Trump’s Golf Course: A Hearing Diary for Oct. 19

At 10am Judge Ana Reyes will begin an evidentiary hearing in the golf course case at 10am. I'll try to live-blog from the US Courthouse media room for @lawfaremedia.org. This is a case to stop Trump from converting a historic public golf course, open to all, to a Trump style championship course.

It's a fast-moving case. Last night Reyes denied a govt request to recuse herself. Trump said yesterday that he was closing the existing course Nov 15 (or earlier) to replace it. 2 days earlier govt attys called such plans were "conceptual," "nascent," & "preliminary." /2

Quoting Trump's social media post of today, Judge Reyes orders govt to explain by 8pm whether it still takes the positions it took 2 days ago. Also orders Associate AG Stan Woodward to attend hearing tomorrow.

Judge Reyes wants to hear testimony from NPS acting director Jessica Bowron and Dept of Interior Chief of Staff Greg Wischer. Govt added ~4 new attys to the case in last 2 days, including Assoc GC Stan Woodward. The docket of all filings is available below. DC PRESERVATION LEAGUE v. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR /3

Here's is Judge Reyes' ruling last night denying the govt motion to have her recuse herself.

Order on Motion to Disqualify Judge /4

All rise. Reyes on bench. J: trust everyone's weekend was as relaxing as mine and my clerks. [sarcastic] [clerk calling case] Attys giving appearances. Mark Samburg for plaintiffs ... Norm Eisen ... Abbe Lowell DOJ: Stan Woodward; Andrew Block, Robert Stander, Marissa Pilopato. ... /5

Judge Reyes is ordering Woodward to refile submission from last night with as many DOJ attys willing to sign it. J: DOJ attys: raise your hand if you youj're willing to sign it. Woodward: not an appropriate request. J: right now, for rule 11 purposes, which other attys willing to sign this brief /6

SW: i'm going to instruct attys not to answe. J: 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 ... you've made filing ... officer of court ... you signed it. i'm entitled to know what other DOJ attys willing to sign it. /7

Judge gives SW till 3pm to file brief why the DOJ attys shouldn't respond to her order. Judge is now reading explanation of why she believes she has legal authority to demand this testimony. This responds to arguments govt raised in a motion to dismiss a day or two ago. /8

Judge Reyes saying this an exceptional situation where going beyond the bare "administrative record" which is inadequate in this case. "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." /9

Plaintiffs contend govt is not being candid .. by now we've all seen president trump's post of yesterday. announcing plan to destroy current course. ... today's post says work is supposed to begin "IMMEDIATELY." ... Dept of Interior repeatedly said nothing to see here. ... /10

Govt has claimed changes were only about executing a 2019 plan. ... but now Trump says his new plan is starting immediately. strong showing of bad faith. govt argues i'm violating fundamental separation of powers principles. says i can't compel testimony of high-level officials. /11

but people i heard from last week and will hear from today (unlike those in precedents govt cited) each has personal knowledge of facts of this case. will help me understand if agency has been accurate & forthcoming. ... essential to understanding how plan was developed. 2 are not high-ranking. /12

[she's reading fast; I can't begin to keep up]. Judge: i am not seeking to compel testimony of Secy Burgum at this time. not seeking testmony of anyone at White House at this time. calling Wischer who has personal knowledge of why 100s of trees cut down lst week. And NPS employees who approved /13

J: govt's behavior in this case has been nothing if not extraordinary. J: who plans to argue for govt in the prelminary injunction motion? Robert Stander for DOJ. J: 1st question, was it coincidence that NPS cut down 500 trees based on 2019 plan, & that had nothing to do with Trump plan? /14

Stander: dont know answer. J: you don't know. then why did i receive testimony & arg and sworn declarations that tree management plan had nothing to do with Trump's Washington National Plan? J: DOJ attys arguing as officers of court made arguments. did doj know TMP ... /15

J: was it DOJ's view or understanding as of hearing last week, when they told me the TMP plan had nothing to do with redesign of golf course -- did they know whether that was accurate? Woodward stands. J: sit down. Stander: have ever reason to believe it was accurate. /16

J: you can't answer? RS: not relevant J: i'm the one who decides what's relevant. i've asked what's DOJ understanding when they told me TMP plan had nothing to do with the Washington National Plan & everything to do with 7 year-old cultural landscape report. RS: i answered J: you haven't. /17

RS: i have no reason to believe-- J: if you can't answer q2uestion just say you can't answer did DOJ understand when making reps to me that TMP plan had nothing to do with Wash National redesign of course and only and everythiing to do with2019 report. yes? no? can't answer? /18

J: we'll go to testimony Judge calls Greg Wischer Stan Woodward has no questions to begin. Judge sequesters govt witnesses sequestered. Also the plaintiffs. Abbe Lowell (for plaintiffs): AL: how long dep chief of staff GW: may 2025 AL: working on various efforts dealing with monuments? /19

GW: from time i became deputy. AL: going to ask about public course at East Potomac ... one is 2019 plan. one is Trump plan. You no doubt saw there is now a plan to build championship plan. you saw? GW: yes AL: & post this morning GW: yes /20

AL: asking about Culture Landsape Report of 2019 and tree management plan (TMP) of last week. AL: trees removed 10/10 in the number of 100s. aware? GW: yes AL: people in Adm claimed that was operated pursuant to cultural landscape report of 2019. is that really true? GW: could you restate question?

GW says he really thought the TMP was done pursuant to 2019. AL: if operation on 10/10 to remove >400 trees was going to be done under CLR to restore the course the way it was intended & plan was, as president announced, to start renovations 11/1 or immediately, why implement TMP for 2 weeks /22

GW: [doesnt understand question] AL: wouldn 't that be extraordinary waste GW: not aware of 11/1 date AL: okay, 11/15 AL: whatever resources needed to conduct 10/10 TMP was for CLR even though WNP calls for course to be closed by 11/15? GW: we were cleaning up the course. this was next natural /23

GW: step. J: trees cut down were healthy and noninvasive. was it cleaning up to remove 400+ healthy noninvasive trees? GW: the area last week was called trash island J: entire area, all the trees were noninvasive healthy? GW: dont know definition. out of keeping with CLR /24

AL: what happend 10/10 was part of plan to clean up GW: yes AL: when did you first become aware of 2019 CLR? GW: mid to late September. AL: how. GW: looked it up online. tryihng to figure out how to clean up course. AL: what caused you to do that GW: i understand if there's trash on ground /25

GW: ... theese weren't trees like in your front yard. overgrowing saplings in middle of course. AL: what's your understanding of what the CLR is? GW: defer to NPS on that. try to restore course to walter j. travis design AL: did you read CLR in entirety? GW: did not. /26

AL: know any of stated goals? did you know affordability was one? GW: [he believes so] AL: one of goals was to restore the original Travis design. GW: yes AL: and maintenance of 3 courses? GW: didn't read that part AL: 370 pages long? GW: approx 300 pages AL: CLR addresses on 3 DC courses /27

AL: but TMP takes place on only one course, right? DOJ: obj GW: correct. AL: not rock creek. not langston. GW: correct AL: CLR requires actions on all 3 GW: believe so. only read part on East Potomac. AL: why GW: DC safe & beautiful EO focuses on areas near mall /28

AL: the only CLR goal attended to in last few weeks are the ones relating to East Potomac GW: given proximity to National Mall, that was prime focus. but keeping up with other course as well. AL: CLR doesn't just talk about tree-clearing. GW: yes AL: better boundaries? GW: yes /29

AL: maintenance of cherry trees? GW: i do recall lines about that AL: seeks different barrier in fencing? GW: dont recall AL: calls for continuation of 3 separate courses at East Potomac GW: broadly aware of that. AL: yet of all recommendations, on 10/10 the only part of CLR implemented was ... /30

about clearing vegetation. GW: ... yes AL: only part of CLR that was implemented 10/10 was tree clearing aspect? GW: we implemented chain link fence aspect earlier. AL: on 10/10. GW: yes & trash clean-up AL: sometime over summer there was fence maintenance? GW: this summer /31

AL: you said you just became aware of CLR in september. so how did you get involved in fence implementation in summer GW: that was NPS. SW: objection re not saying privileged info Judge sustains, instructs witness not to mention convos with attys. /32

AL: anybody in your agency tell you over summer of 2026 that the fence reparation related to the CLR? Stan Woodward: he's not to discuss any discussions with lawyer present. J: i think i said that. [She now repeats instruction to witness] AL: so what happened on fence part over summer was also /33

also part of CLR? GW: when i read thru CLR in septmeber i saw the fence part of it. AL: ... how many convos have you had about implementing CLR of 2019 after you became aware of it in sept 2026? GW: after i became aware, maybe 10. decent amount. AL: with whom? J: how many convos without attys? /34

GW: few without. AL: who else was in room GW: usually NPS personnel. AL: give me names in room besides lawyers about clr GW: frank lands. rachel daniels. lady named Lex. J: Daniels present at 10/5 meeting? GW: can't recall. AL: was Secy himself ever in a meeting in which CLR came up? GW: no. /35

AL: tom fazio? GW: no AL: anybody involved in managing trump courses? GW: no AL: meredith o'rourke? GW: no AL: at CLR meetings, there were convos about East Potomac Park? GW: yeah. AL: now going to ask about the WNP--the [trump] washington national plan. when was first time you heard of WNP? /36

GW: fall of 2025, but that was before my position. Judge: when did you first become involved with the east potomac WNP? GW: approx fall of 2026. J: when? GW: sorry, spring. March approx. startd working on DC beautification projects. AL: how did you become involved in spring 2026? /37

GW: desire to clean up DC with the summer projects (relating to 250th anniversary i think) AL: did you understand WNP was to take 3 East Potomac courses and turn them into one. GW: there wasn't a WNP AL: did you understand ... goal of WN plan, lower case, was to convert from 3 courses to 1? /38

