A group of Vietnam War veterans asked a federal judge to block construction of President Donald Trump’s 250-foot triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery, writing that the project — which Trump announced last year — still lacks congressional authorization.

“Defendants have barreled ahead, doing site testing, drawing architecture plans, and seeking approvals from commissions populated by friends of the administration,” they wrote. “Yet, throughout this time, Defendants have failed to obtain (or even seek) approval from the one body that, by law, must authorize the project: Congress.”

The request comes one day after the Trump administration filed a notice to the court, saying the National Capital Planning Commission plans to meet to consider for approval the final site and building plans for the arch on Nov. 5. They say construction could “commence immediately” after that meeting if those plans are approved.

The veterans asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to rule on their request by Nov. 4.

The case has been ongoing since February, but Chutkan has not yet issued a ruling that would block construction. In September she ordered the government to provide at least 48 hours’ notice before “engaging in any activity” around the site of the arch.

The government had previously agreed to provide at least two weeks’ notice before beginning construction of the arch. Wednesday’s filing complied with that deadline, coming two weeks ahead of the scheduled meeting and possible start date for construction.

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to MS NOW’s request for comment on the filing.

Thursday’s request to block construction is the latest development in a lawsuit filed in February by three Vietnam War veterans in conjunction with watchdog organization Public Citizen. They have argued the arch would significantly disrupt the historically significant sightline between the Lincoln Memorial and the Arlington National Cemetery.

“Its location on Memorial Circle would situate the monument on an axis between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery, obstructing a line of sight that was designed to represent the unification of the Nation following the Civil War and that has existed for nearly a century,” they wrote in the lawsuit.

The veterans have also argued the project requires congressional authorization.

The Trump administration has argued Congress has already authorized the arch project, pointing to a 1925 plan that called for two tall columns — not an arch — situated near the proposed site for Trump’s arch. That proposal looked very different from Trump’s vision.

Trump unveiled his plans last October for a 250-foot Arc de Triomphe-style monument in honor of the country’s 250th anniversary. The original plans called for a towering triumphal arch that would dwarf the nearby 99-foot Lincoln Memorial and other monuments. The gilded arch would sit on Memorial Circle, a traffic roundabout that sits between Arlington National Cemetery and a bridge over the Potomac that leads to Washington, D.C.

Since that lawsuit was filed, Trump’s plans for the arch have developed. Last month, Trump announced the arch would become a “top grand Military Complex/Triumphal Arch, to house, store, and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones, plus Snipers, on both the roof and the plaza areas, and additionally have and hold hold large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage.”

But the final plans submitted to the Interior Department and to the National Capital Planning Commission make no mention of a military complex. There are also no references to a national security purpose.

“The proposed arch would be an approximately 250-foot-tall reinforced concrete structure clad in stone and ornamented by a central figure and two eagles, positioned above each arch leg,” the project synopsis says. “The arch would be 166 feet wide with a 55-foot-wide opening, providing views from the observation deck to area landmarks. The arch would be built from concrete and finished with granite.”

The commission is set to vote on this design in the Nov. 5 meeting and could begin construction immediately, if Chutkan does not intervene on behalf of the veterans.

The veterans’ lawsuit is not the only challenge to Trump’s arch. Earlier this month, the Arlington County Board in Virginia sued to block construction of the arch. That lawsuit alleged the Trump administration was moving too quickly, bypassing the full review process.

“The National Park Service, the agency responsible for projects on national park land such as Memorial Circle, is proceeding full-speed toward ground-disturbing construction,” the lawsuit said. “Although the agency has claimed that a final decision to construct the Arch has not yet been made and purports to be engaged in a routine decisional process, that rushed process appears to be a pretext designed to shore up justifications for building the Arch in accordance with the President’s repeated marching orders.”

That lawsuit also criticized Trump’s national security plans for the arch.

“Using the Arch to store large stockpiles of ammunition and as a staging point for drones and snipers, so close to commuters and tourists, will dramatically worsen these public-safety harms and the risk of accidents,” they wrote in the suit.

