The Public Would Like a Word, Not a Tee Time

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2026

In 1965, the courts recognized that a landscape mattered enough to ensure the people a place in decisions about permanent changes to it.

If you have ever set eyes on Storm King Mountain in Cornwall, NY, whether from the water, railroad, car, bicycle, or on foot, it likely set your imagination reeling. Towering over the western bank of the Hudson River it inspired a famed school of painters, is part of the Hudson Highlands, and offers some of the most astonishing views of the region. From its peaks, you gaze south to West Point, or down at Constitution Island and nearby Bannerman Castle, or just marvel at the beauty of the landscape in every direction. It is easy to understand why so many are passionate about it.

◆

1965

But, in 1965, conservation groups and entire towns in the Hudson Valley found themselves challenging federal approval of a proposed Consolidated Edison power plant project set to be located at Storm King Mountain. Those opposing it expressed deep concern about the landscape, wildlife, and recreational opportunities the area would lose. The groups argued that officials hadn’t given adequate consideration to the impact of the project or whether it met electrical demands.

The federal appeals court agreed that the challengers had a legal right to be heard, and set aside the plant’s preliminary licensing until a fuller review was done. This was a landmark case, and Scenic Hudson v. FPC helped to establish that citizen groups could challenge federal decisions over harm to scenic, environmental, or recreational interests even if there was no direct financial loss proven.

Five years later, much broader requirements for federal agencies to study environmental impacts prior to making decisions would be signed into law with the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. Projects with significant effects must be scrutinized and any reasonable alternatives considered under its provisions. It doesn’t prevent or prohibit a project that could be described as potentially damaging, but does require the government to examine outcomes before choosing to move forward with it.

Today, we see both of these issues overlapping at East Potomac. During Donald Trump’s first term, the National Park Service announced a 50-year lease with National Links Trust, a nonprofit organization that would operate three public golf courses in Washington, D.C. The agreement aimed to keep golf affordable for generations, including beginners, seniors, veterans, and kids. It was also to restore the courses while addressing overdue maintenance issues. The course known as East Potomac, near the National Mall, was one of the three.

Six years later, East Potomac Park is at the center of a lawsuit over Trump’s plans to replace its existing layout with a championship-level course. Promising that the redesigned course will remain public and affordable, the president’s aims have now been challenged by the D.C. Preservation League and two golfers over the project's effects on the historic landscape and the people who use it.

On October 28, the National Park Service told a federal court it would close the park south of Buckeye Drive on November 15, effectively blocking access to it for far more than just golfers. The closure includes almost all of Hains Point, which features a running loop, bicycle and pedestrian lanes, picnic areas, and open space.

The administration cited a deteriorating seawall and lack of an original operator as reasons for the closure, indicating it is necessary regardless of the golf course plans. The Park Service has no official reopening date for the larger park, but it said architect Tom Fazio’s proposed championship golf course design would be submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission on October 30. The plan will be considered on December 3.

Prior to announcing the closure and the planned design submission, the project had already grabbed headlines. On October 26, Judge Ana Reyes issued a preliminary injunction preventing further tree removal at the site and requiring 10 business days’ notice before any further irreversible changes could occur.

Hundreds of trees had already come down, and the judge determined that challengers to the project would likely prevail on their claims that officials improperly evaluated the impact of the project. The planners had divided the larger park redevelopment into smaller projects for environmental review, making it difficult for officials to recognize the much broader impact of the mass tree removal.

Additionally, a newly signed lease ends the National Links Trust’s operation of East Potomac on November 15 (the closure date), while it maintains its role at the Rock Creek and Langston courses. No replacement operator has been named, leaving it the responsibility of the NPS.

Tremendous confusion surrounds the project, with Trump’s public announcements of the plans and the approaching closure running at odds with what his administration’s lawyers could confirm in court. Judge Reyes demanded an explanation for the contradictions, writing: “Rarely, if ever, has the United States Department of Justice urged a federal court not to believe the sitting President.” She then ordered Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr, along with an Interior Department lawyer, to appear on October 30 to clear it all up.

Rarely, if ever, has the United States Department of Justice urged a federal court not to believe the sitting President.