GW: so at that point we were just trying to clean up the course. there were concepts, but we were focused on trying to clean up the course. J: was one concept to take 3 courses & turn into one GW: that would get into territory [privilege] we talked about before. J: is that one plan you knew of? /39

GW: if i recall correctly, maybe. but truly there was lots and lots of concepts. chip and putt ... multiple. ... i'm not a golfer. AL: reported you had meeting on 3/30 with gen manager of Trump golf course in NJ ... david TK. GW: dont recall that date. yes. on entirely different matter. /40

GW: a different beautification project that's gotten a lot of attention. [the Trump manager's name was something like David Shutsenhoffer ... phonetically] AL: on 10/5 director jessica bowron sent you an email? GW: yes. it was a draft tree management plan. rec'd probably in the evening. /41

AL: prior to that, no convos re TMP? GW: prior to that i'd spoken to her about things i saw in the CLR. AL: when? GW: sometime the proceeding week. AL: did ms. bowron's email indicate how there was going to be possibility of implementing the TMP. Woodward objects: deliberative process. /42

AL: when you read transcript, did you read testimony from dr. griess or mr. land? GW: yes, but it was long AL: remember, possibility of implementing TMP was because there came about ability to use new resources and personnel? GW: yes AL: what were they GW: NPS has better sense. ... /43

AL: testimony of Lands--he said you and he had had conversations over weeks and months about CLR? GW: over weeks. AL: on 10/5 you and you alone decided to call for a meeting? GW: when i call meetings, Lands usually shows up. AL: trigger was email from Bowron? Judge: why did you call meeting? /44

GW: i'll call meetings monday to try to push forward on projects and set timelines. this was same. they sent me TMP. we begin to plan out next steps. J: i thought you get TMP monday evening. meeting was afternoon? GW: yes. in anticipation. prior week she mentioned she'd be sending. J: how /45

GW: email. ... AL: what role did Griess have. ... GW: i dont interact with him on regular basis. AL: the meeting of 10/5 ... afternoon? GW: i have so many meetings ... AL: included Bowron? GW: [not sure. lots of meetings] AL: what was discussed about trees on 10/5 GW: legal counsel present /46

Judge asks witness to step away while she discusses with attys. lawyer on email does not make whole convo privileged. has to be request for legal advice or opinion. but i'm sensitive. Mr. woodward how would you like to proceed? SW: both atty/client & deliberative process privilege implicated /47

Judge: i'm going to lay out test for deliberative process privilege. (1) info must be pre-decisional. before agency's decision on a manner. question here is what is decision. (2) must be deliberative. info prepared to help agency form decision. (3) doesn't apply to purely factual info /48

(4) [i didn't get the 4th factor]. So when we get back from a break, we'll have to discuss how to go forward. I'll take suggestions from counsel. We're breaking until 11:25am. /49

Incidentally, early in the hearing, when Judge Reyes wanted the other DOJ attys in the room to commit on whether they were willing to co-sign a filing from yesterday that only Woodward signed, she was talking about this one. Response to Order of the Court /50

Reyes was talking about "Rule 11," which is a provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that allows judges to impose sanctions for frivolous arguments etc. In the filing, Woodward argued that closing & transforming the existing golf course was "not final agency action"... /51

... and that it was merely analogous to changing "all the exhibits" at a museum. He also argued that govt attys never meant "to represent the actual position or mental impressions" of POTUS "in arguing that no final agency action had occurred. /52

We are seem to be resuming now. /53

Judge Reyes back on bench and the witness, Greg Wischer, is back in the box. AL: talking about the 10/5 meeting. Judge: Oh I'm do sorry. I'm going to have to ask [witness] to stay out for awhile. [we're going to take up privilege issues.] Stan Woodward: we are asserting privilege. /54

SW: first, atty-client privilege. this was under litigation. all meetings-- Judge: so it was DOJ who made decision to notify court about tree plan on timing it did; not interior? SW: dont know. i can find out. J: i do want to know. /55

J: so there was an understanding that TMP might be relevant to litigation? SW: absolutely. also the deliberative process privilege. there is a decision on 10/9. all decisions that lead up to that are deliberative. it's my understanding his testimony we'll be he was going fast & hard on all /56

projects. J: just a massive coincidence that all this happened? SW: both can be true J: no, both can't be true. not dealing with quantum physics here. SW: there's an email that does not have atty on them. dont know if that will satisfy counsel. he's not going to say TMP was to execute some /57

... broader golf course plan J: no universe where all this happens [that way] ... there just isn't. if you're okay with him answering that question ... SW wants to confer with agency counsel to make sure he's okay with the privilege discussions he's just had with the judge. /58

Abbe Lowell: just want to point to 121 F3d 729, at 746. In re Sealed Case. on the deliberative process privilege. privilege disappears if any reason to believe govt conduct has occurred. as to 2d point on deliberative privilege, J: does that mean govt conduct at meeting or overall? /59

AL: i just started the research. [but he thinks it's broader.] Judge: i do think govt is entitled to brief this. going to leave testimony open subject to recall. obviously 10/5 meeting important but i'm sensitive to privilege claims. J: bring him in, ask only basis why -- /60

AL: there are 3 points. i'm going to ask whether he made the decision (to cut trees); second, whether he directed Land to do it as fast as practicable; 3d, at what point he knew trees would come down on 10/10. J: okay. also ... i think lands said this all had to happen before Friday. ... /61

J: was there such a statement. AL: 2 parts. did he say it. then why. why might be privileged. J: even whether he said it might be privileged. AL: can lay down question on record? J: fine. [bringing witness back in] /62

Judge instructs Wischer to wait a beat before answering so govt has chance to object AL: on 10/5 did you tell Lands you were making decision that TMP was going to be executed SW: Obj. misstates record AL: Lands testified ... ~we were asked to execute, i guess on the 5th. ... /63

GW: i never said go execute . but my understanding ... AL: the direction came out of your mouth. GW: yeah if we got compliance and all that, yes AL: did you say as soon as practicable? GW: didn't say that, but with everything we try to move as quickly as possible. AL: did you say do it by Fri?/64

SW: Obj. J: sustained for now AL now showing Wischer an exhibit. AL: one last question. when did you know that trees were going to come down on 10/10? GW: the friday that preceded. AL: 10/9? GW: can't proceed till compliance & contracting are completed. /65

Now AL is showing GW some exhibits. [first is photo of Trump and a group on golf course] AL: can you identify photo? see someone with polo shirt? would that be you? GW: think it might. AL: others? GW: dep director Lands. (NPS uniform) [he circles his head.] Tom Fazio. one of POTUS's staffers /66

AL: woman in a hat? GW: yes. GW: Adam Sees (phonetic) ... he knows the Fazios. now another photo AL: same day? GW: yes AL: you're carrying something? not CLR, right? GW: didn't become aware till september. AL: what are you carrying?f GW: various conceptual proposals /67

AL: for? the Washington National Plan? GW: for ... a golf course. Judge: how transmitted to you. GW: he brought those himself. J: have any electronic copies today? GW: i could. lots of different concepts. J: been in any comms with Fazio about course? GW: can't recall. happy to look. /68

Judge instructs GW not to delete anything and to turn off auto-deletes. AL: those materials your holding--is that all the materials you've rec'd from Fazio? GW: had other docs as well. Judge: what others? GW: photos of bad trees. prior cleanup AL shows 3d photo same day AL: was Secy Burgum there /69

[i didn't understand answer] [These photo were apparently june 28 if i'm understanding correctly.] 4th photo: AL: you, president, some others you identified. Judge: how is this outing organized? who org'ed it? GW: the White House. not me asking. Judge: without disclosing what was said, who /70

Judge: ... who reached out to you from White House to organized this trip GW: staff. Judge: can you give me a name? GW: i can't. J: did you get emails about this trip? GW: no, but lots of calls. J: anybody like an exec asst? GW: that's who would be calling J: any premeetings? /71

GW: so far as i can recall, it was, this is happening. we need you at this place at this time. J: did you know Fazio would be there? GW: knew they were trying to schedule that. knew his son would be there. unclear whether father would be there. [discussion about Trump's privilege.] /72

Now discussing a Trump posting on Truth Social. AL: following the tour Trump posted ... Judge: go back to golf course meeting. privilege doesn't apply if other parties are present?f SW: no. J: i want briefing on that. ... presence of 3d parties like Fazio--does that waive exec privilege? /73

J: i'll give you till noon on their other issue. not just whether the other people would sign the pleading but whether they'd put their names to it. AL: after tour on golf course, Trump posted this. GW: saw it after it was posted. AL: at bottom: 'most importantly ... secy of interior ... /74

and his people ... studying very dilapidated golf course. ... AL: "Burgum and people" -- that refers to you? GW: don't know. AL: you see others? you said someone identified on left who was part of President's staff. who was it? GW: natalie harp. AL: post says work will begin 9/1 GW: yes. /75

AL: was 9/1/26 a surprise to you as starting date? GW: did not discuss anything about 9/1 with anybody. AL: but you saw this at time. GW: yes Judge: discuss timing with anyone? GW: no AL: he said 9/1. from your vantage point, learning about CLR 2 weeks after this date, was that connected ... /76

... GW: no Judge: did you start looking at CLR because of meeting with Trump? GW: no. just wsanted to clean up course in absence of finalized concept AL now showing one of yesterday's Trump posts. AL: did you know it was coming before it was posted? SW: Obj /77

Judge: did you have conversations with POTUS about the timing? SW objects J: when did you first learn something would happen on 11/15? SW: obj. misstates record J: when did you first learn work would begin on Fazio design 11/15 SW: may i approach? [bench conference out of our hearing] /78

[bench conference is between judge, AL, & SW.] J: do you have any understanding whether work is set to begin on East Potomac on or about that date? GW: [no.] AL: any understanding that course will be closed 11/15? GW: the truth social post. [no independent basis.] AL now asks about the sketch. /79

