Reyes Golf Course Hearing Timeline

East Potomac Golf Course Hearing — Courtroom Timeline

Reporting by Roger Parloff and Molly Roberts, senior editors at Lawfare (@lawfaremedia.org). All of the reporting here is theirs. This page only collects and orders their live posts. Lawfare is reader-supported: support Lawfare here.

Case: DC Preservation League v. Department of the Interior (D.D.C.), before Judge Ana Reyes Date: Monday, October 19, 2026 (Columbus Day holiday) Sources:

Parloff’s live thread, posted from the courthouse media room: thread root.
Roberts’ two live threads: witnesses and argument.

Coverage: 9:39 a.m. – 5:06 p.m. ET, through adjournment. This timeline is complete.

Parloff: 213 posts, through the Judge’s closing words and adjournment.
Roberts: 220 posts, 10:27 a.m. – 3:41 p.m. She joined just after testimony began and signed off during the government’s argument.

How this page was made: see How this was compiled at the bottom.

How to read this

Times are Eastern, taken from post timestamps. A post lands a minute or two after the moment it describes.
Sources are cited [P#] for Parloff and [R#] for Roberts, by each post’s position in that reporter’s feed for the day. Each citation links to the original post.
Dialogue is the reporters’ real-time paraphrase, not a transcript. Both say they couldn’t keep up at times (P13, P49, R44). Where they differ, both versions are noted.
👀 marks interesting nonverbal or procedural moments: someone standing, a smile, a bench conference, a break, a passed note, a witness sent out.
[brackets] are the reporters’ asides. (ed.) marks a compiler’s note.

Who’s who

Judge — U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes.
Plaintiffs: Abbe Lowell (AL), who examines witnesses; Mark Samburg; Norm Eisen.
DOJ (government): Stan Woodward (SW) leads. Parloff calls him “Associate AG” in P2 and “Assoc GC” in P3. Also Robert Stander (RS), Andrew Block, Marissa Pilopato. “DOJ” means a government lawyer the reporters didn’t identify.
Witnesses:
- Greg Wischer (GW), Department of the Interior (DOI) Chief of Staff. He also testifies he has been deputy chief of staff since May 2025.
- Jessica Bowron (JB), acting director of the National Park Service (NPS).
- Dr. Kevin Griess (KG), NPS.
Named in testimony: Frank Lands, NPS deputy director (released without testifying today); Tom Fazio and his son Gavin Fazio, golf course architects; Natalie Harp, White House staff; Interior Secretary Doug Burgum; Mike Camisso, NPS (spelling uncertain); Tammy Stieham/Stimmon, NPS regional office (spelling uncertain).
Terms:
- CLR — the 2019 Cultural Landscape Report for DC’s three public courses (East Potomac, Rock Creek, Langston).
- TMP — the Tree Management Plan. Under it, roughly 400–500 trees were cut on 10/10.
- WNP — the “Washington National” plan, Trump’s championship-course redesign.
- NLT — National Links Trust, the former operator of the courses.
- APA — the Administrative Procedure Act.
- NEPA — the National Environmental Policy Act.
- NHPA — the National Historic Preservation Act.
- PI — preliminary injunction.

9 AM — Before the hearing

9:39 — Parloff announces the evidentiary hearing for 10 a.m. The case seeks to stop Trump from converting a historic public golf course, open to all, into a championship course. P1
9:41 — Roberts tells readers to follow Parloff because she will likely miss the start. R1
9:46 — Context: last night Reyes denied the government’s motion asking her to recuse herself. Yesterday Trump said he would close the existing course Nov 15 or earlier. Two days before that, government lawyers had called the plans “conceptual,” “nascent,” and “preliminary.” Reyes has ordered DOJ to say by 8 p.m. whether it still holds those positions, and has ordered Woodward to attend. P2
9:50 — Reyes wants testimony from Bowron (NPS) and Wischer (DOI). The government has added about four lawyers in two days, including Woodward. Docket
9:53 — Link to last night’s ruling denying recusal. P4