The arch, which would sit directly in the flightpath to Washington National Airport, has also drawn concerns from the aviation community. Association of Flight Attendants-CWA President Sara Nelson criticized the arch, warning it poses a dangerous obstruction in an already congested flightpath. That flight path is also still riddled with safety concerns following last year’s fatal crash involving a commercial airplane and military helicopter over the Potomac River.

The architects have proposed adding an eternal flame at the recommendation of the Federal Aviation Association to alleviate some of these concerns.

A judge has not yet ruled on the lawsuit brought by the Arlington County Board.

The post Veterans ask judge to halt construction of Trump’s arch appeared first on MS NOW.

The watchdog for the Department of Justice is declining to investigate the prosecution of former Olympian David Hearn, whom the DOJ wrongly accused of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, according to his lawyers.

Hearn’s legal team had asked inspectors general for both the Justice Department and the Department of the Interior to probe what it called an abuse of government, but the DOJ’s watchdog informed the team on Oct. 8 that it would not open an investigation, saying the inspector general lacked authority to do so. That letter reportedly arrived two days after Hearn’s lawyers first asked for the independent probe.

In a letter obtained by MS NOW, lawyers representing Hearn responded to that rejection on Wednesday, writing that the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General was incorrect and did have “jurisdiction to conduct both administrative and criminal investigations.”

“The DOJ OIG has plenary statutory jurisdiction to investigate potential crimes committed by DOJ personnel,” the letter says. “The allegations in our October 6 Letter point to facts that warrant an investigation into numerous potential crimes, including witness tampering, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and criminal civil rights violations.”

Hearn’s lawyers also warned of potential consequences if there were no independent investigation.

“Given the substantial public attention devoted to this matter, and the significant questions raised concerning the conduct of federal officials, declining independent review would risk undermining public confidence in the Department’s ability to police its own conduct,” the letter said. “Such a result would be inconsistent with the purposes for which Congress established the OIG and would be a betrayal of its mission.”

The Department of Justice and its inspector general did not immediately respond to MS NOW’s request for comment.

The Office of the Inspector General for the Department of the Interior told MS NOW on Tuesday that it does not confirm or deny ongoing investigations. But in a letter obtained by MS NOW, the watchdog office told Hearn’s lawyers it was considering their request.

Earlier this month, lawyers representing Hearn sent a letter to the inspector general for the Department of Justice, saying the former Olympian had suffered a “nightmare” when he was arrested and U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office subsequently charged him with vandalizing the reflecting pool’s liner.

Hearn’s lawyers allege that the government had “simply ignored” exculpatory evidence for weeks. They asked the watchdog to investigate why prosecutors “rushed to indict” Hearn under what they said was political pressure from President Donald Trump.

“From June 19 to the present, gross incompetence, negligence, and misconduct have been committed by personnel in both agencies,” the lawyers’ letter said. “A critical purpose of the requested investigations is to collect the facts … to hold accountable the individuals and groups who failed Mr. Hearn, the criminal justice system and the public.

In the same letter, lawyers for Hearn had also asked the inspector general for the Department of the Interior to investigate the decision to charge Hearn.

The letter accused the department of backing the accusations against Hearn when internal documents showed that the damage was caused by a “rushed and botched installation” by the contractor, as Pirro would later concede.

Lawyers for Hearn have asked the department’s inspector general to determine whether Interior Secretary Doug Burgum knew his public statements attributing the damage to vandalism were false or whether he was left in the dark by his staff. They also asked investigators to hold agency personnel accountable for these false claims.

At the time, John Bell, the director of external affairs for that department’s inspector general, told MS NOW, “As with all submissions to our office, we will review it carefully to determine the appropriate course of action.”

At a news conference on July 2, Pirro accused Hearn of “forcefully and violently” vandalizing the pool and said that prosecutors in her office had proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Those accusations echoed Trump’s claims that the pool had been damaged by vandals. The president repeatedly made these unfounded claims amid a flurry of embarrassing media coverage about the botched renovation.