Judge: president mentions the Secy [Burgum]. do you know if the Secy has signed off on the 11/15 date? GW: 'scuse me? Judge: yesterday at 10:02am ... [reading Trump post]: Burgum and I very excited ... are you aware whether Burgum is excited about that? GW: no. /80

J: so to find out what Burgum is thinking, i'd have to ask him? GW: yes. AL now asking when was first time GW saw the design sketch for WNP that Trump posted yesterday. GW: 1st time i saw this was late last week. J: when last week? what day? GW: maybe like Thursday. have to check. J: how? /81

J: govt phone or personal? GW: they sent it to my personal phone. Judge tells him not to delete things from personal phone. J: who did you receive it from? GW: Gavin Fazio. the son J: you're in text comms with him? GW: occasionally. when there's updated renderings? J: how many have you rec'd? /82

5, 10, 15, 20? GW: not a lot AL: i asked earlier if J: any texts to your work phone about this course? GW: have to check. J: any info from Fazios GW: emails, yes J: work email? GW: yes J: used personal email for this golf course? GW: no AL: was Gavin Fazio involved in phone, email, texts on /83

with you on the CLR GW: no AL: every talk with Gavin Fazio about removing trees. GW: not that i recall AL: discussions with Fazios about CLR? GW: no AL: about removing 100s of trees? GW: no. just designs. J: plans to adding surface, or fill to course? GW: no. /84

AL: 1st time you saw this sketch was Thursday? GW: yes, if i recall correctly. AL: now showing Trump post from this morning. SW: can i see it? Judge: you didn't see it yet? lot of people sent it to me. J: i won't ask if you think i'm crazy, lunatic, or insane. /85

AL shows GW the post GW: i saw this when everyone else did. AL: see ... "experts at interior are allowed to do this 1st class renovaton as of right. they don't need any approval. work to begin IMMEDIATELY!" when did you learn it would start immediately? GW: when i saw this. /86

AL: you've talked about getting various concepts for the course including the sketch you got last week. GW: yes AL: from Fazios GW: yes AL: from anyone else? GW: renderings are produced by them. AL: what do you do with them SW: Obj J: i'll reserve /87

AL: was sketch you ID'd as part of posting yesterday sent to you by Gavin Fazio. GW: yes. i'll check on my phone. AL showing more exhibits to govt now. J: you should have shared these with govt beforehand. i'm a little surprised. SW objects. relevance. overruled. /88

AL: you've identified sketch from Fazios. now look at exhibit i just offered. see something that looks like that sketch? Judge: do you have any knowledge what sketch is sitting on the desk. [seem to be asking about the Katie Zacharia post.] GW: no J: sustained. /89

AL: do you know all the people to whom Tom or Gavin Fazio sent the sketch Judge: when you rec'd text with plan, any others involved in text chain? GW: i'd have to go check. AL: no other questions. Stan Woodward for DOJ: SW: familiar with org called Nat Links Trust? GW: i am. operate /90

Rock Creek and Langston & East Potomac SW: lease terminated at East Potomac? GW: yes. SW: did Nat Links Trust move any trees during their lease? GW: i dont think they did. Judge: i'm going to release you (GW) but might need to call you back. ... /91

Judge: because you're still subject to recall, please do not talk about your testimony with anyone other than counsel. can talk with your people about what's going on on the course. but nothing related to your testimony. [GW leaves] Judge will take break for lunch. Have Lands & Griess left. /92

J: do we need mr. Lands? I'm going to release him. AL: but also Ms. Bowron. J: oh, yes. definitely need to speak to her. Judge now releasing Lands. Thank you for testifying over holiday. sorry to call you in today and not hear from you. /93

Adjourned till 1:30pm /94

All rise. We're resuming. Judge: who would you like to take first? Abbe Lowell: [inaudible] Judge: Ms. Bowron first. [she's sworn in. she's in an Nat Parks Svc uniform.] AL: how long serving JB: comptroller since 2017 ; acting director since jan (?) 2025 /95

AL: did you see Trump's social media post from yesterday? JB: it was shared with me. not the one from this morning. AL: discussing TMP--tree management program executed 10/10. said to be done pursuant to 2019 cultural landscape report (CLR). JB: yes /96

AL: when did you first become aware of CLR JB: possibly spring. ... first heard of invasive tree problem in spring JB: tuesday 9/29 i definitely learned of CLR> met with Wischer and counsel ... asked what compliance pathway would look like to execute vegetation management. it was a meeting at DOI. /97

JB: GW and I and two of our solicitors attended. AL: prior to 9/29 do you recall meetings on CLR? JB: no. AL: the 9/29 meeting purpose was? JB: vegetation management related to CLR. AL: had you read it before then? JB: no. AL: who asked you about it? JB: believe it was Greg Wischer. /98

SW asks judge for instruction re privilege. Judge delivers it. Explains to JB that she shouldn't disclose contents of convos where counsel was present. AL: after 9/29, what happened next? SW: obj AL: take any steps ... ? JB: i worked with our compliance experts. AL: on 9/29 did you understand /99

AL: that CLR related to rock creek and langston golf courses? JB: yes AL: converations about them? JB: no. AL: did you understand CLR dealt with matters other than vegeetation & trees? JB: not on 9/29. but later. AL: as to East Potomac, were there discussions on anything other than tree removal /100

JB: not this disucssion. other discussions about the seawall. AL: you've held positions at NPS since 2019? JB: yes AL: any convos that had to do with: wait, this 2019 CLR's been in existence since 2019. we need to start implementing it. JB: [no] AL: when was 1st time you heard of WNP Plan? /101

JB: late 2025. heard from counsel in our office. AL shows Stan Woodward & JB an exhibit. one of her declarations. AL: 3/6/26 declaration--you understood that Wash National golf project was for $150M to renovate all 3 public courses. The CLR also called for 3 courses at East potomac? /102

AL: WNP calls for end of 2 of 3 courses at East Potomac? JB: not aware of that. AL: did you understand that purpose of CLR was to keep 3 courses at East Potomac affordable & accessible. As you've come to understand WNP or Fazio design--will there continue to be 3 affordable courses? /103

JB has no info about that JB: i've not been at any meetings where ultimate plan for east potomac park has been discussed. AL: when did you become aware of tree mgt plan for East Potomac. JB: 9/29 AL: same day you heard of CLR? JB: yes. AL: any understanding of the resources or personnel /104

available? JB: yes. we had incoming bison team to help with beautification efforts. also ending end of one fiscal year and starting a new one. those were 2 critical components. also completion of compliance: NEPA and NHPA. /105

AL: what events occurred before 10/5 discussing TMP JB: all of actions i took subsequent to 9/29 were tied to original conversation. Judge: what actions without saying who told you to take them. JB: I reached out to compliance experts in regional & hdqtrs. ... to implement CLR ... /106

with respect to vegetation management. AL: was an operational plan developed for cutting trees on 9/29? JB: no AL: discussions on 10/5 with GW or Dr. Griess? JB: yes SWoodward: obj Judge: you rec'd a draft of TMP on 10/5? yes J: you approved 10/6? JB: i shared with GW & counsel on 10/5. /107

On 10/7 she related a slightly edited version to [compliance people, i think] Judge: what's your role JB: at my level--i'm not there to question whether they picked right trees. i'm there for fatal flaw review. to reflect language & intent of agency. this one was very straightforward. /108

Judge: your job was not to say, i'm approving this, go forth. your job was to say-- JB: this looks great. J: any edits-- SW: obj J: sustained. 1st time i've sustained objections to my own questions. SW: there was one this morning. J: example of what you would say--fix something. /109

JB: switching out terms for hardening when talking about [something] AL: what would have happened on 10/5 if you had not said okay. could it have gone forward without your input? JB: yes J: would plan have legal effect without your signature? SW: obj. J: you're getting good at this. /110

Judge: if you hadn't approved the plan, it couldve still been sufficiently final that DoI could go and hire contractors? JB: yes AL: you used words, saying you were looking for "fatal flaws." J: let's move on AL: On 10/5 did you have conversations with dr. kevin griess. JB: no /111

JB: i spoke with dep com'r mike commisso (phonetic). AL: any convos on 10/5 or 10/6 with Frank Lands about TMP? JB: shared a draft version with him on mid-afternoon of 10/5 (?). AL: when did you get edits from GW? SW: obj J: just talking about timing. JB: i believe it was on 10/6. /112

AL: so you send on your edits on 10/5. to whom? JB: GWischer and counsel AL: receive material back next day? JB: yes. only edits rec'd were from Wischer. AL: did GW tell you he was implementing this plan as soon as practicable? JB: dont recall J: receive info on timing of it? JB: no ... /113

AL: in your dec of 3/6 you said you're aware of plans to actively renovate the 3 courses of east potomac but only in conceptual stage. In 4/30 dec you say same. conceptual. you also say several interim steps need to be made. SW: obj J: why already asking her what she said in declaration? /114

AL: yesterday in truth social post president described plan. What happened that took this from being conceptual to become operational yesterday? SW: obj J: do you have dec from 10/6. here's my question to you. you signed dec at 5:15pm on 10/6 saying ... nps continues to take some maintenance /115

.... removal of dead, dying, invasive, hazardous trees. no mention in it of TMP, involving removing 100s of healthy trees. what i need to understand is ... how we're talking about removal of dead dying trees, but you had plan to fell 100s of healthy trees. JB: this was with counsel. /116

AL: on 4/30 you wrote ... NPS may take actions to address outstanding maintenance which woudl not include course renovation but could include "small projects." JB: yes AL: and then you used phrase "pruning" 10 days ago. JB: yes AL: was removing 100s of trees a "small project" or "pruning"?