JUDGE ANA REYES

In response, Trump said he would hold the judge responsible if anyone were harmed at the course, explaining that there were holes in the driving range netting and that people have been struck by runaway golf balls. Even if this is true, it doesn’t answer the question before the court: did officials follow the law when work in the park began.

In June, the administration approached Congress for an additional $500 million towards Park Service construction funding. This was identified as the seawall and a World War II Memorial, but not the price for the golf course work. So, it does not answer how the redevelopment is to be paid for.

On October 29 Rep. Jared Huffman requested Congress allow seawall repair funding, but also requested barring expenditures on golf-course redesign. The Washington Post has reported that budget reports state the $1.2 million needed for tree removal at East Potomac is slated to come from national park visitor fees.

That is an interesting twist in the tale. The spending requests come as the NPS operates with fewer employees. The Government Accountability Office states that between 2024 and 2025 the NPS workforce declined by roughly 16%. That translates to 3,000 fewer people working in the parks. These losses coincide with protections being reduced on federal land, such as the 3 million acres Trump removed from Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante in Utah in July of 2026.

32%

Additionally, the administration proposed cutting annual funding to the Park Service by a shocking 32% for fiscal 2027 while asking for a separate $10 billion for Washington-area construction and beautification projects (through the new Presidential Capital Stewardship Program). Naturally, Congress must approve, but the request itself is telling.

It’s not lost on career park workers that priorities in Washington are so skewed. On October 21, Bill Wade, the executive director of the Association of National Park Rangers, openly criticized Interior Secretary Doug Burgum for his focus on Trump’s golf course project and other Washington repairs while some parks wait for essential work. He pointed out that delayed projects range from recovery work at Grand Canyon to employee housing in Chiricahua.

Similarly, the National Parks Conservation Association wants Congress to restore staffing and address maintenance needs, while also requiring public review before the government commits any NPS funds to this expensive new project.

Former President Barack Obama even brought the question of priorities to the midterm campaign trail. On October 24 while speaking in Ohio, he asked the audience to think about the money being spent on renovations and other vanity projects in Washington. He said, “He’s got the White House looking like Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory.” While a colorful analogy, it’s an accurate statement of financial waste and deeply skewed priorities.

As all of this has been brewing, Congress is also considering changes to the NEPA - the environmental review law that really sits right at the center of the East Potomac issue. On September 30, Republicans Shelley Moore Capito and Mike Lee joined Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse and Martin Heinrich on the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act. The goal is to see faster federal approvals on projects like power plants and transmission lines.

Senator Heinrich explained that the bill will help lower electricity costs and stop any administration from blocking energy projects like wind or solar simply because it opposes them. But even more significant is that this bill will change what happens if the court finds that the government approved a project without meeting NEPA requirements.

Typically, a judge sends approval back to the agency and allows up to 180 days for problems to be resolved. Approval on a project would remain valid and work could continue during those 180 days. For example, work like cutting down trees would be complete long before the review’s findings were corrected.

Courts can still halt projects temporarily under federal law, but simply failing to meet NEPA’s requirements alone would no longer be enough to stop work. The bill has not become law, and it wouldn’t apply to East Potomac if it did.

So, why even mention it? Because of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (a nonprofit hunter and angler lobby). This group supports the faster approvals, especially faster approval of projects that restore wildlife habitat. But, most significantly, it wants changes to the bill that would preserve public participation.

This lobby wants agencies to be allowed to adjust approved projects when new details show threats to access, wildlife, or water. As people who walk lands to hunt, fish, or hike, they argue that the public is more likely to recognize potential issues that traditional government officials could overlook during the review process. And their goal is to see that public participation is a necessary step in review and approval.

In 1965, the courts recognized that a landscape mattered enough to ensure the people a place in decisions about permanent changes to it. Today, parklands are shrinking, park rangers and park workers are fewer than before, the NPS budget is facing massive cuts, and some of those funds are being used to cut down trees for a golf course. So, while the president discusses fairways and greens, the public has spotted a few hazards…being handed the bag when they own the course, is the biggest one.

Faithfully,