WASHINGTON (AP) — Hearings in lawsuits against two separate administration-backed projects were unfolding in a single federal court building Friday, revealing the breadth of President Donald Trump’s attempts to mold parts of the District of Columbia as he wishes — and the underlying executive authority claims that lie beneath them.
The cases involved are an impending shutdown and reconfiguration of a historic public golf course and the construction of the monumental arch that, at 250 feet (75 meters), would be 100 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty is from its base to the top of the torch. The two projects are barely three miles or five kilometers apart.
The hearing on the proposed golf course change began as other recent ones have: U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes grilled Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. over how Trump’s desires to turn the golf course, near the National Mall, into a world-class facility have become urgent plans that match his public pronouncements.
At one point, Reyes read the code of conduct to government attorneys on presenting erroneous or false information during a hearing.
Reyes ordered Friday’s hearing after multiple Truth Social posts by Trump indicated that there were plans for the golf course and construction was expected to begin Nov. 15. Trump said the park would be closed 15 months while work goes on.
A flurry of Trump posts sets off chaos
The presidential posts, which began Oct. 18, created a tense dynamic in multiple court hearings afterward when officials from the Interior Department, Justice and National Park Service could not confirm the existence of the plans under questioning from Reyes. She eventually asked whom she should trust. The Justice Department filed notice Wednesday night that the plans were real.
“On Friday, October 30, 2026, the National Park Service will submit to the National Capital Planning Commission for review a rendering designed by Tom Fazio for a World Class, championship-level golf course that is capable of hosting major events,” the notice said.
Reyes locked in on the filing and Trump’s multiple Truth Social announcements as she questioned Woodward.
READ MORE: Trump says he will close historic D.C. golf course for 15 months of renovations
At one point, as they talked about plans that Woodward said only came about this week, he slipped and included tree cutting as part of the preparation for the closure.
Reyes responded immediately: “News flash.” She allowed him to correct himself that the tree cutting, which occurred earlier this month, was not part of the plan to close the East Potomac Golf Links.
She said she intended to appoint a special master to investigate the administration’s statements to the court.
Another case is also a referendum on executive authority
The golf course lawsuit was one of two cases in court Friday dealing with the Trump administration’s push to expand its executive authority as the president remakes the federal areas of the capital near the National Mall and along the Potomac River.
Three courtrooms away, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan was to hold a hearing on a motion asking that she call a temporary halt to plans to begin construction as early as Nov. 5 on the memorial arch. The arch is opposed by a small group of veterans and an architectural historian who sued in federal court in Washington, saying Congress must endorse the project.
READ MORE: Trump’s memorial arch faces a new lawsuit from Arlington County, Virginia
“The public interest leans heavily against allowing defendants to blaze ahead,” the plaintiffs said in seeking the injunction. “This court should enter a preliminary injunction blocking defendants from beginning construction on Memorial Circle in the hope that they can render the arch a fait accompli before this Court has made a final determination.”
Legal experts who have been watching the numerous cases underway say that what might appear at first glance to be vanity projects are in truth cases that test the limits of presidential power.
Past administrations pursued legal theories that were sometimes legally sound, sometimes not, said David Super, law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.
“But there was always the assumption that you would try to do things that were legal,” he said. “What we’re seeing here now is that if you think the federal courts can’t stop you, you can do things there indisputably illegal. He said that’s “going to do long-term damage to the country.”