JB: yes AL (and Judge) ask how that can be. JB: East potomac park is not a wilderness area. Judge: would it be consistent with original design to take 3 courses there now, destroy them, but them in separate one-course design. SW: obj J: overruled SW: YH-- J: I'm hearing one thing on one side ... /119

I'm getting conflicting info from the govt ... SW: i'm tryhing to do my job. you're not getting conflicting info from me. J: she is saying her job is -- JB: east potomac is historic, cultural landscape. docs point us to protect that landscape to protect historic integrity. SW: can we approach? /120

[bench conference] Judge: i'm going to sustain the objection. we'll move on. AL: the week of 10/5 to 10/10. on 10/6 you edited and sent on TMP. [yes]. You sent email indicating your approval at 5:39pm? [nods head yes]. AL: declaration signed 5:15 on 10/6. That's 24 min before you approved /121

plan to destory more than 400 trees JB: yes AL: so on 10/6 ... you were aware of TMP ... but you submitted a dec that made no mention of TMP with plan to remove > 400 trees? JB: correct AL: operation occurred 10/10 in morning? JB: yes AL: why on 10/6, 10/7, 10/8 did you make no change-- /122

JB: whatever she did was on advice of counsel. she was also on travel for some of that period. AL: you also said in your dec that "any substantial action" would require an environmental assessment and impact statement? JB: yes AL: in later dec you said ... it would require compliance? JB: yes /123

AL: and you said if such a large renovation project were proposed, agency would have to comply with all laws and regs. and you named NEPA, NHPA, the [NPS] organic act, and [several others]. JB: yes. J: move on AL: did you see Trump's social media post this morning. JB: no. /124

AL: says no compliance req'd whatsoever. is that accurate? SW: obj overruled JB: i dont know what truth social post is referencing. but dont ahve change to my declaration. AL: when national park is going to be closed, there has to be notice, right? JB: not jumping to mind. /125

Judge: i can read regs. dont need her to take me thru them. AL: how much notice? JB: i dont have info on referenced plan J: any plans you know of to close park on 11/15? JB: none i know of. Judge: lease terminated with NLT, but in first declaration you say it still manages all 3 golf courses /126

JB: yes. in holdover basis. J: but nothing would stop NPS from working on other 2 golf courses if it wanted? JB: correct. J: on your 10/9 dec ¶7, you said NPS entered into project to rehabilitate East Potomac. is name of that company publicly available? JB: maybe J: what is it? dont know /127

J: ma'am, thank you very much for your time. I'm letting you go. we might have to call you back. dont talk to anyone about your testimony. Okay, Dr. Griess next. Let's come back at 2:35pm. then go straight into argument. [TAKING A BREAK TILL 2:35PM] /128

All rise. [Resuming again.] Stan Woodward: we do not plan to call plaintiffs. no objection to their returning. Dr. Kevin Griess is taking stand. [also in NPS uniform] [name is pronounced "grease."] J: thank you for coming. thank you for spending part of your holiday with us. /128

you're the one who did the "categorical exclusion" for east potomac golf course? KG: yes J: first mitigation effort was: ... must protect bat habitat ... any tree larger than a certain diameter needs to be checked? J: was that done? KG: i assume. J: documented anywhere? KG: dont know. /129

J: in your first dec you talked about certain structural problems on the course. have they been addressed? KG: not that i know of. J: so even tho you filed that back in May ... nothing listed in your dep has been addressed. KG: correct. J: trees cut down Saturday--big trees--how old are they? /130

KG: staff estimated largest had been around since 1920s. J: for big trees -- 30 dph -- they were before the course. KG: yes J: from 1917 to 2026 we had these trees on course. not destroying ability to play golf? not that i know of How many were that size? dozens? 100s? don't know /131

KG: we haven't been able to go clean up. your order prevented us. Judge: no my order permitted that. J: have you seen that POTUS posted a plan or design yesterday? KG: yes J: is that a links-style golf course? KG: didn't evaluate it J: does NPS have contract with Fazio or co? KG: dont know /132

J: Sir, in your 3/6/26 declaration you said 2019 CLR recommends numerous adjustments to East Potomac course topography. i'm going to list instituting drainage plan. has that occurred? KG: no leveling tees? no. restoring bunkers and bounds? no. DOJ: obj ... requires speculation J: no /133

[answers to long list is either "no" or "i dont know"] J: you had contract to remove trees on 10/10? yes J: when was that executed? don't know J: who would? Frank Lands. his staff J: did you interact with contractors? no J: any people involved in removals that day? no. /134

J: can you pull up president trump's post from yesterday morning? I'm going to direct you to something Pres Trump said. "course is in very poor condition with falling and dangerous disease-infested trees." when we last spoke i thought the diseased and invasive had been removed? KG: yes. /135

J: so currently on the ground as of 10/5, was golf course overrun with falling dangerous disease infested trees? KG: there was an area called trash island we were not able to assess. can't attest there were no dangerous or hazardous trees. J: okay might be one or 2. but most were healthy? KG: yes /136

J: today to your knowledge are there trees that are falling dangerous & disease infested. KG: i dont know. J: but vast majority, no KG: correct J: what's current status of seawall KG: dont know J: who gave final approval for TMP? KG: 2 parts. 1st is myself. i approved. approvals by Bowron /137

J: if she had not approved, coudl it have gone forward? KG: no. Abbe Lowell: last week we concluded that you had the ability to get roving group working on reflecting pool etc and now they were available for TMP? right? KG: that was one reason ... level of trees being felled req'd contractor /138

Now DOJ atty (Robert Stander I think) is asking some questions. DOJ: does TMP -- cannot continue irrespective of type of golf course at East POtomac park? KG: yes Judge: you testified last Monday that impetus for TMP was the CLR. did anyone instruct you the tree section of CLR? /139

KG: yes. Friday before, 9/29 ... what would tree plan look like. Tammy Stieham. lands rep at regions office. Judge: i understand we have an atty at covington here. come on up. [Now they've opened the public line.] [This might be a young atty for an amicus.] /140

[We are starting the arguments on the motion for preliminary injunction] Rachel TK for Haines Point Runners. here to offer distinct perspective. individual amici are runners who use Haines Point for training & competition. one of premier road races [occurs here]. /141

we have nothing against golf. concern is perimeter roadway. 3 mile loop around park. [they're concerned that new Trump plan will destroy that.] our brief shows perimeter roadway is itself historic. goes back to 1897 (?). for decades runners have used. miles of interrupted roadway flat terrain. /142

very scenic. Cherry trees. East Potomac Park has long accommodated multiple forms of recreation. J: is there a concern that plan would impede area where runners can run? our understanding is that roadway is entirely eliminated. until now defs have claimed no final action. [hard to claim now] /143

Want to emphasize threshold issue. Congress has provided no building should be erected on national park land without congressional approval. 40 usc 8106. J: there's been no such congressional action? that's our understanding. those issues should be resolved before implementation continues. /144

Respectfully request preliminary injunction Judge: how many arguments in federal court before today? this is my first. J: you have entire national press corps watchiing. phenomenally well done. thank you. J: time is late. focused now on final agency action and standing. /145

J: for govt, who will argue on final agency action? DOJ [not sure who this is]. J: look at filing yesterday. 2d part of this. "any redesign is not agency action to begin with." how can i rectify that with prior statments by DOJ's Mike Robertson that redesign would be a major federal action /146

that would require NEPA review. DOJ: what i can tell you ...what our legal theory is. J: from 7/2 transcript: govt counsel said ... you'd need environmental impact statement. DOJ: we're here at early stage. preliminary injunction motion. J: we are not. lot of statements by DOJ attys and sworn /147

declarations by NPS officials. J: i understand this is going to get appealed. But appellate court does consider what district court did. i need to understand your argument before i reject it. how can you make that argument given what DOJ counsel said here in past. DOJ: best i can do ... /148

DOJ: proceeding past week went at breakneck pace. [public line dropped. they're trying to put it back up.] /149

DOJ: that's best i can do J: best you can do is-- that's not sarcastic. DOJ: here's why not only is it not final agency action. definition in 551.13 ... agency action defined as ... license rule relief [and some other things. this renovation is not that. J: why did DOJ counsel tell me it was /150

for months. DOJ submitted declarations under oath describing all the steps that would need to take place. DOJ didn't want me to impose a TRO. Told me we were months and months away from anything like this. DOJ: i'm not walking back-- J: so redesign would be major federal action. /151

J: [looks like she's going to read some of the declarations] not acceptable to make one argument for months and months and months and then when that ends up being inconvenient to switch arguments. there's a reason you made those arguments for months. Ms Bowron's 1st declaration ... /152

Any substantial renovation project of golf course would constitute major federal action requiring NPS to prepare environment impact statement or environmental ES. DOJ: and that's fine for agency to take that position. but fine for DOJ to say, you know it's not agency action at all. /153

both things can be correct. J: this wasn't just DoI on a bender, was it? Dept of Interior submitted dec--DOJ signed off on it. they put that in briefs. made that before me. not playing wackamole game. somebody is going to take responsibility for what happens in this courtroom. /154

Stan Woodward stands up. Judge: i'm not yelling ... have I been yelling? DOJ: dont know how to answer that question Judge: have I been yelling? DOJ: want me to ask ... very difficult for me J: Mr. Lowell, have I been yelling? AL: [no] DOJ: i do not think it's improper-- J: just give me a moment /155

[Judge is silently reading something.] DOJ: i just dont think this is improper in the least. agency said we'll do it. but for us as lawyers to say, you know what, it's not requiired. J: so why is destroying a golf course on parkland and completely rebuilding not agency action. /156

DOJ: an agency manager's directive to an employee--routine maintenance--is not agency action. J: is tearing down a golf course routine maintenance? DOJ: not what i said. there are certain internal agency operations that are not kind of things in scope. ... /157

if director of smithsonian decided to rearrange exhibits that would not-- J: what if Smithsonian tore down a building and built a new one DOJ: very good point J: if agency can exercise a plan and you can't do anything about it until executed--that can't be the right understanding of the APA /158

DOJ: agency action has a definition in the APA: sanction, relief, license, rule. J: are there going to be orders, licenses, etc in connection with redesign? DOJ: there might be. J: name one case that has taken the narrow view of action you are taking today? DOJ: Best cases are ... /159

