Ghana to advance reparatory justice at first major gathering since landmark UN resolution

“Heads of state and participants from more than 80 countries at three-day event in Accra to pursue actionable commitments to reconciliation and restitution

Carlos Mureithi

Osu Castle, a 17th-century fortress in Accra built by the Danish that served as a hub for the transatlantic slave trade. Photograph: Joris Kaper/Alamy

Ghana is hosting a conference to advance the continent’s push for reparatory justice after the adoption of the landmark United Nations (UN) resolution declaring the trafficking of enslaved Africans as the gravest crime against humanity.

Heads of state and government, ministers, civil society representatives, historians, researchers and legal experts representing more than 80 countries are converging in the capital, Accra, for the three-day event, billed Next Steps, which starts on Wednesday. It is the first major gathering on the issue since the resolution was adopted.

The conference will feature an event on 19 June at Osu Castle - a 17th-century fortress in the capital built by the Danish that served as a hub for the transatlantic slave trade - to honour Juneteenth, which marks the end of slavery in the US.

Expected speakers include prime minister Mia Mottley of Barbados and presidents John Mahama, Joseph Boakai Sr, Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah and Bassirou Diomaye Faye of Ghana, Liberia, Namibia and Senegal, respectively. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, will give a video address.

John Mahama’s Ghana say progress will depend on dialogue conducted in good faith. Photograph: Peter Foley/UPI/Shutterstock

Participants are engaging in dialogue around five objectives – including formulating a framework to advance the resolution’s objectives globally and establishing global panels on reparatory justice and restitution – to “transform political momentum into a common concrete institutional commitment for reparatory justice”, organisers say.

The conference comes nearly three months after the UN general assembly voted to adopt a proposal by Ghana on behalf of AU member states to recognise the trafficking of enslaved Africans and the racialised chattel enslavement of people from the continent as the gravest crime against humanity.

A total of 123 states voted in favour of the proposal while three – the US, Israel and Argentina – voted against it and 52, including the UK and all EU member states, abstained.

The transatlantic slave trade lasted about 400 years – from the early 16th century to the late 19th century.

Many previous initiatives by African countries to redress decades of injustices, such as the forced enslavement of their people, had been largely fragmented. The resolution marked a watershed moment for the continent’s campaign for reparative justice, after efforts including the Abuja Proclamation of 1993 that demanded reparations for colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade and helped lay the groundwork for the campaign.

Ghana says in its concept note for the conference: “This [resolution] represents a fundamental departure from the international community’s response to the transatlantic slave trade, replacing commemorative gestures with the pursuit of historical truth and dialogue, aimed at reconciliation and justice.”

The decision recognises that the legacies of enslavement continue today and calls for UN member states to have “inclusive, good-faith dialogue” on reparatory justice and “prompt and unhindered” restitution of cultural and other properties that are of value to their countries of origin.

Mia Mottley of Barbados is expected to be a strong voice in the conference’s mission to broaden the reparations coalition. Photograph: Quique García/EPA

The Accra conference seeks to expand on the UN success by deliberating on mechanisms to turn the resolution’s potential into actionable commitments.

The decision has had some knock-on effects. Last month, Macron called forFrance to address its role in the enslavement of Africans, notably using the term “reparations”, which previous French heads of state have avoided. Also last month, Pope Leo XIV made a historic apology for the Vatican’s role in legitimising slavery and for its delay in condemning the practice.

Kyeretwie Osei, the head of programmes at the Economic, Social and Cultural Council, the AU’s civil society policy organ, said the global discourse on reparatory justice was gathering momentum and at its most promising, adding that the conference offered an opportunity “to leverage this particular moment”.

“There is this slow but really substantive movement towards some sort of global reckoning on this issue,” he said. “This conference is really going to allow Africa to ensure that it has the structures that would be necessary [and] the political will that we’ve seen to be properly leveraged and channelled to ensure that we are able to best give practical meaning to this particular point in time.”

The conference has representatives from outside Africa, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, the Caricom Reparations Commission, the Congressional Black Caucus and the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People.

