Federal Judge Ana Reyes is investigating whether government attorneys misled the court about President Donald Trump’s plans to close and rebuild East Potomac Golf Links in Washington, D.C., following conflicting statements and the removal of hundreds of trees.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ordered a formal ethics inquiry on Friday, October 30, 2026, into whether Justice Department lawyers and other Trump administration officials misled the court about plans to renovate East Potomac Golf Links. The investigation follows months of conflicting statements about the future of the historic public golf course and its proposed transformation into a championship-level facility.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes announced the inquiry after questioning Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward about contradictions between President Donald Trump’s public statements and information presented by government attorneys during court proceedings.
The judge said she was concerned that government lawyers may have provided materially misleading information or withheld important details about the renovation plans. However, she emphasized that no finding of professional misconduct had been made.
Judge Questions Justice Department’s Statements
The October 30 hearing centered on whether Justice Department attorneys had accurately described the administration’s intentions for East Potomac Golf Links.
During earlier proceedings, government lawyers repeatedly maintained that no final plan existed to close or substantially redesign the course. Those statements became difficult to reconcile with public announcements from Trump.
On October 18, the president wrote on Truth Social that Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and golf course architect Tom Fazio had developed a plan to transform East Potomac into a championship-level facility.
Trump also announced that the course would close November 15 to allow reconstruction, with the redesigned facility expected to open approximately 15 months later.
During an October 19 hearing, government attorneys continued to dispute the existence of a finalized closure plan.
The contradiction became more significant when the Justice Department filed new information on October 28 acknowledging preparations to close the course and submit a proposed redesign for federal review.
At Friday’s hearing, Reyes questioned why attorneys had not previously disclosed that government officials had been working on plans for several weeks.
According to Reuters, the judge spent more than two hours questioning Woodward about the administration’s actions and the accuracy of earlier courtroom statements.
Woodward maintained that the government had not intentionally misled the court. He also argued that public statements from the president did not necessarily establish that an agency had completed the formal steps required to carry out a project.
Reyes repeatedly challenged that distinction, particularly because the president had publicly described specific plans and a closure date.
Formal Investigation Will Examine Possible Misconduct
Reyes announced that the court would formally investigate whether government lawyers and agency employees had violated professional obligations.
The inquiry will examine statements made during hearings, information submitted in court filings and whether relevant details were deliberately omitted.
The judge also raised questions about the timing of notices concerning tree removal and the government’s representations about the project’s planning and funding.
She said an independent special master could assist with the investigation. A special master is a court-appointed official authorized to examine evidence and report findings to the judge.
The proposed investigation could include reviewing government records, obtaining documents and questioning witnesses under oath.
Reyes instructed officials to preserve records relevant to the dispute.
The investigation does not establish that any attorney knowingly provided false information. Its purpose is to determine whether the government’s conduct violated ethical rules or other legal obligations.
The judge referred to rules requiring lawyers to be truthful with courts and to correct material misstatements when they become aware of them.
Those obligations apply to government attorneys as well as lawyers representing private clients.
Government Had Been Preparing Golf Course Redesign
A central issue involves the administration’s efforts to submit redevelopment plans to the National Capital Planning Commission.
The commission reviews certain federal development projects in the Washington metropolitan area, including proposals affecting important public spaces.
During the hearing, Woodward acknowledged that officials had been preparing materials for submission over several weeks.
Government filings described a design prepared by Tom Fazio for a championship-level course capable of hosting major events.
The filing also stated that the National Park Service intended to close portions of East Potomac Park south of Buckeye Drive, including the golf course, in accordance with the president’s direction.
The information raised additional questions about earlier assertions that the administration had no established plans for the property’s future.
Reyes asked why lawyers had not disclosed the ongoing planning work during previous hearings, particularly when the existence of a renovation plan was central to the lawsuit.
The government maintained that developing proposals and obtaining formal approval were different steps. A design under preparation did not necessarily mean every administrative decision had been finalized.