Hearn had been charged with one felony count of destruction of property in early July. He pleaded not guilty. But by the end of the month, Pirro moved to dismiss the criminal case, citing new evidence that the damage to the pool was caused by a rushed contractor installation rather than vandalism.

Pirro said the Department of the Interior “provided less than fulsome information at the outset of this case.” She alleges that the department withheld documents that revealed that the destruction was completely because of contractor error and that she did not receive those documents until weeks after her office indicted Hearn.

“Had DOI been forthcoming with the information clearly in its possession, the government would not have sought a grand jury indictment,” Pirro wrote in a court filing.

Pirro’s decision to drop the case drew the president’s ire.

“I disagree 100% with Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, on the Reflecting Pool. I don’t know what she was thinking?” Trump posted on Truth Social. “To me, it was a pure case of VANDALISM, that included the grass, which had a big 86 47 emblazoned in giant letters on it, and other elements of the surrounding area. There may have been some contractor difficulty, but the major damage was caused by VANDALS!”

Burgum also doubled down on these accusations in a post on X after Pirro moved to drop the case.

“The evidence is clear, vandals have repeatedly caused damage to the Reflecting Pool,” his post read. “Some of these acts were even caught on camera.”

D.C. Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the government cannot revive the charges.

Hearn could have faced up to 10 years in prison if he had been convicted.

The post David Hearn lawyers say DOJ watchdog won’t probe failed prosecution — but Interior IG is considering appeared first on MS NOW.

In another marathon court session, a federal judge grilled Justice Department lawyers for hours after President Donald Trump announced plans to immediately overhaul a public golf course in Washington, D.C., and transform it into a championship-style course.

In the second hourslong hearing on the matter in a week, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes appeared inclined to indefinitely block the Trump administration from removing any trees from the East Potomac golf course and require three days’ notice before making any changes.

Reyes called for the hearings after the government abruptly chopped down hundreds of trees over a recent holiday weekend.

While Reyes appeared more even-tempered than in last week’s hearing, tensions remained high as Reyes expressed frustration with the government’s razing of the golf course.

“We are where we are, I’m telling you right now, I don’t think those trees were cut down because of the 2019 [Cultural Landscape Report],” she said. “There is a reason that the only part of a 2019 plan that was executed involved cutting down trees.”

A coalition of a preservationist group and local golfers filed a lawsuit earlier this year amid reports of Trump’s plans for the course. Now, the plaintiffs are asking Reyes to block the Trump administration from making any changes — including chopping a single tree — without giving them and the judge adequate notice. They are also asking for that same notice if the government plans to close the course.

“Defendants have been saying one thing and doing another: insisting that there is no plan to destroy East Potomac Park Golf Course,” the plaintiffs wrote in a court filing. “But all the while implementing that plan piecemeal.”

“The tree-clearing operation was yet another step in that plan — one that Defendants segmented from the rest of the plan to circumvent [the National Environmental Policy Act] and ensure it would become a fait accompli before this Court had an opportunity to intervene,” the plaintiffs added.

In a hearing Monday, Reyes heard arguments and testimony from top Interior Department officials and the National Park Service about the government’s intentions for the course.

The hearing happened one day after Trump announced on social media detailed plans to close and completely overhaul the golf course beginning next month. The government has argued in court that there are no final plans for renovation yet.

The government has repeatedly argued that the tree chopping was part of a 2019 plan to restore the course to its original design. But the plaintiffs contend that the tree removal is only happening now as part of the Trump-backed reconstruction plan that will force the closure of the course and make it unattainable to the diverse communities it had served.

The president remains seemingly unfazed by the court proceedings, writing on Truth Social over the weekend that the course in its current state is “completely overgrown, dysfunctional, and unsafe.” He announced that work on a new design will begin in November and that the course will reopen in approximately 15 months. On Monday morning, the president doubled down, announcing the timeline of the construction would commence “immediately.”

