Main: East Potomac Golf Course in Washington, D.C. on May 5, 2026 (mpi34/MediaPunch/IPX). Right inset: President Donald Trump walks at the Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va., Saturday, Aug. 30, 2025 (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta).
Following an order from a federal judge, the DOJ claimed that there has not been "any additional directive" from Department of Interior officials since President Donald Trump indicated on social media that construction of a "new" golf course at East Potomac Park would begin within two months.
The D.C. Preservation League has argued for months that the administration is unlawfully undertaking "a massive overhaul" of the historic links and "not merely restoration and required maintenance," including dead tree removal.
The plaintiffs told U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, for instance, that Interior Secretary Doug Burgum's detailed statements on plans and some "30,000 cubic yards" of potentially contaminated dirt and debris on site were proof that the project to create a "championship-style venue for professional tournaments" was "final and underway."
Recently, and just days after the DOJ resisted discovery in the case, the president posted at length on Truth Social, referring to "East Potomac Golf Links" as a "dilapidated, worn out, and very dangerous" and "virtually unplayable" course. Trump identified Tom Fazio as the new architect and said work on a "new Course" — to be "one of the Greatest Golf Courses in the world" — would begin on Sept. 1.
Two days later, the judge allowed the Walter J. Travis Society to weigh in on the lawsuit as an amicus curiae, or friend of the court. The organization is named after the famed golfer and architect who designed the course at East Potomac Park, and many others.
The brief said the government has been cagey about how far along the project is, trying to "have it both ways" to avoid judicial review — and discovery.
"The Society does not address whether, as a matter of administrative-law, the plan is final agency action; that is the parties' ground to contest. It observes only a factual inconsistency the design record exposes," the brief said. "The agency justified the [soil] stockpile by reference to the redevelopment. It explained that the fill was 'planned as part of improvements,' would serve as 'infill,' and was responsive to lease obligations to 'redesign[] and rebuil[d]' the course. A plan real enough to justify 30,000 cubic yards of fill on a historic course is real enough to examine."
"The Society does not ask the Court to hold the plan final," the brief went on. "It asks only that the Court not credit, at the pleading stage, a characterization of the plan as too hypothetical to review when the agency has already relied on it to alter the property. Here, on the allegations, the physical disturbance has already occurred."
Reyes, a Joe Biden appointee, responded by ordering the government to answer a series of questions, starting with whether Burgum or "any other high-ranking official made any statements or given any directives to anyone at the Agency—oral or written—concerning the President's statement that they will begin 'build[ing] one of the Greatest Golf Courses in the world' by September 1, 2026[.]"
The government's answer? "No."
The rest of the response used words like "potential," "proposed," and "possible" to describe a "redesign" of the golf course at issue, sticking with the position that the D.C. Preservation League's "fear that Defendants may be considering redesign features they may not like" is not enough to establish standing.
"[P]rior to the President's June 28, 2026, statement, [the National Park Service] NPS received guidance from the Secretary of the Interior that NPS should pursue managing and executing a renovation of East Potomac Golf Course under its own authority," the DOJ's answer said. "Pursuant to that authority, NPS continues to develop possible target dates and proposed compliance schedules for the potential redesign of East Potomac Golf Course. NPS has not received any additional directive from Secretary Burgum or other high-ranking officials following the President's statement."
The plaintiffs maintain that statements like this one show just why discovery is "necessary" to get to the bottom of the "final agency action" question.
Follow Law&Crime:
Comments