10 AM — Opening clash over Rule 11; the Judge’s ruling on testimony; Wischer on the stand

10:01 — 👀 “All rise.” Reyes takes the bench. Judge: trusts everyone’s weekend was as relaxing as hers and her clerks’ [Parloff: sarcastic]. 👀 The clerk calls the case and counsel give appearances. P5
10:02 — The Judge orders Woodward to refile last night’s submission with the signature of every DOJ lawyer willing to sign it. Judge (to the DOJ lawyers): raise your hand if you’re willing to sign it. SW: not an appropriate request. Judge: for Rule 11 purposes, which other lawyers are willing to sign this brief? P6
10:04 — SW: “I’m going to instruct [the] attorneys not to answer.” Judge: “I’m ordering you all to come to the podium and sign it. I’m giving them a direct order.” If they want to disobey… he’s an officer of the court; he signed it; she is entitled to know which other DOJ lawyers will sign it. P7
10:05 — The Judge gives Woodward until 3 p.m. to file a brief on why the DOJ lawyers shouldn’t have to obey. She begins reading her reasons for having the authority to compel today’s testimony, answering the government’s motion to dismiss. P8
10:08 — Judge (reading): this is an exceptional case where the bare administrative record is inadequate. “I don’t know that I need to find bad faith… that noted, court not required to exhibit naïveté from which ordinary citizens are free.” P9
10:10–10:11 — Judge (reading): plaintiffs say the government isn’t being candid. Trump’s posts announce plans to destroy the course and say work begins “IMMEDIATELY,” while DOI repeatedly said there was nothing to see. The government claimed it was only carrying out a 2019 plan. She calls this a “strong showing of bad faith.” She notes the government’s separation-of-powers objection to compelling high-level officials. P10 P11
10:12–10:13 — Judge: these witnesses have personal knowledge, and two are not high-ranking. She is not seeking Secretary Burgum’s testimony or anyone at the White House “at this time.” 👀 [Parloff: “she’s reading fast; I can’t begin to keep up.”] P12 P13
10:15 — Judge: “Govt’s behavior in this case has been nothing if not extraordinary.” She asks who will argue the preliminary injunction. Stander answers. Judge: was it a coincidence that NPS cut down 500 trees under a 2019 plan, with nothing to do with the Trump plan? P14
10:16 — RS: doesn’t know. Judge: then why did she get testimony, argument, and sworn declarations saying the TMP had nothing to do with Trump’s plan? P15
10:17 — Judge: when DOJ told her last week that the TMP had nothing to do with the redesign, did it know whether that was accurate? 👀 Woodward stands. Judge: “Sit down.” RS: had every reason to believe it was accurate. P16
10:18–10:19 — Judge: “You can’t answer?” RS: not relevant. Judge: “I’m the one who decides what’s relevant.” RS: I answered. Judge: “You haven’t.” RS: I have no reason to believe— Judge: if you can’t answer, say so. “Yes? No? Can’t answer?” P17 P18
10:22 — Judge: “We’ll go to testimony.” She calls Greg Wischer. Woodward has no opening questions. 👀 The Judge sequesters the government witnesses and the plaintiffs. Lowell begins direct. P19
10:23–10:27 — AL: has Wischer seen Trump’s championship-course plan and this morning’s post? GW: yes. Did the 10/10 removal of 400+ trees really follow the 2019 CLR? GW: asks him to restate, then says he believed it did. AL: if renovation starts 11/15, wouldn’t a two-week tree operation be “an extraordinary waste”? GW: wasn’t aware of the 11/1 date. “We were cleaning up the course. This was [the] next natural step.” P20 P21 P22 P23
10:27 — Roberts arrives: “I’m here.” R2
10:29 — GW: “We’ve been cleaning up the course all summer.” AL: removing trees is cleaning up the course? Judge: the trees cut were healthy and non-invasive. Is removing 400+ healthy trees “cleaning up”? GW: the area was called “trash island.” He doesn’t know the definition, but the trees were “out of keeping with CLR.” P24 R3
10:30–10:33 — GW: the work was “along with the sea wall… to clean it up.” He first learned of the CLR in mid-to-late September by looking it up online, while “throughout summer looking at ways to clean up the course.” These “were not exactly specimen trees… not trees like in your front yard,” just overgrown saplings. He did not read the whole CLR. It is about 300 pages; Roberts heard “277 page report.” He believes affordability was one of its goals. P25 P26 P27 R4 R5 R6 R8
10:35–10:39 — AL: the TMP covered only East Potomac, not Rock Creek or Langston, though the CLR covers all three. 👀 DOJ objects. GW: the “DC Safe & Beautiful” executive order focuses near the Mall. AL lists other CLR goals: boundaries, cherry trees, fencing, keeping three separate courses. GW: “continuation of work throughout summer.” AL: “Not my question.” Judge: “Yes or no question.” GW: yes, plus trash cleanup and fence work this summer. P28 P29 P30 P31 R7 R9 R10 R11
10:41–10:42 — AL: how was he involved in summer fence work if he only learned of the CLR in September? GW: NPS was aware, and it was their intent to implement. 👀 Woodward objects on privilege. The Judge sustains and tells the witness not to describe talks with lawyers. Woodward repeats the point; Judge: “I think I said that.” She tells him to say he “can’t answer without revealing confidential info.” P32 P33 R12 R13 R14
10:44–10:48 — GW: his sense that NPS had been trying “for some time” came “from reading of testimony last week.” About ten CLR conversations since September, “very few” without lawyers. Usually NPS staff were there: Frank Lands, Rachel Daniels, “a lady named Lex.” Burgum was never there. Tom Fazio, anyone on Trump-branded courses, and fundraiser Meredith O’Rourke were not there. GW: “I hope I’m answering the question.” P34 P35 P36 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20
10:50–10:54 — GW: first heard of the WNP in fall 2025 from headlines. He corrects himself: he got involved in spring (about March) 2026 on DC beautification tied to the 250th anniversary. “There wasn’t a WNP… wasn’t like ‘this is a plan.’” There were “concepts,” including chip-and-putt. Asked whether one concept merged three courses into one, he says privilege, then “maybe.” GW: “I’m not a golfer.” Judge: “Me either. A good walk ruined.” P37 P38 P39 P40 R21 R22 R24 R25
10:54–10:56 — AL: a reported 3/30 meeting with the general manager of a Trump golf course in New Jersey? GW: doesn’t recall the date. It was about a different beautification project “that’s gotten a lot of attention.” On 10/5, Bowron emailed him a draft TMP that evening, and he still has it. P40 P41 R26 R27
10:58 — GW: talked with Bowron about the CLR the week before. 👀 Woodward objects: deliberative process. 👀 [Roberts: “DOJ stirring.” The Judge says it’s distracting “when lawyers stand and just stand.” She seems to be trying hard not to be construed as short with government counsel.] She sustains the objection. P42 R28 R29 R30