J: what is the single case that has as narrow a construction of action as you're proposing today: tearing down historical landmark and building it up in way that would require congressional authorization does not require agency action? DOJ: don't have perfect case. best are in our brief. /160

J: which cases? DOJ: page 26 of opposition. Independent Equipment Dealers v. [EPA?] 372 F3d 420, 427. Natinoal Mining v McCarthy 758 F3d 243, at 251-252. J: what's fact pattern? DOJ: [doesn't know] J: what are the facts of those 2 cases. DOJ: do not have that info. J: and 2d one? /161

DOJ: [i missed it] what plaintiffs are challenging is golf course redesign. J: not just that. historic golf coursre. first desegregated golf course in DC. way for people who couldn't otherwise play golf to play golf. not just putt putt thing by beach. tho there is a putt putt people like a lot /162

J: and its protected ... there was bravery involved by people who first desegregated that golf course. [she'd been saying segregated. her clerk passees her a note to tell her to say "desegregated." everyone laughs.] DOJ: all testimony we've heard today is irrelevant. /163

DOJ: they assert one NEPA segmentation claim. J: overly small reading of the preliminary injunction motion. DOJ: by far the emphasis is on segmentation claim. other piece of it is paragraph about whether NEPA analysis is sufficient for cutting down the trees. testimony today--going to /164

whether it was a coincidence ... they have baseless claim under binding SCOTUS precedent. 605 US 168, 179 it addresses kind of segmentation theory they're addressing. whether agency has identified right scope of project. part IIA of Seven County: mode of review for NEPA claims ... /165

DOJ: the central principle ... courts must defer ... some courts have strayed and not applied NEPA with level of deference demanded lby statutory text. those courts have engaged in overly intrusive review. "the bedrock principle ... can be stated in one word: deference." /166

DOJ: then court says... agencies can decide ... dont have to analyze all connected projects together. up to agency to decide as long as it draws reasonable & manageble line, courts must defer. critical to disaggregate agency's role from court's role. ... court's should defer ... /167

NEPA does not allow court to inject itself into [decision]. J: Seven Counties applies to EIS cases. DOJ: incorrect ... precedent that it applies to NEPA writ large. J: Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote recently that Seven County only applied to EIS cases. DOJ: I'll have to follow up. /168

DOJ: part 2B address segmentation issue directly. Plaintiff tries to draw one line for tree removal, and another for the final project. [They're talking about whether te environmental impact statement or anlaysis must look at whole envisioned project, or can go tiny segment by tiny segment.] /169

DOJ: even if court disagrees with us on standing or final agency action, when you get to end of road, there's no there there. the NEPA claim fails under slightest scrutiny. J: let's go back to final agency action. Have POTUS saying there's a final plan. Have you all telling me: no final plan. /170

J: what is dept's position. is there a final plan, as Pres Trump has said, or not. DOJ: agency's position is, there's no final plan. J: what about Trump's statement that he and Dept of Interior Secy Burgum are excited about plan to build Fazio plan. is there a US contract with Fazio? /171

DOJ: not aware of one. J: has anyone asked? Stan Woodward: there is not. DOJ: even an EO is not a final agency action. SCOTUS just held that vis-a-vis mail-in ballots. EO issued. SCOTUS said, no, not enough. J: president is not agency. but he said Secy Burgum. /172

J: in second post he said ... Doug Burgum and US DoI very excited about new course at East Potomac. Has DoI developed a plan with Fazio to develop a world-class championship course on site of East Potomac. DOJ: in process of planning. J: so this post is incorrect. DOJ not saying whether /173

correct or incorrect. true with caveat. plan is not final. second post discusses possibility of variants. there is a plan in process. in development. J: then why are we starting it "immediately"? DOJ: as far as starting 11/15 ... read like an exec order. do everything consistent with law /174

J: then this morning pres trump said it would start "IMMEDIATELY" you're telling me, DOJ is saying, ignore that. just listen to what we're telling hyou and that agency is sayinig there is no plan. won't close on 11/15. things won't start immediately. can't be both. DOJ: not quite right. /175

J: do i believe president of the US, or do I believe you? DOJ: the NPS tells you when the course is going to close. J: so i dont believe the president DOJ: not what i said. way i would look at it is like an exec order. Claim plaintiffs are raising is to golf course design. ... /176

J: if plaintiffs were challenging closure, they'd have standing, right? DOJ: yes. but that's not this case. J: this may become that case. now we have organizational plaintiff & 2 golfers who use course on weekly basis. you say they have no standing. if the golf course closes, dont they have /177

standing? DOJ: their theory is they dont like the golf course design. aesthetic, cultural interest. J: we're not in the east wing world. we're in the we-use-the-course world. if i use course every week, govt takes it and turns it into parking lot, do i have an eminent domain case? DOJ: likely. /178

J: i was with you guys while you all were taking this step by step. but now i have something totally different on my hands. something happening very quickly, not consistent with what i was told had to occur under NEPA. that's one reasons what happened last week so incredibly unfortunate. /179

DOJ: i'll just finish on standing. J: what if i believe pres trump that there's an imminent closure and don't believe you on that. DOJ: on this record, inconceivable there's a viable NEPA claim. it's in the teeth of Seven Counties. J: and i'm not saying that by the way. /180

DOJ: on costs, that's speculative. we just dont know. on design, plaintiffs don't have standing to contest aesthetic-- J: it's not aesthetic. ... point is I'm an amateur player ...or middle player, or even pro ... i no longer have ability to play ... DOJ: if we go down that road, have claims /181

[that if you change the 5th hole from a par 3 to a par 4, you can sue.] Let's come back at 4:20 and let plaintiffs argue. ANOTHER BREAK. /182

Judge Reyes back on bench. /183

Judge Reyes: late breaking news. i'm going to withdraw request that DOJ refile yesterday's brief with identification of who signed it. we've all got better things to spend our time on. when dept is providing briefs to court, attys in case should put names on brief. if they don't, ... /184

i dont have confidence. [But we've had good argument today, so let's drop that.] i'm concerned here. your PI is really only focused on the tree management plan. so what do i focus on here. Plaintiffs lawyer: (I think Mark Samburg). /185

J: counsel makes excellent points about whether we really do have a NEPA claim. MS: Seven County makes clear ... there may be interrelated projects that should be treated as one project. J: yeah, i thought Seven County was just saying ... there was ton of NEPA analysis, left out one thing, /186

MS: i think that's right YH. J: suppose we still have segmentation claim. ... what if i find the TMP was effectuated pursuant to 2019 CLR *and* for WNP. sounds like Griess was instructed to proceed on CLR when purpose was to effectuate Trump's golf course? /187

MS: our challenge is not to the course design. when our clients brought this lawsuit, hadn't seen any rendering. they're complaining about loss & destruction of their course. J: but PI ... MS: certainly proper to bring NEPA claim for destruction of park. Our NEPA claim can sustain broader /188

relief. MS: You can stay implementation of WNP. J: they say there's no plan to implement. I dont want to take expansive action here. I'm very unlikely to say you have to stop everything. we're not there yet. am i at: yeah, just trust me. no, we're not going back to that. /189

MS: i'd like a notice req't and a bar on further tree removal. but maybe more than 5-days notice. J: what about standing. talk about recreational injury. and argument that citizens dont have standing to say this tee should be easier than that one. MS: our clients are challenging destruction /190

of existing court. not about aesthetic injury. they're attached to 3 courses. red, white, and blue. one of few opportunities to play a Travis course. J: anyone in this room a golfer. raise your hand? Woodward raises hand. MS: recreational injury. not aesthetic. /191

MS: Defendants haven't talked about the organizational standing of the DC Preservation League. J: what is organizational interest in trees that are still hanging around? MS: there are pieces that go to tree removal--destruction of trees. but historic interests not implicated. /192

MS: nothing else from CLR was implicated except tree removal. J: i haven't heard you say "pretext." MS: it's certainly pretextual. that's in my notes. doesn't make sense to pursue walter travis design for 2 weeks before you wipe that plan off face of earth. /193

J: what evidence do you have that prices will increase? MS: dont have concrete evidence. can draw fairly irrefutable inference that cutting available tee times by a third, higher maintenance costs, more expensive bldg costs. J: could be just more expense to taxpayers. /194

J: incredibly expensive. but possible it will be borne by taxpayer rather than green fees. MS: one plaintiff says they bring their children. probably can't do that at championhip course. MS: mere offense or distaste is inadequate for standing. but point to other cases that say recreational /195

interests are sufficient. J: right now not doing anything relating to the soil, right? MS: right. AL whispering to MS right now. MS: we request longer notice window before there's an irreparable modification to features or landforms. And add same for closure of course. /196

DOJ atty: DC Circuit on Seven County (re NEPA): Save the Sound v. FAA, 188 F4th 763. (2026) 154 F4th 902 (8th Cir) at 913, n2. categorical exclusion document here is lengthy document about why there are no environmental effects. also, the declarations do not support standing for just tree- /197

removal. J: if i find TMP is part of whole WNP. Do i assess standing as to whole plan, or just as to tree removal part of it. DOJ: plaintiff must establish standing for each claim. can't be just blunderbuss. they're doing a tree-cutting claim; a course-closing claim; redesign the course claim /198

DOJ: Need standing for each. as far as segmentation claim, if agency official has dual purpose. no pretext claim under NEPA. not a way to analyze. J: we are where we are. i dont think trees were cut down becuase of 2019 CLR. no reasonable inference that's the case. none. doesn't mean witnesses /199

were lying. maybe that's what they were told. i plan at this moment to make finding that trees were cut down to effectuate WNP. could still see something that changes my mind. DOJ: at end of day, we have compelling merits argument. J: what are equities on not cutting down trees that remain? /200