Liliane Umubyeyi, the co-founder and executive director of African Futures Lab, a nonprofit that works to raise awareness of racial injustices, said the event presented an opportunity for the reparative justice movement to become a broader coalition involving other countries outside Africa and the Caribbean, another region with a growing reparations movement.

“This would significantly accelerate the reparations agenda, especially if other international institutions that have previously been hesitant to engage with the issue begin to do so,” she added.

The Guardian’s connections to enslavement: can an institution atone for its history?

On Thursday 2 July, join Maya Wolfe-Robinson, Ebony Riddell Bamber, Prof Verene A Shepherd and Ahmad Ward in this free event for a wide-ranging discussion on the Guardian’s Legacies of Enslavement programme. Book tickets here or at guardian.live“

 

Trump faces Supreme Court showdown as major rulings loom

“Over the next two weeks, the justices will issue key rulings, including rulings on the president’s effort to curb birthright citizenship and fire a member of the Federal Reserve.

June 17, 2026, 5:00 AM EDT

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court in the coming fortnight will render judgment in a flurry of significant cases involving President Donald Trump, including his attempt to limit birthright citizenship and fire a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.

The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has 20 cases left to decide in its current term, with the next ruling day set for Thursday. The term starts in October and generally concludes at the end of June when many of the biggest and most consequential cases are decided.

Trump has already suffered a major loss at the court this year, with the justices in February blocking his sweeping tariffs on imports from around the world.

He reacted by lashing out at the justices who were in the majority, including two he appointed.

Robert Luther III, a professor at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University who served in the White House during the first Trump term, said that while the president will inevitably lose some cases, it is partly because the administration is pushing an “extremely robust vision” of presidential power.

Trump cases at the Supreme Court

• Trump v. Barbara: The administration's effort to limit birthright citizenship.
• Trump v. Cook: The president's attempted firing of Fed board member Lisa Cook.
• Trump v. Slaughter: Trump's firing of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter.
• Mullin v. Doe/Trump v. Miot: The administration's plan to remove legal protections from Haitian and Syrian immigrants.
• Mullin v. Al Otro Lado: A dispute over the government's powers to turn away asylum-seekers at the border.

“While ultimately there may be a few losses, I think the court continues to move in a pro-executive direction, a vision that is more consistent with President Trump’s view of the executive branch,” he added.

In recent weeks, Trump has appeared rattled at the general consensus that the court is likely to rule against him on his widely touted plan to reinterpret a provision in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment that guarantees citizenship to almost everyone born on U.S. soil.

Trump’s proposal would not grant citizenship to babies whose parents do not have legal status in the U.S. or are temporary visitors.

He attended the birthright citizenship oral argument in April, the first sitting president to do so, and has since grumbled about the likelihood of the court ruling against him.

“The United States States of America cannot live with the shackles of Birthright Citizenship. It is not economically, or otherwise, sustainable, and no other Country in the World, of consequence, does it!” Trump said in a Truth Social post last week.

Based on the oral arguments, the court also seems likely to rule against the president on his effort to fire Lisa Cook, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors member. The court already delivered a blow to Trump on that front by refusing to immediately allow him to remove Cook from office last fall.

Trump sought to remove Cook based on allegations of mortgage fraud against her, which she denies. The Federal Reserve has a long tradition of being independent, but Trump has openly sought to increase his influence over it. He recently appointed Kevin Warsh to be the new chairman of the board.

The court seems poised, however, to hand Trump victory on his broader effort to reshape the government by endorsing his power to fire members of other hitherto independent agencies without needing to give a reason. That case involves the ouster of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Kelly Slaughter.

The Supreme Court allowed the firing to take effect in September and has also been receptive to the president’s removal of officials at other agencies.

In a separate Trump-related case, the justices are considering whether to grant his requests to remove protections for thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants as part of the administration’s hard-line immigration policy. The ruling in the two linked cases will determine whether the administration can quickly revoke what is known as Temporary Protected Status for people from other countries too.