11 AM — Privilege fight, the Fazio photos, and Trump’s posts

10:59–11:05 — GW: he read last week’s transcript (Griess and Lands), “but it was long.” Judge: “It really was…” The TMP became possible because new resources and personnel were available. GW: “NPS has [a] better sense.” Judge: “Only personal knowledge,” and “going back and forth with testimony isn’t really helpful.” She cuts in: “Why don’t you let me do this, ok? Why did you call the meeting?” GW: he calls Monday meetings to push projects, and called the 10/5 meeting “in anticipation” of the TMP that Bowron said she would send. On Griess and Bowron, Judge: “Ask them, not him.” P43 P44 P45 R31 R32 R33 R34 R35 R36
11:05 — AL: what was discussed about trees on 10/5? GW: “Legal counsel present.” “Not trying to be hard here. Not like I have one grand mtg.” P46 R37 R38
11:06–11:09 — 👀 The Judge sends the witness out, mentioning the arcade machines in her chambers. [Roberts later: she has previously mentioned Mrs. Pac-Man competitions among her staff.] Judge: a lawyer on an email doesn’t make a whole conversation privileged; “facts about when, why, don’t strike me as legal advice. But sensitive.” SW: attorney-client and deliberative-process privilege both apply. She lays out the deliberative-process test, including that it “must not be working law of agency, which I assume that you people know what that means.” She floats clearing the courtroom and going under seal for a voir dire. 👀 Recess until 11:25. P47 P48 P49 R38 R39 R40 R41 R42 R43
11:17–11:23 — (Parloff explainer.) The Rule 11 dispute was over this filing, signed only by Woodward. Rule 11 lets judges sanction frivolous arguments. The filing argued that closing and transforming the course was “not final agency action,” like changing “all the exhibits” at a museum. It also said government lawyers never meant to represent the President’s “actual position or mental impressions.” P50 P51 P52
11:25–11:27 — 👀 Resuming. Wischer is back on the stand. 👀 Judge: “Oh, I’m so sorry,” and sends him out again so privilege can be argued. SW: “We are asserting privilege.” P53 P54 R46
11:28–11:30 — SW: decisions the week of the 5th were made in conversation with counsel because of this litigation. Judge: so it was DOJ, not Interior, that decided when to tell the court about the tree plan? SW: doesn’t know, will find out. Judge: “I do want to know.” So the TMP was understood to be relevant to litigation? SW: “Absolutely,” because of NEPA, NHPA, and other laws. P55 P56 R47 R48
11:31–11:34 — SW: “Not copying [a] lawyer on every email to argue with court.” SW: “Tricky, I don’t know what he is going to say before he says it.” Judge: “You’ve met with him, asked that question. You know what he’s going to say.” SW: he “was going fast and hard on all projects.” Judge: “Just a massive coincidence that all this happened?” SW: “Both can be true.” Judge: “No, both can’t be true. [We’re] not dealing with quantum physics here… There is no universe where all of this just coincidentally happened at the same time. There just isn’t.” SW: the emails without lawyers on them don’t say “we were gonna tear down trees for golf course.” He calls the administrative record “limited to trash pile.” 👀 Woodward asks to confer with agency counsel. Judge: “I guess we’re all in quantum physics all the time. But go ahead.” P57 P58 R49 R50 R51 R52 R53
11:35–11:38 — AL cites In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 746: the privilege disappears where there’s reason to believe there was government misconduct. “Can’t hide behind privilege… to hide misconduct.” Judge: the government may brief it. “Why you haven’t thought to brief it before is… totally fair! You guys have been busy.” [Roberts: “quite the U-turn lol.”] The testimony stays open for recall, and Lowell may ask three narrow questions. P59 P60 P61 P62 R54 R55 R56 R57 R58
11:40–11:44 — 👀 The Judge tells Wischer to “wait a beat” before answering so the government can object: “Probably a good idea for all of us, frankly.” AL: on 10/5, did you tell Lands the TMP would be executed? 👀 SW objects. GW: “I never said go execute.” But the direction came from him “if we got compliance and all that.” He didn’t say “as soon as practicable,” though “we try to move as quickly as possible.” Did he say “by Friday”? 👀 Objection, sustained “for now.” P63 P64 P65 R59 R60 R61 R62
11:43–11:46 — 👀 Judge: “Hold on. Have you guys talked about exhibits?” SW: “No.” 👀 [Roberts: the Judge has the monitors switched so they don’t face the public 😳.] DOJ doesn’t object to the physical exhibits. GW: knew trees would come down on 10/10 “the Friday that directly preceded”; nothing moves until compliance and contracting wrap up. P65 R63 R64 R65
11:47–11:51 — 👀 Photo exhibits of Trump’s course visit, apparently June 28. Asked whether the man in the blue polo is him, GW: “I think I might.” 👀 Roberts: he smiles; it’s him. 👀 He asks for a laser pointer and marks Lands’ head on his screen (in NPS uniform): “This is Frank,” laughing a bit. Judge: “Never looked better.” GW: “Well, you can see the president of course.” AL: “I can, I think we all knew who he was.” He also identifies Tom Fazio, a presidential staffer, and Adam Sees (phonetic). In another photo he’s carrying “various conceptual proposals” for “a golf course,” hard copies Fazio brought. P66 P67 P68 R66 R67 R68 R69 R70
11:51 — 👀 The Judge orders Wischer not to delete anything and to turn off auto-delete. He also has Fazio “photos of bad trees.” P69 R71
11:53–11:57 — 👀 Asked whether Burgum was there, GW: “Can I draw?” and he draws. AL: “Sheath of rolled up docs”? GW: “I don’t know what a sheath is. I do have a folder.” The folder held before-and-after cleanup photos. Judge: who organized the outing? GW: “The White House. I don’t wanna say too much. It’s not me asking.” 👀 DOJ asserts executive privilege. He can’t name a person; there was “a flurry of calls,” probably from an executive assistant: “this is happening, we need you at this place at this time.” He knew Fazio’s son would be there. P70 P71 P72 R72 R73 R74 R75 R76
11:57–12:00 — AL: executive privilege is not for DOJ lawyers to assert. SW: he’ll get a letter from White House counsel. The privilege is “presumptive,” and the President doesn’t have to assert it. Judge: does a third party like Fazio being present waive it? SW: no. She wants briefing. On the Rule 11 issue, she gives DOJ until noon tomorrow to say “not just whether the other people would sign the pleading but whether they’d put their names to it.” (ed.: Parloff’s post omits “tomorrow”; Roberts has it.) P73 P74 R77 R78 R79 R80

