Murder Most Foul: The Kennedy Center, Artist Cancellations, and Performance Contracts

Key Takeaways

• Reputational controversy alone rarely justifies cancellation. The Kennedy Center cancellations illustrate that absent a well-drafted morals or brand-protection clause, artists who cancel in response to political or reputational developments risk breaching the contract.
• Morals clauses can provide a powerful exit, but drafting is decisive. Artist-friendly morals clauses increasingly allow termination based on reputational harm, yet minimizing subjectivity and cure rights often determine whether cancellation is for cause or a breach.
• Reputational risk should be allocated at the contracting stage. Artists and presenters can avoid costly disputes by proactively addressing brand risk through tailored morals clauses, notice and cure provisions, and clear reimbursement and unwind mechanics.

In December 2025, reports circulated that the Kennedy Center’s board voted to change the name of the world-famous institution to the “Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.” Almost immediately, artists began cancelling their scheduled performances at the Center, including Bela Fleck, Rhiannon Giddens, and the stage production, Hamilton. In response, the Center’s leadership dismissed the cancellations as politically motivated stunts and, in a few cases, suggested potential legal action against the withdrawing parties.¹ For business lawyers, the political posturing is an irrelevant distraction, and the more interesting question is whether the specific performance agreements provide a contractual basis for termination without liability.

The Booking Process

The contracting (“booking”) process in the music and performing arts industries is relatively standard and formulaic. In most cases, a venue representative or promoter (also known as the “presenter” in the theatrical context) negotiates the terms of the engagement with the performing party’s booking agent. The resulting contract typically includes the negotiated deal terms along with a mismatched assortment of one-sided riders supplied by each party. Buried within the rider boilerplate, lawyers and business affairs teams address logistical and legal matters often neglected by those negotiating the engagement. Among such matters are the actions and events that can excuse performance and authorize cancellation. Experienced practitioners will also note that the riders often conflict — what lawyers call the “battle of the forms,” which can lead to other issues that are not addressed here.

The Contractual Right to Cancel and the Morals Clause

The right of an artist to cancel an engagement without liability prior to the performance date is usually limited to a few specific scenarios. The booking party’s uncured, material breach of contract, or the occurrence of a force majeure event² are the most common examples. Sophisticated artist teams may also include a so-called “morals clause” in the performance rider. The morals clause is a contractual concept that gives one party the unilateral right to terminate the contract if the other party engages in conduct that harms (or is reasonably likely to harm) the terminating party’s public image, reputation, or brand.

Originating from a scandalous incident involving silent film legend, “Fatty” Arbuckle,³ the morals clause was historically a tool used by employers as a hedge against individual misconduct. As artists focus more attention on concerns of reputation and branding, morals clauses increasingly appear in artist riders as well. Teams recognize that attaching the artist’s name and goodwill to a disreputable third party can be catastrophic for the artist’s brand. Accordingly, artist-centric morals clauses such as the following are gaining popularity:

Artist may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice to Producer in the event that Producer (or any of Producer’s principals or representatives involved in connection with the engagement): (i) commits any act of fraud, embezzlement, theft, or dishonesty; (ii) commits any illegal act, is arrested for or charged with a felony, or is convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude; or (iii) commits any act or becomes involved in any situation that, in Artist’s good faith judgment, brings or is reasonably likely to bring Artist into public disrepute, contempt, scandal, or ridicule, or otherwise materially injures the business, reputation, or public standing of Artist. Upon such termination, Producer shall remain responsible for all fees accrued through the effective date of termination and any non-cancellable approved expenses incurred by Artist.

The leverage packed into this one-sided language is substantial. Specifically, the artist is empowered to cancel the engagement if the artist believes, in its subjective discretion, that the engagement will damage the artist’s reputation. As such, the inclusion of a morals clause demands the careful attention of negotiating parties. The counterparty’s inclusion of a “reasonableness” qualification or a right to cure contingency may determine whether a close-call cancellation is with or without cause.

In most cases, cancelling a contracted engagement without cause constitutes a breach of contract and will result in liability for the cancelling party. Financial damages flowing from cancellation without cause may include a refund of all advance payments and deposits, in addition to refund of the presenter’s marketing, production, and ancillary expenses, and subject to any contractual limitations, lost profits. On the other hand, if the cancellation is based on clearly identified standards (e.g., for cause), the cancelling party’s exposure is limited to the remedies prescribed by contract (e.g., mutually agreed upon refunds and reimbursables).

Takeaways and Best Practices

Should one find themselves contractually tied to a controversial counterparty, an escape route may be found via force majeure or, in rare cases, the common-law doctrine of “frustration of purpose.” However, the application of these concepts is highly fact specific and will often require the analysis of a court. In other words, it’s time-consuming, expensive, and risky. Absent unusually broad drafting, force majeure and frustration-of-purpose arguments are often ill-suited for purely reputational or political controversies.

The Kennedy Center dispute is a reminder that many performance agreements assume cancellations are driven by logistics, not reputational contagion. For artists, the drafting solution is straightforward: a tailored morals/brand-protection termination right with a clear unwinding procedure. For presenters, the goal should be to limit subjectivity and protect financial investments through mandatory notice and cure procedures, and carefully defined reimbursement rights. Put simply, the contract — not the headlines — should allocate the parties’ reputational risks before the dispute arises.

** The title “Murder Most Foul” is a composition written by Bob Dylan: Rough and Rowdy Ways, Columbia Records, 2020.

[1] In a statement to the press, Kennedy Center President, Richard Grenell, stated that the withdrawing performers were “unwilling to perform for everyone—even those they disagree with politically” and threatened to seek $1 million in damages from Chuck Redd due to his cancellation of a performance scheduled for Christmas Eve.

[2] Force majeure is legal concept that excuses an affected party’s performance due to extraordinary and/or unforeseeable events beyond the party’s control. Conceptually similar to the doctrines of frustration of purpose, impossibility, and impracticability, force majeure events are events that make performance impossible such as natural disasters, government shutdowns, labor stoppages, or health emergencies.

[3] After Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle was arrested on accusations of rape and murder in 1921, Universal Pictures began including morals clauses in all talent agreements in efforts to mitigate bad publicity and financial loss resulting from contractual engagements with problematic talent.