DOJ: easily satisfy burden for NEPA J: if there's no urgency, which is what testimony from NPS is, and no plan to shut this thing down (per DOJ), what are equities against maintaining notice requirement and halting tree-removal. J: what about notice requirement? no urgency. /201

DOJ: we dont want to have another circumstance like we had this week. J: yeah, yeah. DOJ: that's what problem with notice req't. J: no, problem last week was *lack* of notice req't. DOJ: i'd just return to merits argument. J: what do i do with fact that President says Secy Interior is /202

on board with plan to redesign the course. DOJ: return to analogy about executive order. J: as factual matter, i dont know if Secy has signed off. I know president says he has. you're telling me that's not case? DOJ: i dont read social media post as saying Secy has signed off on final plan. /203

DOJ: another analogy. agencies do this every day. develop a plan. sometimes very detailed. give plan. take notice and comment. not final till they finalized it. J: plenty of caselaw we dont have to wait till its final final final. DOJ: DoI has stated there's no final plan. /204

J: how do i find out if there is a developed plan? other than ask the Secy. I'm not going to haul the Secy in here right now. but i may ask for briefing whether I can ask you : does Secy of Interior agree there's a developed plan as Pres has stated. DOJ: dont think it matters. /205

J: i think it does under NRDC v Wheeler. also National Automatic Laundry. DOJ: back on equities, we have a strong separation of powers equity for executive branch managing its own affairs. J: [clicks her pen dozens of times.] Founders had discussion about role of judiciary? DOJ: yes. /206

J: agree that 3 coordinate branches should be check on one another. ambition checks ambition. DOJ: agree J: and during c'l convention there was discussion whether courts should be allowed to act in equity. decided they should. J: if that carried the day, executive would win every time? /207

DOJ: dont think that's right. J: anything else? okay, really quickly. Mark Samburg: regarding standing: our claim challenges the plan. standing goes to the plan. tree removal is a piece of the plan. if talking about remedy. clients challenging decision to destroy their course. ... /208

J: Mr. Woodward: SW: there is no plan to close the course. if those words have their literal meaning. just because testimony today from NPS that it's not closing. president would like it closed. J: he's not saying he'd like it closed ... okay you guys work out briefing. /209

J: i rec'd aa number of texts on the break 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 dont think this is what the founders envisioned. adjourned. /210 

Thank you for following! Please consider helping support our whole team to provide this sort of coverage. Hope to see you soon again. www.givebutter.com/journalism

I’m here. Abbe Lowell questioning Gregory Wischer.

15 min break now I am thankfully now on my laptop instead of my phone, so I should be able to type faster and capture more of the word-for-word when we come back.

Back from the 15-min break, see above to put together my broken thread. Abbe Lowell returns to questioning Wischer, then Judge Reyes says, oh, wait, time for argument on the privilege -- sends Wischer away again.
Stanley Woodward for DOJ. A/c privilege, as court is aware there's ongoing litigation. All of the decisions that are being made esp on week of 5th are in conversation w/ counsel to ensure compliance about litigation here today.
JR: DOJ made decision to notify the court about the TMP?
SW: Idk, but I can find out.
JR: Yeah, that would be helpful. Take from arg that was understanding that what was occurring wrt the TMP might be relevant to the litigation?
SW: Absolutely. Any action agency takes has other statutes have to comply with. NEPA, NHPA. Legal advice concerning those.
SW: Not copying lawyer on every email to argue with court. Deliberative privilege same situation.
JR: Only thing I care about was Lands testimony about TMP implemented soon as practical. Figure out whether basis for instruction is part of some privilege.
SW: Tricky, idk what he is going to say before he says it.
JR: 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.
JR: This is all just a massive coincidence?
SW: Both can be true.
JR: No, not dealing w/ quantum physics here
SW: We have emails that don't contain privilege. Admin record limited to trash pile. Idk whether satisfy counsel bc also don't say we were gonna tear down trees for golf course. If asked, not going to testify TMP was pursued for purpose of executing on some broader GC redevelopment plan.
JR: Ok if that's what he testifies that's what he testifies. There is no universe where all of this just coincidentally happened at the same time. There just isn't.
JR: Not waiving privilege. Wrt "as fast as practical," you're ok with him answering that if it's what you expect him to answer which is nothing to do with golf course.
SW: Yes, but let me confer.
JR: Correct something. I guess we're all in quantum physics all the time. But go ahead.
AL: Point court's attention to a case on deliberative privilege point. Talks about privilege disappearing if there's any reason to believe government misconduct has occurred. We're trying to establish whether that's the case.
JR: Misconduct w/in meeting or overall?
AL: Just started w/ research
AL: Can't hide behind privilege if to hide misconduct. Would apply if representations that turn out not to be the case at the meeting itself.
JR: Gov entitled to brief it. Why you haven't thought to brief it before is......totally fair! You guys have been busy. (quite the U-turn lol)
JR: Why don't we bring him in, ask him wrt Oct. 5 mtg only why he said this had to happen as soon as practical?
AL: To be pre-decisional, going to ask whether he is on who made the decision. Second is, whether he directed lands to do as soon as practical. Third, whether he knew trees down Oct. 10?
JR: Reviewing transcript from Fri., saw Lands saying all had to happen before Fri. Objection on that question? Was a direction given that anything had to happen by Fri.? Close call, should brief that wrt Wischer and Lands.
AL: Two parts. Did he say, and why. Why could be deliberative.
JR: Either can be privileged. (Says fine to AL asking just to have on record). Bring him back in.
JR: All right. Next 5 or so questions. Some gov might object. Just wait a beat before you start talking. Probably a good idea for all of us, frankly.
AL: Oct. 5, recall telling Lands you were making decision TMP for Oct. 10 was going to be implemented?
DOJ: Objection misstates record.
AL: Testimony. Lands said "we were asked to execute, begin that, is when we were asked to go ahead and implement it." Up to that point, dead/dying/invasive
AL: Court asked who told you. Lands said discussed w/ Wischer. Did you tell Lands on Oct. 5 to implement plan to remove trees Oct. 10?
GW: At that time I didn't have the TMP. Did I ever say "go execute," never said anything like that, but understanding was if every1 same page, compliance, proceed
AL: Did you say as soon as practical?
GW: No but NPS can testify everything we do try to move as quickly as compliance and contracting allow?
AL: Did you say before Friday?
DOJ: Objection
AL: Showing exhibits.
JR: Hold on. Have you guys talked about exhibits?
SW: No.
Taking a moment
DOJ doesn't object to these exhibits so far. JR says switch monitors so they're not facing the public 😳 basically just asking are you ok with exhibits? DOJ says no objection to physical exhibit