12 PM — Trump’s posts, the Fazio texts, DOJ cross, lunch

12:00–12:05 — Lowell shows a post from after the tour: Burgum “and his people” are studying the “very dilapidated” course, with work to begin 9/1. GW: “I read parts of it” [Roberts: “lol… it was long”]. He identifies the staffer as Natalie Harp. After a compound-question objection, AL: “Maybe I rephrase the question to get a better objection.” Judge: “I have a feeling one’s coming.” GW: he never discussed 9/1 or any timing with anyone. He didn’t start reading the CLR because of the Trump meeting; he “just wanted to clean up [the] course in absence of finalized concept.” P74 P75 P76 P77 R81 R82 R83 R84 R85 R86
12:05–12:09 — Lowell shows yesterday’s post. 👀 SW objects. Judge: did he talk with the President about timing? 👀 DOJ: “Fact [it] didn’t happen is as protected by the privilege as the fact that it did.” Judge: “Well, that puts us in a pickle.” She adds: “Object if you need to. Not gonna hurt my feelings. We’re beyond that.” When did he first learn of 11/15? 👀 Objection, “misstates record.” SW: “May I approach?” 👀 Bench conference (Judge, Lowell, Woodward), out of the press’s hearing. GW: his only basis for 11/15, and for a 15-month closure, is the Truth Social post. P77 P78 P79 R87 R88 R89 R90
12:11–12:12 — Judge reads Trump: “Burgum and I very excited…” Is Burgum excited? GW: “‘Scuse me?” … “No.” Judge: “So to find out what Burgum is thinking, I’d have to ask him?” GW: “Yes.” P80 P81 R91 R92
12:12–12:16 — GW: he has seen “multiple conceptual renderings.” He first saw this sketch “maybe like Thursday.” AL (to the Judge): “You’re ahead of me. It’s ok, you always are.” The sketch came by text, as a PDF, to his personal phone from Gavin Fazio: “I get lots of texts 😎” (emoji Roberts’). 👀 The Judge orders him not to delete anything from his personal phone and wants the timestamp. He’s in “occasional” contact “when there’s updated renderings,” “not a lot.” DOJ: “Brief this.” Judge: “I bet you’ll want to.” He got emails at work too, but “most discussions [were] phone calls.” P81 P82 P83 R93 R94 R95 R96
12:16–12:18 — He never discussed the CLR or tree removal with the Fazios, “just designs.” GW: “I’m not a golf person, so I get concepts like this and I don’t really know what more I need to say.” P84 R97 R98
12:18–12:19 — Lowell shows this morning’s post. SW: “Can I see it?” Judge: “You didn’t see it yet? Lot of people sent it to me.” SW: “You’re more important than I am, I guess?” Judge: “Take a moment to read it. I won’t ask you if you think that I’m a crazed lunatic who may be insane.” AL: “Don’t spend much time on that sentence.” P85 R99 R100
12:19–12:21 — The post: work can proceed “as of right… they don’t need any approval. Work to begin IMMEDIATELY!” GW: he learned that “when I saw this… just like everyone else.” Judge: “If I wanted to start immediately, who would I call?” She withdraws it after an objection. P86 R101 R102
12:21–12:26 — The renderings are produced by the Fazios. What does he do with them? GW: “Look at them.” 👀 SW objects; the Judge reserves. Lowell offers more exhibits. Judge (to Lowell): “You should have shared these with [the] govt beforehand. I’m a little surprised.” SW objects to relevance. Judge: “Oh, I think I know where the relevance is about to come in.” Overruled. [Roberts: the exhibit is “pretty clearly the Zacharia Oval Office photo with the blurred out image.”] Judge: “Very close to beating a pretty dead horse, so why don’t we just speed it up.” 👀 She stops Lowell from asking a question that would draw an objection. Lowell rests. P87 P88 P89 P90 R102 R103 R104 R105 R106 R107
12:25–12:28 — SW cross: National Links Trust ran all three courses. Its East Potomac lease ended in late December 2025. GW doesn’t think NLT moved any trees. P90 P91 R108
12:27–12:31 — 👀 Wischer is released but subject to recall. He may talk with his staff about the course, “but not, hey, did I get that right? Hey, I was great.” SW: “I won’t bury the lead, but testimony elicited won’t be different.” 👀 DOJ objects to calling Bowron. Judge: “I think everyone knows your objection.” Judge: “Oh, yes. Definitely need to speak to her.” 👀 Lands, who was supposed to appear remotely, is in the courtroom. Judge: “Today’s your good news day. We’re not going to have you testify… Sorry to call you here.” 👀 Adjourned until 1:30 (“for brunch — for lunch”). P92 P93 P94 R109 R110 R111 R112

1 PM — Bowron on the stand

1:29 — (Parloff, answering a reader.) The APA is the key basis for challenging the tree removal. “Deliberative process” is a privilege, not a defense to the APA claim. P96
1:33 — 👀 “All rise.” Judge: “Ms. Bowron first.” DOJ has no questions for now. 👀 She’s sworn in, wearing an NPS uniform. JB: NPS comptroller since 2017 and acting director since about January 2025. P97 R113 R114
1:35 — JB: she was sent yesterday’s Trump post but hasn’t seen this morning’s. P98 R114
1:36–1:39 — JB: she may have heard of the CLR in spring, during earlier hazard-tree work. She “definitely” learned of it on Tuesday, 9/29, at a DOI meeting in Wischer’s office with two solicitors. It was about the “compliance pathway” for vegetation management. She hadn’t read the CLR (“Now have skimmed”). Wischer asked for the meeting. P99 P100 R115 R116 R117
1:39–1:41 — 👀 SW asks for a privilege instruction, and the Judge gives it. JB: afterward she “worked with our compliance experts” in regional and national offices. P101 R117 R118
1:41–1:46 — JB: she knew the CLR covered Rock Creek and Langston, but they weren’t discussed. Judge: “Short-circuit this…” AL: “That was the last question, Your Honor.” Judge: “Great!” There was a separate seawall discussion. No one ever said, in effect, “this CLR has existed since 2019, let’s implement it.” She first heard of the WNP in late 2025 from the solicitor’s office. Shown her 3/6/26 declaration (a $150M renovation of all three courses), she isn’t aware the WNP would end two of the three. P102 P103 P104 P105 R119 R120 R121 R122 R123 R124
1:48–1:51 — JB: “I’ve not been at any meetings where [the] ultimate plan for East Potomac Park has been discussed.” The TMP became possible because of an incoming “bison team” (maintenance volunteers) for beautification, the new fiscal year, and completed NEPA/NHPA compliance. P106 P107 R125 R126 R127 R128
1:51–1:54 — Judge: “Just the facts, ma’am!” JB: there was no operational plan on 9/29. She got the draft TMP on 10/5 and shared it with Wischer and counsel. Her role is a “fatal flaw review”; she’s “not there to question whether they picked [the] right trees.” This one “was very straightforward.” P108 P109 P110 R129 R130 R131 R132 R133 R134
1:55 — Judge: your job wasn’t to say, “I’m approving this, go forth”? JB: “This looks great.” 👀 SW objects to the Judge’s question. Judge: “Sustained. Might be first time in my career that I’ve sustained objections to my own questions.” SW: “One this morning, not that I’m counting.” P111 R135
1:56–1:59 — JB: “Gosh.” An example edit is switching “resiliency” for “hardening.” Judge: “Perfect.” Could the plan have gone forward without her input? JB: yes. Legal effect without her signature? 👀 SW objects. Judge: “You’re getting good at this.” Could DOI hire contractors without her approval? JB: yes. Judge: “Let’s move on.” P112 P113 R136 R137 R138

