The Trump administration’s effort to remove the federal judge overseeing its controversial East Potomac Golf Links redevelopment has failed. This leaves the next phase of the legal battle to proceed under the same judge as questions mount over tree removal, public access, and the future of the historic Washington, D.C., golf facility.
Watch What’s Trending Now!
U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes denied the Justice Department’s recusal motion on Sunday, October 18, rejecting allegations that her conduct demonstrated bias against the administration. The decision came ahead of a scheduled October 19 hearing on whether to impose longer-term restrictions on work at the course. The ruling keeps Reyes in charge of the case but does not settle whether the proposed redevelopment can proceed as planned.
“DOJ’s woeful attempt to disqualify Judge Reyes in the golf course case is rightly DENIED. We will see the Trump administration in court bright and early Monday morning on our preliminary injunction motion!” Norm Eisen reported via an X post.
Norm Eisen is the cofounder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund. It is the organization that supports the plaintiffs’ legal effort. His comments reflect the plaintiffs’ position in the dispute, rather than an independent assessment of the case.
The October 19 hearing was scheduled to consider the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. National Park Service Acting Director Jessica Bowron and Interior Department official Gregory Wischer are expected to testify. The hearing could help clarify the administration’s plans and determine what work may proceed while the litigation continues.
Donald Trump has shared his thoughts on the same on Truth Social.
“The United States Department of Interior wants to take a terrible and very unsafe golf course, and make it into a great, safe, and prestigious golf course. They have an absolute right to do so. It’s as simple as that! The judge on the case is a crazed lunatic whose courthouse tapes will reveal, may be insane? The tapes have been blocked from usage by the judge,” he wrote.
“The random golfer bringing the ridiculous lawsuit has ZERO STANDING! The experts at “Interior” are allowed to do this First Class renovation “as of right.” They do not need an approval. Work is scheduled to begin IMMEDIATELY! The finished product will be World Class, and bring income and great prestige back to D.C. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DJT.”
The dispute began after the government announced late Friday, October 9, that tree removal would begin within hours. According to Reyes’s opinion, the notice arrived at 4:55 p.m. The work was scheduled to begin within about 15 hours.
The opinion states that nearly 430 trees were removed in a single day. The operation prompted the plaintiffs to seek emergency relief. As a result, Reyes issued a temporary restraining order.
During the October 12 hearing, the judge expressed strong frustration with the government’s handling of the work. The Justice Department later cited her remarks as evidence of bias, but Reyes argued that strong language and decisive action can be appropriate in contentious litigation involving disputed government conduct.
On October 13, she ordered a halt to further tree cutting through October 26. The order also requires three business days’ written notice to the court and plaintiffs before making other irreversible changes to the course’s permanent features.
The restrictions do not constitute a final ruling on the redevelopment. They establish temporary limits while the court considers the underlying legal questions.
The administration later asked her to disqualify herself. It argued that her comments to government lawyers and how she handled the proceedings raised concerns about judicial fairness.
Reyes addressed those allegations in a 13-page memorandum opinion filed on October 18. Rather than focusing solely on the heated exchange, she pointed to the litigation’s broader history.
According to the opinion, the court had declined nearly a dozen requests for relief from the plaintiffs before October 11. Reyes also cited earlier praise for government attorneys. She even described one brief as among the most exceptional government submissions she had seen in three years on the bench.
The judge also noted that she had not barred the government from taking action at East Potomac between the lawsuit’s February filing and October 11, including removing trees.
Donald Trump announced a 15-month course redevelopment
The legal dispute took on another dimension on October 18, when President Donald Trump announced plans to transform East Potomac Golf Links into a championship-level facility. He had already hinted at developing a championship course earlier. This time, he made it official and added that architect Tom Fazio will work on it.
Trump said the course would close on November 15 and reopen approximately 15 months later. He also said he wants to create a venue that can host major championships and the Ryder Cup.
The announcement has sharpened the disagreement over the project’s status. Government attorneys have argued that the proposed redevelopment remains conceptual. The administration maintains that the tree removal was connected to safety concerns and a 2019 landscape plan. However, the plaintiffs question whether that explanation adequately separates the work from the broader redevelopment effort.
It began on February 13, 2026, when the DC Preservation League and local golfers Alex Dickson and Dave Roberts filed the underlying lawsuit. It challenges the administration’s handling of the course. Besides, it also alleges failures to comply with environmental and historic-preservation requirements.
The plaintiffs argue that the redevelopment could affect East Potomac’s historic character, recreational value, and accessibility to everyday golfers. Their concerns extend beyond the recent tree removal to the future management of a public facility that has long served Washington residents.
The administration disputes the plaintiffs’ entitlement to relief. It has questioned whether their concerns establish legally protected harm. The court has not yet resolved those contested claims.
Reyes’s rejection of the recusal motion settles one immediate procedural dispute. However, the central question of whether the administration can carry out its proposed transformation of East Potomac Golf Links while meeting its legal obligations for public property remains unanswered.
For Washington’s golfing community, the outcome will shape more than a renovation schedule. It could influence the future character of a historic public course and the balance between championship ambitions and everyday access.