Trump miscasts East Potomac court safeguards as meddling in golf

A federal judge has tightened restrictions on Donald Trump’s proposed rebuild of Washington’s public East Potomac Golf Links after finding that the government likely violated environmental law. Trump’s attack on her lack of golf expertise misrepresents the ruling: it preserves legal scrutiny before irreversible changes to public parkland, rather than choosing a course design.

In a Truth Social post late on 26 October 2026, preserved by the Trump’s Truth archive, Trump said the project could proceed “as of right” and that the judge had no constitutional power to demand advance notice of work. He promised an immediate appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and repeated his intention to close the course on 15 November.

Notice before irreversible work

US District Judge Ana C. Reyes’s 26 October injunction bars further tree felling or damage anywhere in East Potomac Park without court permission. It also requires at least ten business days’ written notice to the court and plaintiffs before full or partial course closures or irreversible changes to the park’s layout, paths, vegetation or structures. Routine scheduled closures, such as those for federal holidays, are exempt.

The order expressly allows action to address imminent public-safety threats, with notice within 24 hours supported by a sworn declaration from a senior National Park Service employee.

These are enforceable interim restrictions, not a final ruling that the course cannot be rebuilt. They bind the Interior Department and Park Service rather than Trump personally.

Reyes found that the DC Preservation League and two regular golfers were likely to succeed on their claim under the National Environmental Policy Act. Her central finding was that Interior had split linked parts of a larger redevelopment into smaller projects, using exemptions from fuller environmental review rather than assessing the scheme as a whole.

In opposing the injunction, government lawyers disputed the plaintiffs’ right to sue, denied any final redevelopment decision and said the tree work independently restored the historic landscape. They also invoked agency discretion and the separation of powers. Reyes found those arguments insufficient to prevent interim protection.

Why notice became the issue

For months, Reyes had declined requests to intervene, relying instead on government assurances of warning before major work. On 9 October, officials notified the court at 4.55pm that tree clearance would begin the following morning. About 430 healthy, non-invasive trees were felled on 10 October, the judge found.

That clearance prompted the temporary halt to tree felling issued on 13 October