2 PM — Bowron’s declarations; Griess on the stand; amicus argument begins

2:00–2:03 — JB: on 10/5 she shared the draft with Lands. The only edits came from Wischer, on 10/6. DOJ: “I’m trying to be done w/ this.” Judge: “I’m trying to be done w/ it too, to be frank.” She doesn’t recall being told to move “as soon as practicable” and got no timing information. P114 P115 R139 R140 R141 R142
2:03–2:07 — AL: in her 3/6 and 4/30 declarations, the renovation was “conceptual.” What made it operational by yesterday? 👀 Objection. Judge: “Just ask a question.” Then she takes over. Bowron’s 10/6 declaration, signed at 5:15 p.m., describes removing “dead, dying, invasive, hazardous trees,” with no mention of felling hundreds of healthy trees. “I don’t mean to sound accusatory.” JB: “This was with counsel.” Judge: “I understand. I’ll just make the inference I can make.” P116 P117 P118 R142 R143 R144 R145
2:07–2:09 — AL: was removing hundreds of trees, with more planned “but for the rain,” a “small project” or “pruning”? JB: “Yes.” Judge: “Say it again. Listen to this question.” She adds “healthy, non-invasive,” and Bowron still says yes. Judge: “How?!” P119 R146 R147
2:09–2:11 — JB: “East Potomac Park is a designed cultural landscape. We are not managing it as a wilderness area.” Judge: would it fit the original design to destroy three courses and build one? 👀 Objection, overruled. Judge: she is hearing “one thing on the left side and a different thing on the right side and being told they’re the same thing.” SW: “Understand your frustration—” Judge: “Hold on. I wasn’t expressing frustration… That’s me trying to do my job.” SW: “Well, I’m trying to do my job. You’re not getting conflicting information from me.” P120 P121 R147 R148 R149 R150
2:12–2:14 — JB speaks again about protecting the historic landscape. SW: “Can we approach?” 👀 Bench conference. The Judge then sustains the objection. AL: she approved the TMP by email at 5:39 p.m. on 10/6 (👀 she nods), 24 minutes after signing a declaration that didn’t mention it. JB: “Correct.” P121 P122 P123 R151 R152 R153
2:16–2:19 — JB: she made no update between 10/6 and 10/9 on advice of counsel, and she was traveling. She agrees her declarations said any substantial project needs an EA/EIS and compliance with NEPA, NHPA, and the Organic Act, possibly also NCPC and CFA review. Judge: “Move on, I think we’ve got it.” Asked about Trump’s “no compliance required” post, she doesn’t know what it refers to and doesn’t change her declaration. P124 P125 P126 R154 R155 R156 R157 R158
2:20–2:23 — Judge: “I can read regs. Don’t need her to take me thru them.” JB knows of no plan to close the park 11/15, and it’s something she’d be made aware of. NLT is a holdover operator, and nothing stops NPS from working on the other two courses. The compliance-support contractor’s name may be on USAspending.gov. She knows of no other East Potomac contracts since June besides the tree contract. P127 P128 R159 R160 R161 R162 R163 R164
2:23–2:24 — 👀 Bowron is released, subject to recall. Judge: “Ma’am, thank you very much for your time.” AL: he prepared nothing for Griess because “we’ve made the record I want.” 👀 Break, then Griess and straight into argument. P129 R164 R165
2:37–2:38 — 👀 “All rise.” SW: won’t call the plaintiffs and doesn’t object to their return. 👀 Woodward stands down and lets Stander handle objections. Judge: maybe he’ll have as much luck as Woodward did. RS: he can only aspire. 👀 Dr. Kevin Griess takes the stand (NPS uniform; pronounced “grease”). Judge: “Thank you for spending part of your holiday with us.” P130 R166 R167
2:38–2:42 — Griess did the “categorical exclusion.” Bat-habitat checks on trees over about 3 inches in diameter? KG: “I assume” / “to my knowledge.” Documented? “Don’t know.” Structural problems from his May declaration remain unaddressed: a water-stained light fixture, a dirty vent, broken windows, rotten wood. The largest trees date to the 1920s, older than the course. Did they stop golf from 1917 to 2026? “Not that I know of.” How many? “Don’t know.” P131 P132 P133 R168 R169 R170 R171
2:43 — KG: “We haven’t been able to go clean up. Your order prevented us.” Judge: “No, my order permitted that… You were able to cut them down pretty quickly, why can’t you clean them up quickly?” KG: they need a new contractor. He hasn’t evaluated whether Trump’s design is links-style and doesn’t know of any Fazio contract. P134 R172 R173
2:44–2:47 — The Judge runs through the CLR’s topography items: drainage, leveling tees, restoring bunkers, runoff, sand traps. 👀 DOJ objects (“requires speculation”). Judge: “No.” [Every answer is “no” or “I don’t know.”] He doesn’t know when the tree contract was signed (Lands’ staff would) and had no contact with the contractors. P135 P136 R174 R175 R176 R177
2:47–2:52 — Judge reads Trump’s claim of “falling and dangerous disease-infested trees.” KG: there’s an unassessed “trash island” of about 21,000 square yards. Most of the trees were healthy. Judge: “Always gonna be a couple of bad trees in a forest, right?” The seawall’s status: “don’t know.” He gave first approval, then Bowron. Without her approval the plan couldn’t have proceeded. [Roberts flags that this contradicts Bowron’s testimony that it could.] P137 P138 P139 P140 R178 R179 R180 R181 R182 R183
2:52–2:55 — AL: the roving crew was freed up. (ed.: Parloff says it was from the Reflecting Pool, Roberts says the Grand Prix.) KG: felling at this scale needed a contractor. 👀 [Roberts: Stander “straightens his jacket” to cross.] RS: what’s next under the CLR? KG: removing about 300 more trees. The TMP stands regardless of course design. P140 P141 R184 R185 R186 R187
2:55–2:57 — Judge: who told him to implement the tree section? KG: NPS regional official Tammy Stieham (spelling uncertain) asked on 9/29 what a tree plan would look like. Judge: “Thank you, sir. You’ve had to deal with me three times now.” P141 P142 R188 R189 R190
2:56–2:58 — 👀 Judge: “I understand we have an atty at Covington here. Come on up.” [Roberts first heard “man,” then corrected it to “ma’am.”] 👀 The public phone line is opened. P142 R191 R192
2:58–3:05 — Preliminary-injunction argument begins. Amicus counsel “Rachel” for the Haines Point Runners: “We have nothing against golf.” Their concern is the historic perimeter roadway, a 3-mile loop used by runners since about 1897, which the plan would eliminate. No building may go up on park land without Congress’s approval (40 U.S.C. § 8106), and there has been none. P143 P144 P145 P146
3:05 — Judge: “How many arguments in federal court before today?” Counsel: “This is my first.” Judge: “You have [the] entire national press corps watching. Phenomenally well done.” P147

