President Donald Trump’s ambition to convert the East Potomac Golf Links—which has three courses and was one of the country’s first desegregated public golf courses—into a single, championship-style course with more expensive tee times has encountered resistance from a federal judge who isn’t backing down.
The situation is setting the table for Trump to seek appellate review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. An appeal would take place as the political climate in the nation’s capital is on the verge of shifting to one far more scrutinizing of the president and his plans to reimagine federal property.
Political prognosticators predict the Democrats will gain control of the House of Representatives and possibly also the U.S. Senate in the midterm elections on Nov. 3. The new Congress is to be sworn in on Jan. 3, bringing new committee chairs and legislative priorities if control of either chamber changes hands.
As Sportico detailed, U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and other members of Congress have demanded more details about costs, logistics and environmental impacts of the plans for the Washington, D.C., links from Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum and acting director of the National Park Service Jessica Bowron.
Should Democrats take control of the House, Raskin, who served as the lead House impeachment manager for Trump’s second impeachment trial in 2021, could become chair of the Judiciary Committee. In that role, he could schedule legislative hearings, conduct investigations and use subpoenas to compel testimony and documents.
As these political winds shift, U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes has recently taken two actions that could delay progress on Trump’s plans until after the midterm election and potentially after a new Congress is sworn in.
First, Reyes on Oct. 13 granted the D.C. Preservation League, a nonprofit joined by two residents who regularly play at East Potomac, a temporary restraining order that blocks further tree removal at the course. The order lasts until next Monday. It followed the Interior Department’s rapid approval of a tree-management plan, after which the National Park Service removed about 430 healthy, non-invasive trees.
While the government argued the tree-management plan merely implements a cultural landscape report from 2019, during Trump’s first term, the D.C. Preservation League insisted it was a response to Trump posting on Truth Social that the Interior Department would “quickly” convert the course.
Homeland tree removal
Tree-cutting at a course with about 3,800 trees has become a highly divisive topic in the litigation.
That is particularly the case because of requirements under federal law that the Interior Department and other federal agencies follow applicable procedures, provide required notice and comply with environmental and historic-preservation requirements. Reyes has warned the government that it shouldn’t “act first and ask forgiveness later.”
In August, the National Park Service removed 77 invasive trees, according to court records, which means non-native species that can spread aggressively and harm native ecosystems, along with 73 trees that were either dead, dying or hazardous.
Reyes felt assured by government attorneys’ statements that other, healthy trees wouldn’t also be removed. But the judge said that sometime between September and earlier this month, government plans shifted from removing problematic trees to healthy ones. The removal, Reyes observed, also occurred “without providing meaningful notice” to either her or the plaintiffs.
To that point, Reyes found it objectionable that the government gave notice of its plan at 4:55 p.m. on Friday, Oct. 9, that it would cut trees within 15 hours, meaning on Saturday, Oct. 10. That weekend was a federal holiday weekend, with Columbus Day falling on Monday.
Reyes stressed that none of the nearly 430 trees razed by the government that Saturday “were hazardous or posed safety concerns.” She also found it telling that the government “would have destroyed hundreds more” healthy trees if not for a rain delay.
What is depicted as a rush to cut down trees takes on additional legal significance given the plaintiffs’ claims that the Interior Department failed to comply with environmental-review and historic-preservation requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
The plaintiffs contend that the government failed to adequately consider the environmental and historic-preservation consequences of the work. They also maintain that the tree removal threatens their aesthetic and recreational interests in the course, considerations relevant to standing to challenge Trump’s plans in court and their demand for judicial action.
Reyes also emphasizes the practical reality of tree removal: “Destroyed trees cannot be replaced,” meaning the “ground landscape and vistas” of the public course are “irrevocably altered.”
In addition, Reyes was unpersuaded by government arguments that the tree removal concerned implementation of a report from 2019 and not Trump’s golf course plan.
“It is a coincidence,” Reyes surmised, “the government seems to suggest, that [the Interior Department] cut down hundreds of trees at the course weeks after the President asked [the Interior Department] to cut down trees at the course and not, say, any other time in the last seven years.”
Reyes rejects recusal demand
As a second key development, Reyes this week denied a motion by the administration to recuse herself on account of alleged bias.
Attorneys for the government assert that Reyes, who was born in Uruguay and appointed by President Joe Biden, “has hamstrung the government’s legitimate attempts to maintain East Potomac Park from the outset.”
The government claims that Reyes’ decision-making has “effectively granted Plaintiffs veto power over any significant maintenance at the Park.”
Reyes, federal officials maintain, has shown bias while presiding over other cases involving Trump and his administration. Last year, in Talbott v. United States, she issued a preliminary injunction against Trump’s executive order restricting transgender people from military service.
Reyes denied the government’s motion to recuse, asserting the facts contradict the administration’s criticism. From when the case began in February to earlier this month, Reyes says she hadn’t barred government attorneys “from taking any action in East Potomac, including tree removal.”
Reyes acknowledges she was “furious” and “beyond disappointed” and “said as much” at a hearing when she learned of the tree cutting without sufficient notice, but she cited precedent holding for the proposition that “in hard-fought litigation dealing with controversial issues, district judges must sometimes take strong actions and use strong words.”
Where the case goes from here
The next phase of the litigation is whether Reyes grants a preliminary injunction to block the administration from taking further golf course-altering moves.
Unlike a temporary restraining order, which is designed as short-term emergency relief, a preliminary injunction can remain in effect for a long time—including until the district court enters final judgment (such as after a trial) or the injunction is reviewed by an appellate court.
The administration, however, could immediately appeal an order by Reyes granting a preliminary injunction. The appeal would go to the D.C. Circuit and probably ask the court to stay the injunction while an appeal proceeds, likely setting up another closely watched and contentious battle over the project.
Trump’s plans for East Potomac Golf Links aren’t an isolated controversy. With varying degrees of success and subject to lawsuits, he has also pursued other changes to government property, including building a White House ballroom, constructing an arch at an entrance to Washington, D.C. and adding his name to the name of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
If Democrats regain control of one or both chambers, these and other projects could become subjects of congressional oversight.
Call it par for the course.