Left inset: Donald Trump walks from Marine One after arriving on the South Lawn of the White House, Tuesday, Sept. 30, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon). Right inset: U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee). Main: A golfer watches as trees are removed at East Potomac Park Golf Course, Monday, Oct. 26, 2026, in Washington (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson).
A DOJ lawyer responded to a judge's intense — and at times accusatory — line of questioning by saying the Trump administration was "entitled" to a "presumption of regularity" in the East Potomac Park Golf Course case, drawing a sharp retort from the jurist that captured the tone of the proceedings.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes has made no secret that she believes lawyers with either the DOJ or Department of the Interior or both may have committed "ethical violations" in their representations to her. Just as she did at a hearing two weeks ago, the jurist began by reminding government lawyers of their duty of candor to the court.
She asked at the outset whether Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward were aware of "any document destruction that has occurred," referring to recent whistleblower allegations and reporting about them.
When the attorneys said they weren't aware, the Joe Biden-appointed judge then asked a technical question.
"Anyone in the audience know what a zeptosecond is?" she asked, adding: "Any physicists out there?"
Defining it as "the shortest period of time ever," Reyes said that is how quickly she would initiate "sanctions or contempt" proceedings if she finds out documents under preservation orders were "intentionally destroyed or recklessly destroyed."
She then grilled Gustafson about the government's reliance on a deteriorating seawall as a reason to shut down the golf course over purported safety risks to "life and limb."
The D.C. Preservation League has said for several months that what the government called routine maintenance — like tree removal — was all part of a larger plan to redesign the existing Walter J. Travis course into a championship-style golf course, consistent with President Donald Trump's various social media posts on the subject.
In late October, Reyes said she could not "turn a blind eye" to the apparent mismatch between government lawyers' "representations" and Trump's posts.
Specifically, the judge issued a preliminary injunction and found that the so-called "Washington National Plan" was "final," believing the "sitting President" when he said the course "will be closed" for a year as of Nov. 15. She interpreted the bulldozing of "hundreds" of "healthy, mature" trees as furthering the golf course project, not ensuring compliance with a 2019 Cultural Landscape Report or managing the existing course.
Similarly, on Friday, Reyes did not buy the claimed urgent need to fix a seawall that has been a known issue since 2011, so she pressed the government on whether it was aware of the public reaction to the overall controversy.
"Are you aware that there has been substantial controversy and pushback on this plan?" she asked Gustafson. "I'm not asking whether you polled every D.C. resident, which would of course be a ridiculous thing for me to ask."
"My awareness of this case, Your Honor, is really limited to what I've learned in the context of the litigation," he answered.
"You just have no idea about anything else going on," Reyes sharply replied. "I just want you to understand that you are an officer of the court, and if that's true, if you have no idea of anything going on, well, then fine, I'll move on. But before you answer this question one more time, I want you to think about it and give me your answer. Are you aware of any controversy with respect to the closing of this park to redesign it, other than in the context of this litigation?"
When Gustafson opted to take the judge's word for it, she asked the crowd in attendance at the hearing to raise their hands if they had "strong views" about the golf course dispute.
"If you are here because you have strong views about this redesign, please raise your hand," she said. "Turn around, sir."
"We have about — I don't know — 100-plus people in here. Fair to say that every one of them raised their hand?" Reyes asked.
"Not everyone, but most of them," Gustafson acknowledged.
Then the judge called attention to what the government isn't "grappling with," namely that she has found there is a "final" plan.
"The response I keep getting from the government is there's no final agency action because no record of determination has been made," Reyes said, wanting to know whether the DOJ attorney was "aware" that it's "possible for an agency to reach a final decision without writing anywhere[.]"
When Gustafson said that "[i]n the ordinary course, agencies record their decisions in written form," the judge said "sometimes agencies can act without doing that" and that "doesn't necessarily mean that no final agency decision has been made."
"You understand that, right, or do you disagree with that?" Reyes pressed.
"Well, I would say the government is entitled to a presumption of regularity," the DOJ lawyer answered.
"Well, you might want to move on from that point," the judge said, apparently viewing with skepticism the government's claims of "hazards" posed by the deteriorating seawall to "children walking in the dark" or "love birds strolling in the evening."
"What has happened in the past two months that has taken the seawall from being not something that needs to have this course closed down is something that we now need to close down all of Hains Point and all of East Potomac[?]" she asked.
"I think the answer to that question is spelled out right clearly in the closure order," Gustafson said.
"No, it's not spelled out clearly in the closure order, counsel. It's not," Reyes shot back.