In another immigration case involving the administration, the justices will issue a ruling on the government’s powers to turn away asylum-seekers at the border.

The Supreme Court has several high-profile cases to decide that are not directly related to Trump policies, including two involving state efforts in West Virginia and Idaho to ban transgender girls and women from participating in girls’ and women’s sports. The justices will also issue rulings on significant cases involving election law and gun rights.

While the end of the Supreme Court term may be a mixed bag for the Trump administration, liberal advocates are anxious that the conservative majority under Chief Justice John Roberts does not get too much credit for a potential ruling against the president on birthright citizenship. 

They remain focused on the court’s contentious recent decisions that cast a blow against the Voting Rights Act and allowed Republican-led states to adopt new congressional maps that eliminate majority-Black districts.

“I don’t think a ruling against Trump in birthright citizenship is going to make a difference in terms of how the Roberts court is perceived,” said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the left-leaning Constitutional Accountability Center. She added, “The Supreme Court simply not getting on the train to crazy town doesn’t negate the fact they have turned back the clock on American progress toward multiracial democracy.”

 

Seven-year-old Abdiqadir was hit in a US airstrike. Without a $750 operation, he may lose his ability to walk

​

“Seven-year-old Abdiqadir Salah, injured by shrapnel in a US airstrike in Somalia, requires a $1,000 operation to prevent potential paralysis. His family, unable to afford the surgery, faces a dire situation as the US denies civilian casualties and offers no compensation. The airstrike, targeting al-Shabaab in Jamaame, resulted in at least 12 civilian deaths, including eight children.

​

Abdiqadir Salah was pierced by shrapnel in a bombing that killed 12 in Somalia. But as the US denies civilians were hurt they face no hope of compensation

Mark Townsend

Abdiqadir Salah has shrapnel in his back and thigh but treatment costs $1,000. His mother says: ‘What’s worse than being [unable to] do anything for [my] wounded children?’ Photograph: Family

A seven-year-old boy who was riddled with shrapnel during a deadly US airstrike in Somalia faces losing his ability to walk unless he has a £750 emergency operation.

But Abdiqadir Salah’s family cannot afford the surgery and the US – which refuses to admit that any civilians were killed or injured during its attack six months ago – appears unwilling to pay compensation to those affected by airstrikes in Somalia.

Shards of shrapnel are lodged in two places in Abdiqadir’s back and in his upper thigh after US airstrikes that killed at least 12 civilians, including eight children.

It is the deadliest attack on civilians in Somalia during either Trump administration and one of the worst since the botched 1993 US military operation in Mogadishu known as Black Hawk Down.

A Guardian investigation into the strikes in the town of Jamaame raises myriad questions over US intelligence, how the targets were selected and why children were hit while they were in the open and were likely to have been clearly identifiable to the drone’s strike team.

His mother said Abdiqadir was in the street outside his family home in Jamaame on 15 November 2025 when he was struck by a missile.

“That’s where three of my children got wounded. All three of them were laying on the ground covered in blood,” said Marian Haji Abdi Guled.

“When I tried to tend to them, shells began falling everywhere. Every step you took, or direction you turned, there were shells and missiles raining everywhere.

“There was no warning before the strikes but we could [hear] drones hovering above town before the strikes. It was very loud.”

After the attack, Guled took her three injured children into the surrounding countryside to flee the drones.

Her eldest, Mohamed, 16, had shrapnel lodged in his fingers, while her daughter Sumaya, 14, had three metal fragments lodged in her head, which have since been removed. Abdiqadir’s X-rays, which have been viewed by the Guardian, show shrapnel still lodged near his hip socket from where it entered his lower back.

An X-ray of Abdiqadir Salah’s thigh shows shrapnel lodged near his hip. 

“They bled throughout the night,” Guled said. “We couldn’t leave the countryside because we feared the drones hovering above would bomb us again.”

The next day Guled travelled 40 miles (60km) to Jilib, the de facto capital of the territory held by the Islamist militant group al-Shabaab, which was the stated target of the US airstrikes on Jamaame in November.

