and join the fight.
