Economy February 13, 2026

Group and Residents Sue Federal Government Over Planned Overhaul of Historic D.C. Golf Course

Lawsuit argues reconstruction of East Potomac Park and termination of long-term lease violate 1897 congressional mandate and environmental protections

By Leila Farooq
Group and Residents Sue Federal Government Over Planned Overhaul of Historic D.C. Golf Course

A nonprofit and two Washington residents filed suit in federal court to block the Trump administration's efforts to remake East Potomac Park, including the East Potomac Golf Course. The plaintiffs say the administration's actions - including canceling a 50-year lease held by the National Links Trust - conflict with a congressional act from 1897 and violate environmental laws protecting a park on the National Register of Historic Places. The Interior Department and the National Park Service were named as defendants.

Key Points

  • A nonprofit (DC Preservation League) and two Washington residents filed suit in U.S. District Court for D.C. to block reconstruction of East Potomac Park, including East Potomac Golf Course.
  • The lawsuit challenges the Trump administration's termination of a 50-year lease awarded to the National Links Trust in 2020 for three public golf courses, accusing the administration of violating an 1897 congressional act and environmental laws.
  • The Interior Department and National Park Service are defendants; the dispute implicates public land stewardship, historic-preservation law, and environmental compliance, affecting parks and recreation and legal sectors.

A nonprofit organization and two District of Columbia residents filed a lawsuit on Friday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to halt the federal government's planned overhaul of East Potomac Park, which includes the East Potomac Golf Course.

The complaint names the U.S. Interior Department and the National Park Service as defendants and centers on the Trump administration's termination of a long-term lease for city golf courses and a broader effort to reshape public spaces in Washington.

The plaintiffs are the DC Preservation League and local residents Dave Roberts and Alex Dickson. Their filing asserts that the administration's reconstruction plans for East Potomac Park run afoul of a congressional statute enacted in 1897, which, the suit notes, required the site to be:

"forever held and used as a park for the recreation and pleasure of the people."

The suit further alleges that the planned actions violate environmental laws and risk polluting a site that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.


The legal challenge comes after the Interior Department, under the Trump administration, moved late last year to cancel a lease previously held by the National Links Trust - or NLT - for three public golf courses in Washington, D.C. The administration said it was terminating the 50-year lease that NLT received in 2020 to manage the properties, accusing the trust of not making required investments and of failing to pay rent.

NLT disputes the department's characterizations. The trust has denied that it defaulted on the lease or failed to meet payment obligations, and the organization has said that the Interior Department provided limited information about the alleged issues.

The lawsuit frames the administration's actions as part of a broader push since President Donald Trump took office in January 2025 to alter U.S. cultural and historical institutions - citing initiatives affecting museums, monuments, national parks and arts centers - with an intent to reshape aspects of civic life in the capital.

In response to inquiries, local media quoted the Interior Department as declining to comment on pending litigation while stating an intent to maintain public access to the courses. The department said it would "ensure these courses are safe, beautiful, open, affordable, enjoyable and accessible for people visiting" Washington.


The case raises legal questions about the interplay between congressional directives governing public lands, the stewardship responsibilities of the agencies that manage them, and the contractual obligations tied to long-term leases executed in recent years. The plaintiffs contend the intersection of those issues supports judicial intervention to stop planned changes at a historically protected park.

Because the complaint includes allegations that environmental protections will be breached, the dispute could prompt judicial scrutiny of the projected reconstruction's environmental review and compliance processes. The filing asserts that the contested changes would amount to pollution and harm to a recognized historic site.

At this stage the court will consider the claims laid out by the DC Preservation League and the two residents against the Interior Department and the National Park Service. The litigation proceeds amid competing assertions about whether the National Links Trust met its contractual responsibilities under the 2020 lease for the D.C. golf courses.

The filing and the department's statements leave several questions for the court to resolve, including the legal effect of the 1897 congressional act cited in the suit and the factual dispute over NLT's compliance with its lease obligations.

Risks

  • Legal uncertainty over the interpretation and enforceability of the 1897 congressional act cited in the complaint, which could affect outcomes for public land use and future management decisions - impacting public lands and municipal planning sectors.
  • A factual dispute about whether the National Links Trust met its lease obligations may prolong litigation and delay any redevelopment or operational changes at the golf courses - affecting recreation, municipal services, and entities connected to park operations.
  • Allegations of environmental law violations and potential pollution of a National Register historic site introduce regulatory risk and potential requirements for additional environmental review or remediation - affecting environmental compliance and park conservation stakeholders.

More from Economy

Supreme Court Ruling Narrows Presidential Tariff Options, Treasury Secretary Says Feb 20, 2026 Supreme Court Curbs Emergency Tariff Authority, Sparking Market and Policy Reactions Feb 20, 2026 Brazil Says U.S. Supreme Court Decision Restores Country's Edge in American Market Feb 20, 2026 Musalem Says Fed Stance Appropriate; One-for-One Tariff Replacement Would Barely Shift Outlook Feb 20, 2026 Supreme Court Decision Limits One Tariff Route but Leaves Global Trade in Flux Feb 20, 2026