The hospital there, however, could not help. After borrowing money for the two-day journey, Guled travelled with Abdiqadir and his sister to Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu.

“My oldest still has shrapnel lodged in his body but I left him back in Jamaame because I couldn’t afford to take him to Mogadishu and took the younger ones.

“During the two nights and two days to reach Mogadishu, we couldn’t even eat anything. All I thought about was saving my children.”

Doctors say they must operate to remove the shrapnel from Abdiqadir.  Photograph: Mohamed Gabobe

Although her daughter received treatment in the capital, Abdiqadir remains in desperate need of help.

Doctors at Kaafi hospital in central Mogadishu told his mother that the shrapnel inside the child needed to be urgently removed to avoid life-changing consequences for him.

“They [doctors] told me if the shrapnel isn’t removed from his body, it could affect his ability to continue walking,” Guled said.

“But I don’t have $1,000 [£750] needed for the operation to remove the shrapnel from my son’s body. What’s worse than being a mother who can’t do anything for her wounded children?”

Despite being unable to afford the surgery, Guled has stayed in Mogadishu because it is the only place her child can get the required treatment. However, the cost of renting accommodation in the capital – nearly £190 a month – makes it impossible for the family to save enough for the surgery.

Guled with Abdiqadir, and her daughter, Sumaya. Photograph: Mohamed Gabobe

The US has not paid compensation to any Somali civilians injured or killed in airstrikes. Under the Trump administration, the Pentagon has also quietly scrapped a programme making it a legal requirement to prevent and respond to civilian deaths.

“I don’t know where the money [for the operation] will come from,” Guled said. “I left the children’s father back at the farm in Jamaame to protect our crops from wild animals. He also doesn’t have money to reach Mogadishu.”

The airstrikes were conducted alongside Somali ground forces in a joint operation led by the US military’s Africa command, suggesting the possibility that some of the casualties may have been inflicted by those troops.

Witness testimonies, however, all describe the Jamaame casualties being caused by bombs dropped from drones, rather than fire from ground troops. US officials would not answer questions over Somali forces’ role in the attack.

Guled has no doubts over the origin of the strikes that injured her children, insisting they had not been inflicted by infantry weapons such as mortars. “It is the Americans who are responsible for our suffering,” she said.

The US Department of War did not respond to a series of detailed questions regarding the airstrikes on Jamaame.“

  

January 6 defendants pursue millions in claims through obscure federal process

​

“January 6 defendants are pursuing millions in compensation from the Trump administration through the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The FTCA allows individuals wronged by the government to file claims for monetary damages, and the justice department has complete discretion over whether to settle these claims. This process could provide a way for the Trump administration to compensate those responsible for the January 6 violence, despite bipartisan opposition to a similar “anti-weaponization fund.”

​

Federal Tort Claims Act, over which DoJ has total discretion, provides workaround to Trump’s $1.8bn slush fund

Sam Levine

Pro-Trump protesters occupy the US Capitol, including the inaugural stage and viewing stands, in Washington DC, on 6 January 2021. Photograph: Michael Reynolds/EPA

January 6 defendants who assaulted police officers are pursuing legal claims for millions in compensation from the Trump administration using an obscure federal process with minimal oversight, but which offers the Trump administration a way to compensate those responsible for violence even after scrapping its “anti-weaponization fund”.

The defendants are pursuing their claims using the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which allows individuals wronged by the government to file claims for monetary damages. The justice department has complete and unchecked discretion over whether to settle the claims, giving the Trump administration a powerful vehicle to reward those responsible for violence on January 6. The claims would be paid out from the judgment fund, a perpetual appropriation allowed for by Congress and the same pot of money Trump’s $1.8bn slush fund was going to draw from. All of the defendants seeking compensation received a pardon from Trump.

There was fierce bipartisan pushback to the “anti-weaponization fund” proposed by the administration last month after Trump reached a settlement with the Internal Revenue Service. In particular, members of Congress were concerned that people who harmed law enforcement officers on January 6 might receive compensation. “If you’ve been convicted of assault on a cop ... doesn’t seem to me like people who are victims,” Josh Hawley, a Republican senator from Missouri, told NBC News.

