WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge said Friday she would open a “formal inquiry” to investigate if attorneys for the Trump administration violated ethical boundaries during a legal dispute about a golf-course project — one in a pair of plans that are revealing the breadth of the president's attempts to mold parts of the District of Columbia to his own vision.
The two cases, unfolding at the same time in the same federal courthouse, also showcase the underlying executive authority claims that lie beneath them — a glimpse into the uses of presidential power under Donald Trump.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes' declaration that the court would appoint a “special master” to investigate whether agency officials and Justice Department attorneys had made misrepresentations in the court is a far cry from her relationship with the government until this month. She had rejected numerous motions from the plaintiffs to step in, saying she trusted the government attorneys.
The cases involved are an impending shutdown and reconfiguration of a historic public golf course and the construction of a 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 golf course change began as other recent ones have: 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.
Reyes stopped the hearing several times and adjourned to her chambers to check previous transcripts of the trial as she questioned Woodward. Among the things she wants examined: Was a National Park Service official told to exclude details in a court declaration? Did witnesses offer misleading testimony about the extent of plans in place for the course's closure and renovation?
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 for 15 months while work goes on.
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.
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.
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 questioned the Justice Department attorney extensively at a hearing prompted in part by the administration's court filing that it hoped to get final approval for the arch project on Nov. 5 and possibly begin construction that same day.
She, like Reyes has in other hearings, asked what the urgency was and how would the government be harmed “apart from the executive's desire to bedazzle the city” if she issues a preliminary injunction while the lawsuit plays out. Robert Stander, the government's attorney, said the arch was “absolutely a high priority project” and Chutkan stepping in would impede the work of the government.
Chutkan and Stander also engaged in a discussion over the recent court filings by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who talked about defensive structures, including drones, that will be part of the arch. Chutkan noted that it was the first time throughout the case that the government had framed the arch as a national defense matter. Stander had no details on what those defensive plans might entail.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the construction asked for the 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.”
One of the plaintiffs, Michael Lemmon, an Army veteran who served as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, said during testimony at the hearing that he routinely visits the Vietnam Veterans Memorial before walking toward the cemetery to pay respects to fallen comrades buried there. “It means an intense amount to me to be able to continue to do that,” he said. “The pain is real for us veterans. It’s not just an aesthetic (concern), not just some preference for a few.”
Lemmon said he is disturbed by the prospect of seeing a “monstrous” arch loom over the cemetery.
“This is hallowed ground. This is really sacred territory,” he said.
Shaun Byrnes, a Navy veteran who was badly wounded while serving during the Vietnam War, said the arch’s construction would force him to reconsider his intention to be interred in Arlington National Cemetery along with former shipmates. In a court filing, Byrnes said he views the arch as a “symbol that violates our Nation’s resistance to the rule of a king and our Nation’s commitment to the rule of the people.”
“I don’t want to be part of that,” he told Chutkan.
The plaintiffs say the construction is unlawful and must be endorsed by Congress.
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 break the law.
That’s ”going to do long-term damage to the country,” Super said.
___
Associated Press reporter Michael Kunzelman contributed to this story.
