East Potomac golf plan filed in court calls for thinning trees, extending course to the seawall

A concept plan for a rebuilt East Potomac Golf Course, placed on the federal court docket Nov. 3 as a 56-page exhibit, proposes a new 18-hole championship course running to the seawall and “selective thinning” of trees to reopen water views. The plan text we could read gives no count of trees to be cut.¹

The Interior Department plan, dated Oct. 30, was written for the National Capital Planning Commission. The government emailed a copy of the submission to the plaintiffs’ counsel that night.² The plaintiffs filed it with their brief opposing a stay in DC Preservation League v. Department of Interior, No. 1:26-cv-477, before U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes.³⁴

What the plan shows

• Trees: Listed actions include “Thin trees that block the views,” described elsewhere as “non-historic trees and vegetation.”¹
• Scope: The tip of Hains Point “becomes part of the golf course, in place of the existing lawn and picnic areas.” Other recreation would move nearby, “such as at West Potomac Park and the Tidal Basin.”¹
• Designer: The plan credits Fazio Design. The Justice Department said Nov. 2 it “reasonably believes that no contract exists” between the Fazios or their firm and the United States.¹⁵
• Seawall: A 2026 Park Service proposal included in the plan would replace about 20,700 feet for $304.5 million, including design, project management and contingency, in 2.5 to 3.5 years from funding.¹

The case

The case was filed Feb. 13. The plaintiffs are the DC Preservation League, Dave Roberts and Alex Dickson.⁴⁶ On Oct. 26, Reyes barred cutting any tree in East Potomac Park without a court order, except for imminent safety threats.⁷

Her opinion says an Oct. 9 Park Service form set 529 healthy trees for removal, that nearly 430 trees were cut Oct. 10, and that the government that day removed 200 additional trees the form had not identified. In preliminary findings, she found the tree work part of a “Washington National Plan” to replace the course and called the government’s justification “pretextual.”⁶

What each side says

The government, appealing, wrote that the injunction rests on “the removal of trees pursuant to a separate agency decision” and that “the Park Service has not settled on or approved any such plan.”⁸ On the injunction’s advance-notice terms, it told the court Nov. 3, “No notice is required.”⁹

The plaintiffs wrote that thinning trees and a new seawall are “part and parcel of the plan to destroy East Potomac Golf Course as it currently exists,” and that a stay would allow “the removal of hundreds more trees.”³ On Nov. 4 they agreed to clarify the notice terms but opposed lifting them.¹⁰

Next dates

• Nov. 5: Plaintiffs’ motions on the plan are due; responses Nov. 9, replies Nov. 10.⁴
• Nov. 13, 10 a.m.: Hearing on any motion filed. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward is ordered to attend.⁴
• Nov. 15: The government says the park south of Buckeye Drive, including the course, will close.¹¹
• Dec. 3: Planning commission meeting, per the government’s notice.¹¹

What the records do not show

• The plan pages we could read do not say how many trees would go, which ones, or when, and give no construction start date or cost for the golf work. Five of the 56 pages, including the one under its regulatory and compliance heading, had no readable text through the court-record service, and we did not read them.¹
• The docket lists the plaintiffs as filer of this copy. In the entries we read, we found no government filing of the full plan; the government’s Oct. 28 exhibit identified in court orders as the submission runs two pages.⁴¹¹
• Entries we read through Nov. 4 show no ruling on the stay motion, but some came through without text. We could not open CourtListener’s docket web page or the PDF links listed below, and read the docket and filings as text through its data service.⁴
• We did not read the Oct. 19 and Oct. 30 transcripts, restricted until Jan. 31, 2027.⁴
• We could not open a Politico report on the plan and did not rely on it.
• We did not check the planning commission’s agenda.