While the “anti-weaponization fund” appears to be on ice for now, FTCA claims and lawsuits could provide another avenue for payouts.

“It risks turning the judgment fund into exactly the sort of slush fund that the ‘anti-weaponization’ was going to be,” said Rupa Bhattacharyya, a former director in the civil division’s tort branch at the justice department, who worked on FTCA claims and now is the legal director at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law.

“If the treasury department is not going to enforce the restrictions on the use of the judgment fund, which is to settle impending or imminent lawsuits where there’s some risk of liability, then there’s no limit on what you can use that judgment fund money for, so long as someone files a bogus claim,” she said.

The justice department agreed to settle FTCA claims filed by Michael Flynn, a former national security adviser, and Carter Page, Trump’s foreign policy adviser, for $1.25m each earlier this year.

Many of the January 6 defendants are represented by Peter Ticktin, a Florida attorney who is a longtime friend of Trump. He said he’s filed around 400 FTCA claims on behalf of January 6 defendants and expects to start frequently filing lawsuits now that the six month waiting period has expired.

There may also be advantages to pursuing compensation through FTCA claims instead of the weaponization fund, said Mark McCloskey, a Missouri attorney who is representing many January 6 defendants. There were no restrictions on who could apply to the weaponization fund, making the pool of applicants so big that it could lower the per capita recovery, he said.

“The weaponization fund, for the brief fleeting moment which it allegedly existed, had no policies, procedures, or anything that would indicate what kind of evidence they would have required, what kind of format of a filing they would have required, or anything like that,” he said. “I never thought the weaponization fund, as a practical matter, was very meaningful. Whereas the FTCA gives you a statute with teeth that you can, as long as you can prove your claim, you have a right to recovery.”

Among those seeking money are Kenneth Joseph Thomas, an Ohio man who was sentenced to nearly five years in prison after being found guilty for assaulting several police officers. Video showed him shoving multiple police officers and throwing himself into a line of officers as he shouted for other rioters to “hold the fucking line”. Also seeking compensation is John George Todd III, a Missouri man sentenced to five years in prison after being found guilty on several charges, including injuring a Capitol police officer.

Both men are among nine plaintiffs seeking at least $1m each in damages in an FTCA suit filed 29 May in Washington DC. They say they are entitled to damages because they were unfairly and vindictively prosecuted by the government.

Andrew Taake, a Houston man sentenced to six years in prison and who pleaded guilty to assaulting police officers with bear spray and a whip-like weapon, is also seeking at least $2.5m in damages. Taake is entitled to damages because he received inadequate medical treatment and an unfair trial, his lawyers said in their FTCA lawsuit, filed last September in Washington.

Bhattacharyya said she believed the justice department could defend itself against the “malicious prosecution type claims” the January 6 defendants were bringing, and she hoped it would do so. When Trump filed his $10bn lawsuit against the IRS, the justice department did not try to defend itself against the suit.

“Most of these plaintiffs were indicted by grand juries, brought before a court. Many of them pled guilty, others were convicted, they were sentenced by judges, and so those sorts of malicious prosecution claims are eminently defensible,” she said.

Those who pleaded guilty or were convicted of assaulting police officers should still be entitled to payouts, McCloskey said. “The vast majority of people that pled guilty to or were found guilty of such offenses were either coerced into confessions based on threats of life imprisonment and threats against their family or went to trial in courts where the evidence was faked, rigged, perjury was testified to and fair trials were not had,” he said. There is no evidence of wrongdoing in the January 6 prosecutions.

In Taake’s case, the Trump administration is defending itself against the claims and seeking to have them thrown out. In February, a federal prosecutor in Washington wrote that many of the claims should be thrown out since the lawsuit did not name proper defendants and certain requirements weren’t met before the suit was filed.

