A federal judge isn’t yet interfering with the Trump administration’s plans for East Potomac Golf Links, but she also isn’t ready to dismiss the lawsuit challenging the work.
The case was filed by the D.C. Preservation League and two local golfers, who argue the administration is moving too quickly toward a major makeover of the historic public golf course without first going through the required review process.
During Thursday’s hearing, Judge Ana Reyes kept coming back to a Truth Social post President Donald Trump made after touring the course over the weekend with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and golf architect Tom Fazio. In that post, Trump said Fazio, who has designed several Trump golf courses, would redesign East Potomac and that work would begin Sept. 1.
“Either the President just pulled the date out of thin air and never heard from anybody about it, or never talked to anybody about it, and it’s, who knows what he was talking about. It’s either that, or there is a Sept. 1 date that means something,” Reyes said.
Government attorney Michael Robertson argued that no contracts have been signed with Fazio or anyone else and that any major renovation would still have to go through environmental reviews and other required steps. But when pressed, they didn’t dispute Trump’s public statement that work could begin Sept. 1.
“I don’t know exactly where that came from your honor, but what I do know is NPS and Interior are now trying to meet that schedule,” Robertson said.
Reyes also repeatedly challenged lawyers for the D.C. Preservation League to explain exactly what power she had to stop the project and whether they had shown the kind of harm needed for an injunction. The group argued the court should prevent meaningful ground disturbance while the lawsuit moves forward.
The lawsuit grew out of the administration’s decision to move material from the White House East Wing demolition project to East Potomac Park. The preservation group argues the government didn’t follow proper procedures and is using the site as a first step toward creating a championship-level golf destination.
Part of the hearing focused on revising testing results of that material. Reyes noted that results presented to the court did not show contamination levels that would pose a danger to people. She did, however, question why the plaintiffs weren’t allowed to conduct their own testing. Government attorneys responded that they weren’t legally required to allow it.
She also raised concerns that someone inside the Department of the Interior signed off on the rubble as being “clean fill material” before it was moved to the park, yet there is no evidence so far of testing to back up that claim.
Throughout the hearing, Reyes stressed that federal courts aren’t supposed to manage government projects and can only step in when there’s a legal violation or a demonstrated danger. She made clear she can’t simply stop the government from redesigning a golf course if it follows the rules.
“I think that federal courts should not be involved in telling the executive or Congress what to do, unless we have to because the Constitution or law require it,” Reyes said.
In the end, Reyes denied the request for an injunction. But she also gave no indication she’s prepared to dismiss the case. Instead, she repeatedly said she wants advance notice before any major work happens at the course, making clear she doesn’t want bulldozers showing up and making dramatic changes before the plaintiffs have a chance to come back to court.
She directed both sides to work on language spelling out what kind of activity would require notice to the court and that she said would give her “comfort that we’re not sending in bulldozers in the dark of night to chop down cherry trees.”
In the meantime, government attorneys have said they would give the court notice before any major work begins at the site.
Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.
漏 2026 海角社区app. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.
