Court order contradicts Trump’s claim of a free hand at Washington golf course

The government had told the court that its August operation removed 77 invasive trees and 73 that were dead, dying or hazardous. By contrast, Reyes found that about 430 healthy, non-invasive trees were felled on 10 October, none of which posed safety concerns. That finding concerns those trees, not the condition of the entire course or its seawall. [3]

The government argued that the October removals implemented a 2019 cultural landscape report, independently of Trump’s redesign. But when Reyes asked National Park Service official Kevin Griess whether continuing the removal was urgent, he answered: “Not that I’m aware of, Your Honor.” [3]

Reyes concluded, on the limited record before her, that officials had rushed the operation because Trump demanded speed on his redesign, rather than because of a newly urgent effort to implement the older report. [3]

An announcement ahead of the courtroom position

A day before declaring that work would begin immediately, Trump had announced a 15 November start for the Tom Fazio redesign and roughly 15 months of closure. He promised public access when the course reopened. In June, he had announced a 1 September start. The latest post did not specify which work would begin immediately. [2] [3] [5]

His lawyers’ account remained more tentative. On the evening of 18 October, government lawyers told the court there was “no final agency action” because the National Park Service had not completed its review and the wider plan was not final, Associated Press reported. Reuters also reported Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward’s separate argument that redesigning the course was not “agency action” subject to review. [7] [6]

Trump also forecast jobs and millions of dollars for the area. Neither announcement set out construction costs or an economic calculation against which to assess the promised benefit. [2] [5]

The 19 October post coupled its legal claims with a personal attack on Reyes, calling her a “crazed lunatic” and accusing her of blocking use of hearing recordings. Three days earlier, the Justice Department had asked for her removal from the case, alleging bias and seeking release of audio from the 12 October hearing. [2] [4]

That hearing was accessible through a public audio line, Law Dork reported. The government’s own filing quoted reporter Scott MacFarlane describing Reyes as shouting at a lawyer, but also saying: “Court rules prohibit me from sharing audio of this hearing.” Access to the hearing and permission to distribute its recording are separate issues. [8] [4]

Reyes was due to consider longer-term restrictions at a hearing on 19 October. Until the existing order is changed or expires, the barred tree-felling cannot resume simply because Trump announces a start date. [3] [8]