The Trump administration faced immediate and bipartisan backlash after it announced it was creating the loosely controlled $1.8bn fund to resolve a $10bn lawsuit filed by Trump related to the leak of his tax returns. Some Republicans objected strongly to the idea that those who assaulted police officers could receive payouts.

“The concern my constituents and I have is that money possibly going to folks who hit cops,” Nick LaLota, a Republican congressman from New York, told NBC News. “Especially when there is video evidence, they shouldn’t get a dime from our government.”

Adam Schiff, a Democratic senator from California, introduced legislation last month that would bar anyone convicted of an offense related to January 6 from receiving a payout from the federal government. Among other things, the bill would amend the FTCA to prohibit those who were pardoned for actions related to January 6 from being eligible for claims.

“President Donald Trump still wants to pay off violent insurrectionists who attacked police officers on January 6th, despite any claims from members of his administration that say otherwise,” Schiff said in a statement. “Our taxpayer dollars should not be used to pay out criminals, and we can pass a law right now to prevent this president or any future administration from paying off their friends and political allies.”

Everything is Falling Apart and Americans Aren't Happy About It

 

Trump made 3,600 stock trades in 3 months, data shows

 

Trump hit with SHOCK FALLOUT after Michelle Obama comment at UFC fight

 

Trump hit with SHOCK FALLOUT after Michelle Obama comment at UFC fight

They Tested Thomas Jefferson's Descendants' DNA — One Match Exposed a 200-Year Lie

 

School Removes 'Roots' Because Slavery Made White Students Uncomfortable!

 

Black service members raise concerns about Hegseth's leadership - The Trump administration is full of truly evil people!

 

Football world responds angrily as Somali ref banned from entering US for World Cup - More Trump Administration Blatant Racism!

 

Football world responds angrily as Somali ref banned from entering US for World Cup - YouTube

At the Kennedy Center, a Name Change Shrouded in Uncertainty - The New York Times

At the Kennedy Center, a Name Change Shrouded in Uncertainty

"President Trump’s name was removed from the arts institution’s facade overnight on Saturday. Many questions remain, including whether or not it stays off.

June 13, 2026, 4:57 p.m. ET

The Kennedy Center certified on Saturday that President Trump’s name had been removed from the building, but did not give a clear answer on when the tarps would be removed.Rahmat Gul/Ap Photo/Rahmat Gul

At high noon on Saturday at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, one vigil gave way to another, as patrons and visitors pivoted from concerns over the center’s name to the fate of an institution mired in legal uncertainty.

About 150 people had gathered in front of the building under a blazing sun, having heard that the center had until noon to certify that President Trump’s name had indeed been removed from the facade, as a federal court had ordered.

The center filed the certification with the court before the deadline, but visitors looking to confirm the results with their own eyes were out of luck: The marble front remained shrouded in white- and blue-striped tarps, with no clear answer on when they would be removed.

“I was hoping for a reveal, honestly,” said Katy Bigge, a student at Rutgers University who was visiting Washington with her parents. Her father, Philip Bigge, was squatting on the ground, peering through a crack between the tarp and the building’s front to try to make certain that Mr. Trump’s name was gone. He could not be sure, but he thought he had detected that the letters were missing.

“I think overall the message is that the process works,” he said.

Ms. Bigge, 21, was less sure about the removal’s larger civic meaning, but she was pleased to witness its aftermath. “Something like this is a little satisfying,” she said.

It was far from clear how long the satisfaction of Mr. Trump’s critics, some of whom had also gathered at the Kennedy Center on Friday night, would last. Representatives for the Kennedy Center did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Saturday afternoon about plans for the facade.

The president’s allies on the center’s board, who voted in December to add Mr. Trump’s name to the building and who consider him key to the institution’s revitalization, are continuing to fight the judge’s order in an appeals court.

In the ruling late last month, Judge Christopher R. Cooper of Federal District Court in Washington found that only Congress, which dedicated the building as a living memorial to John F. Kennedy in 1964, could alter its name. But if a higher court disagrees, it is possible that the letters will go right back up.