The judge nevertheless questioned whether that distinction justified withholding information about work already underway.
Hundreds of Trees Removed From Historic Property
The dispute intensified in October after federal officials removed hundreds of trees from East Potomac Park.
The tree clearing prompted objections from preservation advocates and golfers who questioned whether the work was connected to the administration’s redevelopment plans.
Government officials maintained that the removals were necessary for maintenance and safety reasons.
Opponents argued that the extensive cutting was part of an effort to begin transforming the golf course before completing required environmental and historic preservation reviews.
Reyes temporarily barred additional tree removal and subsequently issued an order extending restrictions on activities that could permanently alter the property.
The judge also criticized the short notice provided before the earlier clearing operations.
The inquiry will examine whether the timing of those notices and the information supplied to the court were appropriate.
The removal of hundreds of mature trees is particularly significant because the lawsuit concerns a historic public landscape that preservation groups want protected during the legal proceedings.
Preservation Groups Challenge Trump’s Project
The lawsuit was brought by the DC Preservation League and other challengers opposing the administration’s handling of the golf course.
East Potomac Golf Links occupies federal land on Hains Point, a peninsula extending into the Potomac River near the National Mall.
The course has long served as a public recreation facility and is known for its comparatively affordable access to golf in the nation’s capital.
Preservation advocates argue that the proposed transformation could significantly alter the site’s historic character and reduce public recreational access.
They have also questioned whether the administration complied with environmental review and historic preservation requirements before beginning substantial work.
Trump has promoted the redesign as an opportunity to create a world-class golf destination capable of hosting major events.
The administration has also cited infrastructure concerns, including deterioration of the surrounding seawall, as a reason for undertaking work at the park.
The dispute therefore involves more than disagreements about golf course design. It also concerns federal land management, historic preservation, environmental requirements and the government’s authority to make substantial changes to public property.
Judge Orders Advance Notice Before Further Changes
On October 26, Reyes issued a 70-page ruling extending restrictions on further tree removal and requiring advance notice before major changes to the property.
Under the order, federal officials must provide at least ten business days’ written notice before closing or irreversibly altering portions of East Potomac Park.
The requirement was intended to give the court and opposing parties an opportunity to respond before additional work occurred.
The administration appealed the restrictions, arguing that the government should be permitted to proceed with lawful improvements to federally managed land.
Reyes has not issued a final decision permanently preventing the proposed golf course renovation.
The proposed November 15 closure remains disputed, and the legal process could affect when construction begins.
A separate agreement involving the National Links Trust, which has operated several public golf courses in Washington, provides for the organization to continue managing other municipal courses while ending its operation of East Potomac.
The arrangement adds another practical element to the dispute because the course’s future operation is closely tied to the government’s redevelopment plans.
Judge Warns Against Relying on Government Assurances
During Friday’s proceedings, Reyes expressed concern about the reliability of information presented to the court.
The judge said the case had reached a point where government assurances would require closer scrutiny.
“For months the court has trusted but not verified,” Reyes said, according to Bloomberg Law. “No longer.”
Her remarks followed repeated disputes over the meaning of the president’s social media statements and the government’s descriptions of its planning activities.
Woodward defended the Justice Department’s handling of the litigation and maintained that government officials intended to comply with the court’s orders.
The judge’s decision to initiate an ethics inquiry represents a separate step from the underlying lawsuit over the golf course.
The investigation will focus on whether lawyers and agency officials met their obligations to the court, regardless of the eventual outcome of the renovation dispute.
No sanctions or disciplinary findings have been announced against the attorneys involved.
The next developments will depend on the selection of a special master, the preservation and review of government records, and further proceedings concerning the proposed closure.
For now, restrictions on tree removal remain part of the ongoing litigation, while the proposed November 15 closure faces continued legal scrutiny.
IMAGE: Source Own work This photo was taken with Nikon Z 9 Author G. Edward Johnson CC4