3 PM — Government argument on final agency action, NEPA, and standing

3:05–3:09 — (Roberts starts a new thread for the argument.) Judge: “Time is late.” She will focus on final agency action and standing. How does yesterday’s filing (“any redesign is not agency action”) square with DOJ lawyer Mike Robertson’s statement that a redesign is major federal action needing NEPA review (from the 7/2 transcript)? DOJ: “We’re here at [an] early stage.” Judge: “We are not… procedurally may be early, but a lot has happened.” She expects an appeal: “I need to understand your argument before I reject it.” P147 P148 P149 P150 R193 R194 R195
3:10–3:11 — DOJ: the past week went “at breakneck pace.” 👀 [The public line drops; the court pauses until it’s restored.] P151 R196 R197
3:12–3:14 — DOJ: “That’s [the] best I can do.” Judge: “Best you can do is— that’s not sarcastic.” DOJ cites the APA definition (5 U.S.C. § 551(13): rule, order, license, sanction, relief). Judge: “No, come on, counsel.” Then why did DOJ say for months, under oath, that it was major action and months away? “The reason… is [you] didn’t want me to impose a TRO/PI… We are not at gosh gee golly we just forgot to make this alternative argument.” DOJ: “I’m not walking back—” Judge: the declarations didn’t just promise review, they said why. P152 P153 R198 R199 R200 R201
3:15–3:17 — Judge: “Not acceptable to make one argument for months and months and months and then, when that ends up being inconvenient, to switch arguments.” She’s “not saying you’ve waived it,” and “it wasn’t because you’re not good lawyers.” She reads Bowron’s first declaration, which said a renovation is a “major federal action,” not a matter of being “good people [who] care about the environment.” DOJ: fine for the agency to take that position, and fine for DOJ to say it’s not agency action. “Both things can be correct.” Judge: “This wasn’t just DOI on a bender, was it?… Not playing whack-a-mole… Somebody is going to take responsibility for what happens in this courtroom.” P154 P155 P156 R202 R203 R204 R205
3:18–3:19 — Judge: “Like everyone else who came in here blamed someone else.” 👀 Woodward stands up. Judge: “I’m not yelling… have I been yelling?” DOJ: “Don’t know how to answer that question.” Judge: “I want you to tell me if I’ve been yelling right now in the last three minutes.” DOJ: “Very difficult… Unfair.” Judge: “Mr. Lowell, have I been yelling?” AL: [no]. Judge: “Just give me a moment.” P157 R206
3:20 — 👀 [The Judge reads something in silence.] DOJ: “I just don’t think this is improper in the least.” Judge: why isn’t destroying and rebuilding a golf course on parkland agency action? P158 R207
3:21–3:23 — DOJ: a manager’s directive about routine maintenance is not agency action. Judge: “Is tearing down a golf course routine maintenance?” DOJ: “Not what I said.” Judge: “Sorry, I misunderstood.” DOJ: like the Smithsonian rearranging exhibits… Judge: “What if [the] Smithsonian tore down a building and built a new one?” DOJ: “Very good point.” Judge: “I got one.” DOJ: the golf course is “on [the] non-agency side of [the] line.” Judge: “Then there’s no APA. That can’t be the correct understanding of the APA.” [Roberts: she and counsel are in “heated agreement” that courts shouldn’t micromanage government.] P159 P160 R208 R209 R210 R211
3:25–3:30 — Will there be orders or licenses? DOJ: “There might be,” and those could be challenged. DOJ: “We don’t read cases like statutes.” Judge: name the single case this narrow, “anywhere in [the] ballpark?” DOJ: “Don’t have [a] perfect case.” He cites Independent Equipment Dealers, 372 F.3d 420, 427, and National Mining v. McCarthy, 758 F.3d 243, 251–52. Judge: what are their facts? DOJ: “Do not have that info.” P161 P162 P163 R212 R213 R214 R215
3:31–3:33 — Judge: it’s a historic course, the first desegregated course in DC, “not just [a] putt-putt thing by [the] beach, tho there is a putt-putt people like a lot.” 👀 She had been saying “segregated.” Her clerk passes her a note to say “desegregated,” and everyone laughs. [Roberts: “they do teach you things at Yale Law School,” she says after correcting herself.] “There was bravery involved.” DOJ: “All testimony we’ve heard today is irrelevant.” P164 P165 R216
3:34–3:41 — DOJ: it’s one NEPA segmentation claim. Judge: an “overly small reading” of the motion, which isn’t only about tree removal. DOJ cites Seven County (605 U.S. 168, 179): “the bedrock principle… can be stated in one word: deference.” Judge: Seven County applies to EIS cases, and Judge Amy Berman Jackson recently said so. DOJ: “I’ll have to follow up.” P166 P167 P168 P169 P170 R217 R218 R219
3:41 — Roberts signs off (“my dog is sick”) and refers readers to Parloff. R220
3:47–3:49 — DOJ: on segmentation (tree removal versus the final project), “when you get to end of road, there’s no there there.” P171 P172
3:49–3:55 — Judge: the President says there’s a final plan, and you say there isn’t. DOJ: “No final plan.” Is there a Fazio contract? DOJ: not aware of one. Judge: “Has anyone asked?” SW: “There is not.” DOJ: even an executive order is not final agency action. Judge: “President is not [an] agency. But he said Secy Burgum.” Is the post incorrect? DOJ: “True with caveat… there is a plan in process.” P172 P173 P174 P175 P176
3:55–3:59 — Judge: then why start “IMMEDIATELY”? DOJ: read it like an executive order. Judge: “Can’t be both… Do I believe [the] President of the US, or do I believe you?” DOJ: “The NPS tells you when the course is going to close.” Judge: “So I don’t believe the President.” DOJ: “Not what I said.” P176 P177 P178