Hanging in the balance of the appeal is also Mr. Trump’s plan for a two-year closure for renovations, after the judge ruled that the board had not properly scrutinized the plan.

Even if the institution stays open, it will do so with a staff depleted by firings, layoffs and departures; with a calendar largely empty of programming; and with the financial headwinds brought about by boycotts from artists and audiences.

“The name change was the most legible imprint of the White House on the center, but so much damage had already been done at that point,” said Cathleen O’Malley, a former manager in the center’s artistic programming department, who left her job in February.

Ms. O’Malley was among the crowd at the Kennedy Center on Friday, spending 14 hours waiting for Mr. Trump’s name to come down. She said one of the biggest challenges going forward would be the loss of experienced employees who had spent years building relationships with artists and donors.

Those “nursing a fantasy that the Kennedy Center will spring back to life when these letters come down,” she said, “are missing the breadth and depth of damage that has been done over the last 16 months.”

Mr. Trump and his allies have argued that the rebranding has benefited the institution. In a briefing filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Justice Department argued that millions of dollars in donations had been contingent on having Mr. Trump’s name on the building.

“Removal of President Trump’s name threatens to impede the center’s fund-raising efforts and contribute to the financial decline of the center,” the filing read.

No public financial documents have taken stock of the economic impact of Mr. Trump’s takeover, but tax filings that cover part of his first year as chairman of the center are expected to be released in the coming months.

Amid the uncertainty of the legal battle, the National Symphony Orchestra, which performs at the center, has been left in limbo, without an approved budget to fund its coming season. On Saturday, the orchestra will play what could be its last concert there before the closure. Mr. Trump’s takeover has divided some Kennedy Center supporters, with some favoring boycotts of the symphony and other programming, and others insisting that boycotts only harm the musicians.

“I have so many amazing memories here,” Paige Carter, a recent graduate of American University’s law school who let her Kennedy Center membership lapse after the president took over, said on Saturday. “I desperately miss it.”

Mr. Trump has argued that a two-year renovation of the Kennedy Center is exactly what the institution, which opened in 1971, needs to thrive. Last year, he helped secure $257 million from Congress for the work.

Matt Floca, the center’s executive director and the president’s point person for the renovation plans, has said the building is in desperate need of maintenance, pointing to serious water leaks, outdated equipment and discolored exterior marble.

Judge Cooper, who temporarily blocked the closure, agreed that maintenance was “sorely needed.” But he said that in quickly approving the president’s plan, the board had been “ill-informed” and needed to properly assess the potential consequences of shuttering Washington’s pre-eminent arts institution.

The judge gave the board the option to scrutinize the consequences of a two-year closure more seriously before it could proceed with such a decision. It is not clear whether the board will do that or focus on getting approval for the plan through the appellate courts.

The tarp-covered matrix of scaffolding at the front of the building had already made the arts center seem like an active work zone.

The work on Friday night pushed past the initial midnight deadline set by Judge Cooper. He approved a 12-hour extension after Mr. Floca submitted a filing saying that thunderstorms had delayed the letters’ removal.

But the work also appeared to be contingent on the outcome of the down-to-the-wire appeal by the Kennedy Center. It was only after the district court and an appeals court rejected the center’s requests for a stay on the order that a work crew finished constructing the scaffolding.

Lawyers for Representative Joyce Beatty, a Democrat of Ohio and an ex officio member of the board whose lawsuit resulted in the court ruling, did not oppose the request for the extension but shared a note of skepticism.

“Defendants had two weeks to comply with the order,” the lawyers wrote in a court filing, “and only need an extension because of their inexcusable delay.”

It was not clear when Mr. Floca, who is in regular communication with Mr. Trump, planned to give the signal to take down the tarps and reveal the facade.

Elizabeth Williamson is a feature writer for The Times, based in Washington. She has been a journalist for three decades, on three continents.

Julia Jacobs is an arts and culture reporter who often covers legal issues for The Times."

At the Kennedy Center, a Name Change Shrouded in Uncertainty - The New York Times