WASHINGTON – Two lawsuits challenging administration-backed projects were being heard Friday in the same federal courthouse, highlighting President Donald Trump’s efforts to reshape parts of the District of Columbia and the broader claims of executive power behind those efforts.
One case concerns the planned closure and redesign of a historic public golf course. The other challenges construction of a monumental arch that would rise 250 feet (75 meters)—100 feet higher than the Statue of Liberty from its base to the top of its torch. The sites are less than three miles (five kilometers) apart.
The golf course hearing followed a pattern seen in several recent proceedings, with U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes pressing Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. on how Trump’s vision of transforming the course near the National Mall into a world-class facility had become an immediate government plan.
During the hearing, Reyes read government lawyers the judicial code of conduct concerning the presentation of inaccurate or false information in court.
The judge ordered Friday’s proceeding after a series of Trump posts on Truth Social said the golf course would be redeveloped, with construction set to start Nov. 15. Trump said the park would close for 15 months while the work was completed.
Trump’s posts trigger confusion
The presidential posts, which began Oct. 18, produced a tense atmosphere in several subsequent hearings. Officials from the Interior Department, Justice Department and National Park Service could not confirm Reyes’ questions about whether the plans existed. She ultimately asked whom she was supposed to believe. The Justice Department filed a notice Wednesday night confirming 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 repeatedly focused on that filing and Trump’s multiple Truth Social announcements while questioning Woodward.
While discussing plans that Woodward said had only been developed this week, he mentioned tree removal as part of the preparations for closing the course.
ALSO READ: Police watchdog confirms probe into Met over Thomas Markle letter
“News flash,” Reyes replied. She then gave Woodward an opportunity to clarify that the tree cutting, which took place earlier this month, was not connected to plans to close East Potomac Golf Links.
Reyes said she planned to appoint a special master to examine the administration’s statements to the court.
Arch project also raises questions about presidential power
The golf course case was one of two lawsuits heard Friday involving the Trump administration’s efforts to expand executive authority as it reshapes federal property around the National Mall and along the Potomac River.
Three courtrooms away, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan was scheduled to hear a motion seeking a temporary pause on construction of the memorial arch, which could begin as soon as Nov. 5. A small group of veterans and an architectural historian oppose the project and sued in federal court in Washington, arguing that Congress must authorize it.
“The public interest leans heavily against allowing defendants to blaze ahead,” the plaintiffs said in their request for an 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 scholars following the many cases involving the administration say the projects may look like personal or symbolic undertakings, but they also pose fundamental questions about the limits of presidential power.
Previous administrations advanced legal theories that were sometimes defensible and sometimes not, said David Super, a law professor at 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 that are indisputably illegal.” He said that approach is “going to do long-term damage to the country.”
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.