4 PM — Standing; plaintiffs argue; the Judge signals a finding that the trees were cut for Trump’s plan

4:00–4:02 — Judge: if plaintiffs challenged the closure, they’d have standing? DOJ: “Yes. But that’s not this case.” Judge: “This may become that case.” DOJ: they just dislike the design. Judge: “We’re not in the East Wing world. We’re in the we-use-the-course world.” If the government turned it into a parking lot? DOJ: “Likely” an eminent-domain case. P179 P180
4:03 — Judge: “I was with you guys while you all were taking this step by step. But now I have something totally different on my hands… That’s one reason what happened last week [was] so incredibly unfortunate.” P181
4:04–4:08 — DOJ: “On this record, inconceivable there’s a viable NEPA claim.” Judge: “And I’m not saying that, by the way.” DOJ calls it “the ballroom case.” Judge: it’s about affordability and three levels of play: “It’s not aesthetic.” DOJ: otherwise changing the 5th hole from a par 3 to a par 4 would be grounds to sue. 👀 Break until 4:20; plaintiffs argue next. P182 P183 P184 P185
4:20 — 👀 Judge Reyes back on the bench. P186
4:21–4:24 — Judge: “Late breaking news.” She withdraws her demand that DOJ refile yesterday’s brief identifying who signed it: “We’ve all got better things to spend our time on.” When the department gives the court briefs, the lawyers in the case should put their names on them. If they don’t, “I don’t have confidence.” [But there’s been good argument today, so she’ll drop it.] To plaintiffs (likely Mark Samburg): “Your PI is really only focused on the tree management plan. So what do I focus on here?” P187 P188
4:25–4:27 — Judge: “Counsel makes excellent points about whether we really do have a NEPA claim.” Mark Samburg (MS): Seven County makes clear that interrelated projects may have to be treated as one. Judge: she thought Seven County was about a case with a ton of NEPA analysis that left out one thing. MS: “I think that’s right, Your Honor.” Judge: suppose there’s still a segmentation claim. What if she finds the TMP was carried out under the 2019 CLR and for the WNP? “Sounds like Griess was instructed to proceed on CLR when [the] purpose was to effectuate Trump’s golf course?” P189 P190
4:29–4:32 — MS: “Our challenge is not to the course design.” When the suit was filed there were no renderings; the clients are complaining about “loss & destruction of their course.” A NEPA claim can support broader relief: “You can stay implementation of WNP.” Judge: the government says there’s no plan to implement. “I don’t want to take expansive action here. I’m very unlikely to say you have to stop everything. We’re not there yet.” But “yeah, just trust me”? “No, we’re not going back to that.” MS asks for a notice requirement and a bar on further tree removal, perhaps with more than 5 days’ notice. P191 P192 P193
4:32–4:36 — On standing, MS: the clients are attached to the three courses, red, white, and blue, and to one of the few chances to play a Walter Travis course. It’s a recreational injury, “not aesthetic.” 👀 Judge: “Anyone in this room a golfer? Raise your hand?” Woodward raises his hand. Defendants haven’t addressed the DC Preservation League’s organizational standing. P193 P194 P195
4:37 — Judge: “I haven’t heard you say ‘pretext.’” MS: “It’s certainly pretextual. That’s in my notes.” It makes no sense to pursue the Travis design “for 2 weeks before you wipe that plan off [the] face of [the] earth.” P196
4:39–4:42 — Judge: what evidence is there that prices will rise? MS: no concrete evidence, but a “fairly irrefutable inference” from cutting tee times by a third and higher maintenance and building costs. Judge: it’s “incredibly expensive,” but the cost could fall on taxpayers rather than green fees. MS: one plaintiff brings their children, which likely won’t work at a championship course. 👀 [Lowell whispers to Samburg.] MS: asks for a longer notice window before any irreparable change to features or landforms, and the same before the course closes. P197 P198 P199
4:44–4:46 — DOJ rebuttal: cites Save the Sound v. FAA, 188 F.4th 763 (D.C. Cir. 2026), on Seven County, and 154 F.4th 902, 913 n.2 (8th Cir.). The categorical-exclusion document explains at length why there are no environmental effects. Plaintiffs need standing for each claim (tree cutting, closure, redesign): “can’t be just blunderbuss.” Even if an official had a dual purpose, there’s “no pretext claim under NEPA.” P200 P201 P202
4:46–4:49 — 👀 Judge: “We are where we are. I don’t think trees were cut down because of [the] 2019 CLR. No reasonable inference that’s the case. None.” That “doesn’t mean witnesses were lying. Maybe that’s what they were told.” “I plan at this moment to make [a] finding that trees were cut down to effectuate WNP.” She could still see something that changes her mind. DOJ: “At end of day, we have [a] compelling merits argument.” P202 P203
4:49–4:52 — Judge: if, per NPS testimony, there’s no urgency and, per DOJ, no plan to shut the course, what are the equities against a notice requirement and a halt to tree removal? DOJ: “We don’t want to have another circumstance like we had this week.” Judge: “Yeah, yeah.” DOJ: that’s the problem with a notice requirement. Judge: “No, [the] problem last week was lack of [a] notice requirement.” P203 P204 P205
4:52–4:56 — Judge: what does she do with the President saying the Interior Secretary is on board? DOJ: treat it like an executive order; he doesn’t read the post as saying the Secretary signed off on a final plan. Agencies develop detailed plans every day that aren’t final until finalized. Judge: there’s “plenty of caselaw [that] we don’t have to wait till it’s final final final.” She won’t “haul the Secy in here right now,” but may ask for briefing on whether she can ask DOJ if the Secretary agrees there’s a developed plan. DOJ: “Don’t think it matters.” P205 P206 P207 P208
4:58 — Judge: “I think it does,” citing NRDC v. Wheeler and National Automatic Laundry. DOJ: on the equities, there’s “a strong separation of powers equity for [the] executive branch managing its own affairs.” 👀 The Judge clicks her pen dozens of times. Judge: “Founders had [a] discussion about [the] role of [the] judiciary?” DOJ: “Yes.” P209
4:59 — Judge: the three coordinate branches should check one another: “ambition checks ambition.” DOJ: “Agree.” Judge: at the Constitutional Convention there was discussion of whether courts could act in equity, and they decided courts could. If DOJ’s separation-of-powers equity “carried the day, [the] executive would win every time?” P210
5:01 — DOJ: “Don’t think that’s right.” Judge: “Anything else? Okay, really quickly.” MS (rebuttal): on standing, the claim challenges the plan, so standing goes to the plan; tree removal is one piece of it. The clients are challenging the decision to destroy their course. P211

