Legal Battle Over Historic Public Golf Course

Sharing an island with the Jefferson Memorial is East Potomac Golf Links, a historic, federally owned public golf facility in our nation’s capital. Having been open for over 100 years, it is known for being an affordable golf course with options for golfers of all skill levels.

According to The Washington Post, President Donald Trump has proposed a large redevelopment plan that would convert the property into a championship-level golf course designed by world-renowned golf course architect Tom Fazio. The Trump administration proposed an 18-hole championship golf course, redesigned practice facilities, and a $304.5 million seawall project. As always, when dealing with historic property, the proposed changes quickly generated substantial controversy among local golfers, preservation advocates, and federal officials. The debate central to the proposal involves whether the federal government has the authority to substantially transform a historic public recreational facility without satisfying certain environmental and preservation requirements. The dispute swiftly reached federal court, presenting several legal questions dealing with public land use, historic preservation, and the future of recreational golf in the nation’s capital.

Municipal golf courses like East Potomac historically serve as affordable and accessible public golf facilities. In 2020, the National Park Service entered into a 50-year lease with the nonprofit National Links Trust to manage and restore East Potomac and two other public golf courses in Washington D.C. According to The Washington Post, the original restoration plan was focused on the improvement of course conditions, preserving historically significant architectural features on the course, and maintaining opportunities for recreational golfers. The new plan from the Trump administration would replace the facility with an entirely redesigned 18-hole championship venue capable of hosting major professional golf tournaments in Washington D.C. The Washington Post reports that the proposal would also significantly alter Hains Point, which shares the island. Hains Point gets recreational use as a place to walk, cycle, fish, or picnic. Opponents of the proposal argue that replacing the current 36-hole facility with one championship-level facility would reduce access for beginner golfers, families, and recreational golfers. The argument from the Trump Administration is that the redevelopment would modernize seriously deteriorating facilities and create a legitimate world-class golf destination, remaining open to the public, right in the heart of Washington D.C. The proposal does not specify the total cost of the construction and redesign, where the funding would come from, or what future greens fees would look like at the new facility. The clear legal question here is whether or not the original purpose of the property could be undermined by this proposed redesign. If the golf course technically remains open to the public, increased costs and reduced recreational opportunities could undermine its original purpose: affordable and accessible municipal golf.

The legal battle began in February of 2026, when the D.C. Preservation League, joined by two local golfers, filed a lawsuit against the Department of the Interior, the National Park Service, and other federal officials. The lawsuit challenges whether the government’s redevelopment efforts comply with federal laws governing environmental protection, historic preservation, and administrative decision making. One of the biggest legal issues involves the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to evaluate environmental consequences prior to undertaking major action that could significantly affect or change the environment. Plaintiffs argue that the administration moved forward with aspects of the redevelopment without doing what was necessary under NEPA. In addition to NEPA, this case also raises issues under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), which requires federal agencies to consider how their actions may impact historic properties, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which allows courts to review certain actions by federal agencies. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that the historical significance of the land may trigger additional preservation-related requirements, as well as being subject to judicial review due to the government’s redevelopment decisions.

According to Judge Ana Reyes’s October 26th opinion, the government had previously acknowledged that a comprehensive redesign of East Potomac would require substantial environmental and historic preservation review. This lawsuit illustrates that even when the federal government owns a recreational facility, its ability to redevelop that property remains subject to applicable federal laws and procedural requirements.

The court finally intervened in October when the National Park Service began removing hundreds of trees from the property. Government officials declared that the removal was related to maintenance and restoration recommendations to the existing land, while opponents argued it was directly connected to the proposed redevelopment. Judge Reyes wound up issuing a temporary restraining order preventing additional tree removal. This was followed by a preliminary injunction that continued restrictions on removing or damaging trees and required advance notice before certain closures or irreversible changes to the property. According to the court opinion issued on October 26th, the plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on important portions of their legal claims, providing sufficient grounds for the court to intervene while litigation continues, however, the injunction does not represent a final determination that the redevelopment itself is unlawful in any way. This was merely intended to prevent any sort of irreversible changes while the court takes everything into account and evaluates the legal issues.

The controversy surrounding East Potomac continues as the administration plans to close the course on November 15, 2026, with President Trump suggesting it could reopen approximately 15 months later. According to The Washington Post, the National Park Service has cited deteriorating seawall conditions and the lack of a course operator as reasons for the closure. However, opponents argue that closing the course would allow redevelopment to move forward before the legal challenges are resolved. On November 5, opponents requested that the court block the closure, with Judge Reyes scheduling a hearing for November 13. According to Reuters, Reyes also selected former U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu to investigate whether government attorneys misled the court about redevelopment plans and tree removal. While no misconduct has been established, this adds another legal issue to the ongoing dispute.

Ultimately, the legal battle over East Potomac involves much more than building a championship-level golf course. Supporters argue that redevelopment could modernize the facility and attract major golf events, while opponents worry that replacing an affordable public facility with a single championship course could limit access for everyday golfers. The dispute raises important questions about government control of public land, historic preservation, environmental protections, and recreational access. With litigation ongoing, East Potomac demonstrates how even improvements to sports facilities can face significant legal challenges when public land and its historical importance are involved.