AL: Can you be clear. When did you know trees would come down on Oct. 10?
GW: The Friday that directly preceded. We can't pursue til compliance/contracting, everything wasn't wrapped up til Friday
AL: You knew plan would be implemented as soon as that happened?
DOJ: Objection
JR has been given some photographs that she is now putting on the screen. It's of Trump making his visit to the course.
AL asks did you visit E. Po with Trump and others?
GW says yes. Do you see a person standing to left of Trump in blue polo shirt and pants? I think I might GW smiles (it's him) IDs Lands in NPS uniform. GW asks for a laser pointer. Is now marking on his screen. "This is Frank." Laughing a bit. "Never looked better," says JR. Anyone else? "Well, you can see the president of course."
AL: I can, I think we all knew who he was.
GW: Fazio, me, one of president's staffers.
(Is that Natalie Harp? It's a woman in a hat, I'd have to look more closely so don't take my word for it but...)
Another photo from same day. AL says, I see you're carrying something. Certainly not the Cultural Landscape Report. What are you carrying?
GW: Various conceptual proposals for the golf course.
AL: Is that what I've been calling the WNP?
GW: Not WNP. Concepts. Various designs. Fazio provided.
GW: Various concepts we received at various points in time.
JR: How would you have received those?
GW: He brought those himself (hard copies).
JR: Any electronic copies from Fazio?
GW: I could, don't recall. Lots of dif concepts
JR: Been in email comms w/ Fazio/others outside gov?
JR: Do not delete instructions
AL: All materials that day from Mr. Fazio?
GW: Seeing what looks like those concepts, so yes. But I had other documents as well.
JR: What other?
GW: For example, photos of like bad trees. Things like that. Some of the prior cleanup work we had already done
AL: Burgum there that day?
GW: Can I draw? (draws)
AL: Sheath of rolled up docs. In this, looks like loose-leaf book
GW: Idk what a sheath is. I do have a folder
AL: Part of what received from Fazio?
GW: No, pics of cleanup work we'd already done
AL: Done by June 28? Not under CLR?
GW: no
GW: Maintenance, cleanup. Showing before what course looked like, and after the cleanup work.
JR: Who organized this outing?
GW: The White House. I don't wanna say too much. It's not me asking to do this.
JR: Without disclosing other than setting up mtg at GC, who reached out?
DOJ: Instruct witness of exec privilege. You should not discuss any convos you had w/ POTUS (ok, says JR, gives)
JR: Being very cabined. All want to know is, who reached out from WH to organize trip?
GW: Staff
GW: Can't give name. Usually a flurry of calls. Don't recall getting emails, but got lots of calls
JR: Anyone other than an assistant/secretary, not Cabinet secretary
GW: No that's who would be calling
JR: Any pre-meetings? About organizing/purpose, why are we all going? Don't tell me why
GW: So far as I can recall, ok this is happening, so we need you here at this place at this time
JR: Did you know Fazio on trip?
GW: They were trying to make it work with his scheduling. Knew son would be there, unclear whether father would be there
AL: When exec privilege, not for DOJ attys to make
JR: Any universe in which -- well, I'm not gonna speak for the pres. Not gonna make the pres assert his priv, assume DOJ asserting on behalf
SW: I don't speak directly but I'll get a letter from WH counsel
JR: Worth saying, if you wanna check if he wants to waive...
SW: Our position it's presumptive, pres doesn't have to assert it
AL: New exhibit. Truth Social post from Trump, move into record. (It's the post about visiting the course, from the summer.)
JR: Hold on, back to GC mtg. Privilege wouldn't apply if we have 3rd parties?
SW: Not correct
JR: Well, I want briefing on that
AL: That's exactly why I asked my Qs
JR: Adding to list of many things I want to learn about. Not due today. In fairness, I will give you until tomorrow at noon on the other issue I had. To clarify, not whether others would physically sign but to whether they're put their names to it
AL: After tour on GC, Trump posted this. Did you see at the time?
GW: After posted
AL: Read it when it was posted
GW: I read parts of it (lol...it was long)
AL: Did you read part about "dilapidated...very dangerous golf course"? Do you know who it was referring to when it says "his people" (Sec. Interior and his people?)
GW: No
AL: You mentioned earlier someone standing to left on photo as part of pres staff. Who?
GW: Yes, that is Natalie Harp!
AL: Says work will begin Sept. 1. When did you know pres had in mind Sept. 1?
DOJ: Objection compound
JR: Not privilege?
AL: Maybe I rephrase the question to get a better objection
JR: I have a feeling one's coming
GW: I did not discuss Sept. 1 with anyone
JR: Did you discuss the timing with anyone? Any timing, with anyone?
GW: No
JR: He said Sept. 1. Testimony from your vantage pt learning about CLR 2 weeks after that date nothing to do w/ pres intention to renovate? (Whoops, last question is AL, not JR!)
AL: Was your familiarity with CLR connected with pres saying Sept. 1?
GW: No, at time trying to clean up course.
AL: Ok, that's the cleanup phrase.
JR: Trying to make sure I understanding. Looking online at CLR. Did you start doing that in any way, shape or form because of mtg on GC?
GW: No
AL: Truth Social post from yesterday morning, Sunday. Know it was coming?
DOJ: Objection
JR: Conversations w/ pres, don't tell what they were, abt timing?
DOJ: Still object. Fact didn't happen is as protected by the privilege as the fact that it did.
JR: Well, that puts us in a pickle.
AL: I want to know whether now gone from Sept. 1 to Nov. 15. I want to make sure I understand what his understanding is.
JR: Object if you need to. Not gonna hurt my feelings. We're beyond that. When did you understanding something happen Nov. 15?
DOJ: Objection, misstates the record
Quick bench conference.
JR: Do you have an understanding as to whether any work is set to begin on/about Nov. 15?
GW: Not aware of any at this time
AL: Do you have any info as to whether golf course is going to be closed on Nov. 15 for a period of 15 months?
GW: The Truth Social post is the only place where I see that
JR: Any independent info?
GW: No, first time I saw it
AL: Second page of posting, sketch. What do you recognize it to be?
GW: What pres posted.
JR: Back up. Pres said he and the Secretary announcing plan. Any understanding as to whether Sec. has signed off to Nov. 15? There are a lot of posts, one sec. Yday, pres said Burgum very excited
JR: Are you aware whether Sec. Burgum is excited about new great golf course at East Potomac Golf Links?
GW: No
JR: If I wanted to find out what Burgum is thinking abt the great golf course I would have to ask him?
GW: Yes
AL: What do you recognize sketch to be? (returning to this)
GW: Design pres posted
AL: First time you saw?
DOJ: Objection, lay more foundation
AL: Before yesterday had you ever seen a sketch like this?
GW: I've seen multiple conceptual renderings. First time I saw this was late last week
JR: When last week?
AL: You're ahead of me. It's ok, you always are.
GW: Maybe late Thurs. Have to check
JR: How?
GW: Not an email. Check my phone
JR: How on phone?
GW: They can send a PDF. As a text. My personal phone
JR: Instruct not delete. Have you phone on you? I am going to want to know the timestamp unless objection. Who received from?
GW: Received from Gavin Fazio, Tom Fazio's son. I'd have to check, I get lots of texts 😎
JR: You get texts from him?
GW: Occasionally when they send updated renderings
JR: 5, 10, 15, 20?
GW: Not a lot
DOJ: Brief this
JR: I bet you'll want to, yes. Add to list. Also texts to your work phone?
GW: Have to check
JR: Any info from Fazios to work phone about golf course?
GW: To email yes but most discussions phone calls
AL: Asking who involved with things, Tom Fazio. Was Gavin Fazio involved in mtgs etc. about CLR?
GW: No
AL: Providing info over time you said involved w/ WNP?
GW: Mhm
AL: Discuss tree removal w/ Gavin?
GW: Not that I recall
AL: Conversations w/ Fazio Design abt CLR?
GW: No
AL: About trees
GW: No. Gavin and Tom, was renderings and designs
JR: What about adding fill?
GW: No. I'm not a golf person so I get concepts like this and I don't really know what more I need to say
AL: You said as early as Thursday saw this sketch. Let me put up posting by Trump before proceedings began this morning
SW wants to see it
JR: You didn't see what the president posted this morning? Because a lot of people sent it to me?
SW: You're more important than I am, I guess?
JR: 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. Do have another sentence, however. Move into record. Did you have a chance to see this?
GW: Yes. When he posted it I saw it just like everyone else
AL: First time you'd seen any of parts, particularly starting pt of reno? When did you understanding that now the work was supposed to begin immediately?
GW: When I read it this morning
AL: Under any action now that plan start immediately?
GW: Not that aware of
JR: Who would become aware?
JR: If I wanted to start immediately who would I call? (withdraws after objection)
AL: Talked about concepts including sketch indicated might receive last week. You have identified coming from Tom Fazio or Gavin Fazio? When you get what do you do with them?
GW: Look at them
AL: Share them? (Obj.)
AL: Yesterday, posting, sent to you from Gavin?
GW: Yeah. Late last week
JR: I'm a little surprised you guys didn't -- you should have shared them with the government (the exhibits)
DOJ: Objection relevance
JR: Oh I think I know where the relevance is about to come in
AL: ID'd sketch came from Gavin Fazio received sometime last wk. Look at what is proferred as exhibit 5, photo? See in photo something looks like sketch?
JR: Not editorialize. Knowledge as to sketch on desk?
This is pretty clearly the Zacharia Oval Office photo with the blurred out image
AL: When you got sketch did you provide to Burgum?
DOJ: Obj
JR: Appear on privilege log no?
DOJ: Idk
JR: Very close to beating a pretty dead horse so why don't we just speed it up
JR: (stops AL from asking a ? that will get objection) Anyone else in text chain?
GW: Have to check
AL: Pending answer, no other questions
Stanley Woodward now. Asks if GW is familiar w/ NLT. GW says yes, operate Rock Creek/Langston and former leasee of East Potomac. Terminated late Dec. 2025.
Was NLT req'd to do maintenance? Yes. Would those have included CLR? (Obj. speculation.) Know whether NLT removed trees? Don't believe did
Wischer is released. But questions about testimony he might have to come back and give. JR asks what to instruct him. SW says, not to discuss w/ anyone other than counsel. She does so. If need talk abt what's going on at course w/ your ppl, you can. But not hey did I get that right? Hey I was great.
JR says lunch break. Gone on a lot longer than I'd anticipated or hoped. We have Mr. Lands and Dr. Griess left, and then you want to talk to plaintiffs? SW says potentially. But a lot of testimony from decisionmaker. Consider whether need additional. JR says maybe not Lands but wants Griess
SW: I won't bury the lead but testimony elicited won't be different.
Plaintiffs say they don't need Lands. They'll release him. But JR remembers need Bowron, DOJ says objection, JR says "I think everyone knows your objection"
Lands was supposed to be remote, so he's not even here. But he is! "Today's your good news day. We're not going to have you testify. Ty for testifying over holiday. You're free to go. Sorry to call you here."
12:30, 1:30 for brunch -- for lunch. Figure out way to speed thru
We're back. Judge Reyes asks for Jessica Bowron, acting NPS Director. DOJ doesn't have any questions (but will have another chance after).
JB, in NPS uniform, is sworn in.
AL: Did you over last couple of days say Trump's post of yesterday? (Yes.) This morning? (No.) Start with CLR. Involved in what has been called tree-management program on Oct. 10? (Yes.) Testimony to date from agency says pursuant to 2019 CLR? (Yes.)
AL: First time aware of CLR?
JB: Possible spring. More recently, Tuesday, Sept. 29.
AL: If possible spring, how?
JB: Related to the earlier tree work. Removal of hazard/invasive trees. First found out spring 2026.