5 PM — Closing words and adjournment

5:03 — Judge: “Mr. Woodward.” SW: “There is no plan to close the course, if those words have their literal meaning.” NPS testified today that it isn’t closing; the President “would like it closed.” Judge: “He’s not saying he’d like it closed…” Then: “Okay, you guys work out briefing.” P212
5:06 — 👀 Judge: during the break she got “a number of texts… from my mother and my brother because CNN is reporting I’m getting a lot of death threats. This is where we are. A federal judge getting death threats over a golf course. I really don’t think this is what the Founders envisioned.” 👀 Adjourned. P213

Open items the Judge set during the hearing

Rule 11 signing order: Woodward’s 3 p.m. brief P8, and the deadline of noon tomorrow (Oct 20) P74 R80. At 4:21 p.m. the Judge withdrew the refiling demand P187.
Briefing: whether deliberative-process privilege covers the 10/5 meeting, and whether a third party like Fazio waives executive privilege. Also the Fazio texts, which DOJ asked to brief. P60 P73 R55 R79 R96
DOJ to find out: whether DOJ or Interior decided when to tell the court about the tree plan. P55 R48
White House counsel letter: Woodward said he’d get one on executive privilege. R77
Preservation: Wischer must not delete anything on his work or personal phone and must turn off auto-delete. The Judge wants the timestamp of the Fazio text. P69 P82 R95
Subject to recall: Wischer and Bowron. P92 P129 R109 R164
DOJ to follow up: whether Seven County applies outside EIS cases. P170

How this was compiled

Source collection: every post was pulled from Bluesky’s public API on Oct 19, 2026. Bluesky’s thread view stopped early, after 11 posts, so both reporters’ full post histories for the day were fetched instead.
- Parloff: kept only posts in his hearing thread (213).
- Roberts: kept everything she posted between 9:41 a.m. and 3:41 p.m. ET (220), covering her two hearing threads plus her opening pointer to Parloff.
Timestamps: converted from UTC to Eastern Daylight Time (UTC−4). Entries are grouped by the hour the posts were published.
Live updates: from about 4:20 p.m. until adjournment, a script checked both feeds every minute. New posts were merged in batches, and the page was republished each time.
Merging: where both reporters covered the same exchange, their posts are combined into one entry citing both. Each entry gives the fullest wording either reporter captured. Details only one reporter caught are added and attributed: many of the 👀 moments, plus quips like “A good walk ruined” and “heated agreement.”
Conflicts: where the accounts differ, both versions are shown with an (ed.) note: the “noon tomorrow” deadline, the Reflecting Pool vs. Grand Prix crew, and name spellings.
Cleanup:
- Typos fixed and shorthand expanded (“atty,” “dec,” “YH,” “Idk”).
- Speaker labels standardized.
- Quotes kept as the reporters posted them, with only spelling fixed.
- Nothing was added that isn’t in a post. Compiler notes are marked (ed.).
Omitted: off-topic replies to readers (e.g., P95 “Thanks, Lisa!”), housekeeping posts about broken threads (R45, R85), and the posts that only number a thread’s continuation.
Citations: each [P#]/[R#] is the post’s chronological position in that reporter’s collected set. The links below resolve to the original posts.
Not a transcript: this is a secondhand compilation of live paraphrase. For the official record, see the court docket.
Tools: the timeline was assembled with Claude Code (Anthropic) from the fetched posts. Every claim traces to a cited post.