AL: Sept. 29?
JB: Met with GW and counsel. Asked compliance pathway to implemented vegetation management related to CLR. Meeting, DOI HQ, GW's office, 2 solicitors present.
AL: Prior, any conversations w/ anyone else at agency? Over summer?
JB: No.
AL: Had you read?
JB: No. Now have skimmed
AL: Who asked compliance pathway?
JB: Mr. Wischer
AL: What happened next?
JR instructs on A/C privilege at DOJ request
DOJ: Obj., deliberative process.
AL: No details. Any steps after 29th to do what asked to do abt compliance program?
JB: Yes. Worked w/ compliance experts in regional and nat'l offices
AL: That day, understand CLR addressed issues at golf courses other than East Potomac?
JB: Yes
AL: Conversations that day abt steps for those?
JB: No.
AL: Come to know then/any point that CLR had recommendations at E. Po and other courses but right now E. Po other than vegetation?
JB: Over course of week yes
AL: Anything about E. Po other than trees discussed?
JR: Short-circuit this...he's gonna spend a bunch of time asking --
AL: That was the last question, YH.
JR: Great!
AL: On 29, any discussions abt aspects of CLR other than tree removal?
JB: Not this conversation but other ongoing discussions related to E. Po seawall
AL: Held positions at NPS since 2019. Any conversation anything to do with, wait, this 2019 CLR has been in existence for 7 yrs and abt time we start implementing?
JB: I have not been involved in any other conversation
AL: First time heard abt possibility of renovating E. Po as part of WNP?
JB: Probably sometime in late 2025
AL: From whom?
JB: Counsel. Our solicitor's office
AL: First heard from solicitor?
JB: Yes
AL: Giving JB her 3 declarations
AL: March 6 2026 declaration. You understood WNP was for $150m to renovate all 3 public courses?
JB: Yes.
AL: CLR, that too called for 3 courses at East Potomac park
JB: Not read CLR in that detail
AL: You don't know 1 way or the other?
JB: I don't
AL: As you became aware of WNP, became aware that plan calls for end up 2 of the golf courses at East Potomac park? Only 1 at end of plan if implemented?
JB: Not aware of that, no
AL: Declaration indicates WNP was to keep 3 golf courses affordable and accessible
JB: Yes
AL: As come to learn about WNP, is your understanding that there will continue to be 3 courses that are affordable and accessible?
JB: Don't have info about Fazio plan/WNP
AL: How many mtgs where ultimate plan to renovate course has been discussed under any name?
JB: Haven't been a part of any
AL: When first aware that might be tree-management project at East Potomac?
JB: Sept. 29 first time I had a mtg to discuss what compliance pathway would be in order to implement tree or vegetation management
AL: Same day understood CLR itself
JB: Yes
AL: Already asked any other aspect discussed
JB: Did identify seawall has otherwise been discussed -- before and after, not at that mtg
AL: Understanding abt what resources/personnel available to begin implementing compliance part?
JB: Yes. Incoming "bison team," group of largely maintenance personnel volunteered to come to D.C.
JB: For beautification. And turnover of fiscal year
AL: So personnel and funds
JB: Two critical components, yes. And compliance pathway. Completion of necessary NEPA and NHPA requirements
AL: That's what led to the categorical exclusion filing? What events occured before Oct. 5 w/ TMP discussed?
JB: All of actions I took subsequent to the 29th were tied to that original conversation
JR: ID what actions are w/o saying who told you to take them. Just the facts, ma'am!
JB: Reached out to compliance experts in regional and HQ teams to relay request to them to ask them to document for me what the necessary steps/approp pathway would be to complete compliance reqs
JB:...to implement CLR wrt vegetation management. I relied on our experts (w/in NPS)
AL: Operational plan on 29th?
JB: No
AL: Aware of Oct. 5 mtg?
JB: Not aware
AL: Conversations on Oct. 5 w/ GW or Kevin Griess?
JB: Yes
JR: Conversations include counsel? Talk to me about any that did not (DOJ still objects, deliberative process). Let me just make this simple. You as I understand it received a draft of the TMP sometime on Oct. 5. You approved the plan sometime on Oct. 6.
JB: I shared it w/ GW and counsel on 5th
JB: On 6th, relayed slightly edited version back to the park and region and asked to confirm edits feasible to implement and otherwise no changes expected from my lvl
JR: Is your role to say, this plan can go forward? Or just, this part of a plan is ok from my perspective?
JB: Not there to question whether they picked the right tree. I'm there for fatal flaw review, to make sure it reflects language and intent of the agency. This one was v straightforward. Sometimes dif terms, ensure vocabulary is the same
JR: Your job wasn't to say I'm approving, you all go forth. Your job was to say, this looks great? What kind of edits? Any substance?
DOJ: Object
JR: Might be first time in my career that I've sustained objections to my own questions. Fair enough.
SW: One this morning, not that I'm counting
JR: Just trying to get a sense of what your role is. What kind of info would you say we need to fix that? In general
JB: Gosh. Switching out terms like resiliency for hardening when talking abt natural disaster recovery
JR: Perfect
AL: What would have happened if not made changes? Could have gone forward w/o your input?
JB: Yes
JR: Plan have legal effect w/o your signature? (Obj.) Fair enough. You're getting good at this. To your knowledge, could DOI start hiring contractors before you'd signed off on a plan?
JB: Yes
JR: W/o you, sufficiently final that DOI could hire contractors
JB: Yes
AL: Looking for fatal flaws. What were you using to compare to learn if fatal flaws, if not CLR?
SW: Obj.
JR: Let's move on
AL: Let me check my box. Conversations Oct. 5 w/ Dr. Kevin Griess?
JB: Not w/ Dr. Griess. Deputy superintendent. Mike Camiso (sp? sorry!), part of team drafting TMP. Griess's role = certainly review and approval
AL: Frank Lands conversations on 5th?
JB: Shared a draft version w/ him on 5th
JB: Mid-afternoon. By email. The TMP as it existed prior to the edits that I received from Greg Wischer
AL: When edits from GW?
DOJ: Obj
JR: Just timing
DOJ: I'm trying to be done w/ this
JR: I'm trying to be done w/ it too to be frank
JB: On the 6th, couldn't tell what time of day
AL: Lands is midday on 5th. After that, you send on your edits
JB: To GW and counsel, got edits back next day. Only edits that were received were from GW
AL: On Oct. 5/6 did GW tell you directing anyone to implement this plan as soon as practical?
JB: Don't recall
JR: Any info abt timing?
JB: Wasn't given deadline, no timing that I recall
AL: March 6 declaration, said aware dept. officials considering plans to renovate 3 courses but only in conceptual stage. April 30, say the same and say several interim steps have yet to occur before a final decision
JR: Just ask a question
AL: Yesterday in Truth Social post pres announced golf course plan. Before that, you'd described only conceptual stage. What happened including in your Oct. 6 declaration that took it from being conceptual? What were the interim steps that allowed to become operational on his post?
DOJ: Obj.
JR: You signed a declaration at 5:15 on Oct. 6 saying a number of things. Then you said, continuing steps wrt trees/fencing. No mention of TMP, felling hundreds of healthy noninvasive trees. Need to understand and do not understand how -- I don't mean to sound accusatory
JR: Had as of 5th a plan involved felling hundreds of healthy trees?
JB: This is with counsel
JR: I understand. I'll just make the inference I can make
AL: Your testimony that the removal of hundreds of trees with a plan to do more but for the rain was the same as a small project to address deteriorating conditions?
JB: Yes
JR: Say it again. Listen to this question (adds "healthy non-invasive," she still says yes)
JR: How?!
JB: East Potomac Park is a designed cultural landscape. We are not managing it as a wilderness area. That's why we did CLR. Our management policies all point us towards managing that landscape in accordance w/ the original design intent
JR: Consistent w/ original design to take 3 courses there now, destroy them, and put in a separate 1-course design?
DOJ: Obj.
JR: Overruled. Hearing testimony after testimony after testimony that basis is to go back to orig design
JR: Can't keep doing this thing where I'm hearing 1 things on the left side and a dif thing on the right side and being told they're the same thing. Need to know if same thing or not same thing.
SW: Understand your frustration --
JR: Hold on. I wasn't expressing frustration. I was expressing that idk what to do when I keep hearing dif things from the gov...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
JB speaks again about restoring East Potomac to the historic landscape. Now a quick bench conference
AL: We understood from testimony that you sent an email indicating your approval at 5:39 p.m. (Oct. 6, I believe). Declaration I've asked you abt was signed by you on Oct. 6, at 5:15. 24 mins before provided your input into plan you recognized calling for destruction of over 400 trees
JB: Yes
AL: Signed Oct. 6. Submitted on Oct. 9. Four pages, nine paragraphs. On Oct. 6 after you knew a tree-management plan aware of day before to which you had input you submitted and signed a declaration we can agree made no mention whatsoever of TMP?
JB: Yes
AL: Submitted in court after compliance path had been implemented
JB: Yes
AL: Operation very next day in morning
JB: Yes
AL: Why between 6, 7, 8, 9 when you now knew hundreds of trees destroyed make no effort change/supplement?
JR: all on advice of counsel
JB: Yes
AL: March 6, said landscaping may qualify for a cat ex. But any major plan would require environmental impact statement. Later declaration, full compliance that would be done before project undertaken
JB: Yes
AL: Still your understanding? Before would happen require full compliance prog?
JB: Yes
AL: On same subject, said if such a large renovation project were to ever be proposed agency would have to comply w/ "all" laws and regulations. NEPA, NHPA, Organic Act, even implicate NCPC, CFA
JB: Yes
AL: Still what you understand?
JB: Yes
AL: Complete design would likely be a major renovation that would require those steps
JR: Move on, I think we've got it
AL: Last question. Trump post today. Says in terms of intention, plans do not need any approval. Work is scheduled to begin IMMEDIATELY! Can work begin immediately?
AL: Can that be done the way this Truth Social post indicates?
JB: I don't know what post is referencing but I do not have a change to my declaration
AL: One of laws says when nat'l park will be closed, requirement of notice. Know about that?
JB: Not immediately jumping to mind
AL: Any plans you know abt in agency to provide notice and if so how much abt plan to close on Nov. 15?
JB: Don't have any info on referenced plan
JR: Any plans in your view?
JB: none that I've been made aware of
JR: Something that would have to go thru you?
JB: Something I'd be made aware of
JR: Understand lease terminated w/ NLT but in first declaration say management company operates all 3 courses on temporary holdover basis. Still case at East Potomac?
JB: Yes
JR: Same entity was leasing grounds before lease terminated still leasing today except on holdover
JB: Yes
JR: Same entity leasing other courses?
JB: also holdover basis
JR: Nothing would stop NPS from doing work on other courses just bc NLT there correct?
JB: Correct
JR: Oct. 6 (filed 9th) declaration said NPS entered into contract w/ qualified firm to provide compliance support for East Potomac restoration. Name of firm publicly available?
JB: May be via usaspending.gov
JR: Other contracts since June 2026 concerning East Potomac?

Gonna start a new thread for the argument on the PI, to clean things up. Starting with Final Agency Action.

Public access line audio has cut out. My sincere apologies. It has been a frustrating day. Hoping it’ll come back, but @rparloff.bsky.social has you covered if not.

I refer people to @rparloff.bsky.social for the end of the argument. I am really sorry not to be able to finish, but my dog is sick and I need to go deal with that!