Both a top Interior Department official and the acting director of the National Park Service testified they had no knowledge of firm plans to close the course and begin renovations.

The witnesses’ testimony did little to answer questions surrounding the decision-making process to abruptly chop down hundreds of trees. Many of those answers remained shielded by attorney-client privilege.

Lawyers representing the government have argued there is no final plan for the golf course renovation. Reyes pushed back on those arguments, pointing to the difference between what she is hearing in the courtroom and what Trump says in public.

“So who do I believe, the president of the United States, or do I believe you?” she asked Robert Stander, a lawyer representing the government.

Stander did not answer Reyes directly but had earlier affirmed that “The agency’s position is that there is no final plan.”

Toward the end of the hearing, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, whom Reyes had ordered to appear in person, told her, “There is no plan to close the course on November 15.”

While the plaintiffs remained narrowly focused on the tree-cutting issue, they also spoke about the harm of a complete overhaul.

“What our clients are challenging is the destruction of the current course,” Mark Samburg, a lawyer representing the coalition that brought the lawsuit, said. “They are attached to the existing course.”

East Potomac Golf Links was designed with accessibility in mind, to serve both diverse communities and the average golfer. They argue Trump’s plans for the course would remove that accessibility.

Samburg said telling these amateur golfers they could play on this new course would be like telling them they could play “pickup softball at Fenway.”

Reyes said the project is not just a simple redesign because of the ties community members have with the course.

“We are talking about a historic golf course, a place that has deep meaning to the people of the district, and is protected as a historic land site,” she said.

Reyes has already issued an emergency order, blocking the government from felling trees and mandating they give three days’ notice before making any “irreparable modification” to the course. That order will remain in effect through Oct. 26.

In that order, she expressed deep frustration with the government for its actions.

“Breakneck speed to clear trees that posed no harm. The reason? Disputed. The budget? Unclear. The environmental impact? Unstudied. The urgency? None. Next steps: bulldoze hundreds more,” she wrote.

That temporary order marked the first time Reyes formally blocked the government from taking action with regard to the golf course. Throughout the lawsuit, she has resisted granting injunctions, instead choosing to trust that the government would not act without first informing her.

In a hearing in July, she reiterated her request. “I have not ordered anyone not to build something,” Reyes said. “All I have asked was if more than ten trees are going to be chopped down, please let us know, so if plaintiffs want to move they can.”

“I want you to tell them basically before things start getting chopped down in a massive way that’s irretrievable and we’re basically like we’re moving forward,” Reyes added. “I want them to have time to come back to me.”

But that trust was broken earlier this month, when the government abruptly announced it planned to chop more than 500 trees from the golf course. That announcement was filed at 4:55 p.m. on the Friday before a holiday weekend. The Trump administration began felling trees the following morning before Reyes or the plaintiffs could respond.

That razing prompted Reyes to grant an immediate restraining order against the government and call an emergency hearing.

During that four-hour hearing last week, the temperature reached a boiling point. Reyes was livid, yelling at the government for defying her directive to keep her informed.

“I am just beyond disappointed in the government,” Reyes said. “I have done everything humanly possible to give the government the benefit of the doubt in this case. I have done it for months.”

Reyes heard testimony from two top National Park Service officials, seeking to understand why there had been such urgency to remove hundreds of trees.

When asked if there was an urgency for the tree removal, Kevin Griess, superintendent of the National Mall and Memorial Parks, responded, “Not that I’m aware of.”

“So the trees could be cut down tomorrow, or they could be cut down in a month from now, and from the government’s perspective, it’s basically the same?” Reyes asked.

“From what I understand, Your Honor, yes,” Griess responded.

Unsatisfied with their explanations about the urgency and unable to reach a top Interior Department official, she concluded that hearing. But she did not conclude her investigation. She demanded the government bring that Interior Department leader — and any other relevant government officials — back into her courtroom so she could get to the bottom of the decision to chop hundreds of trees.

“Someone is going to explain that to me,” Reyes said. “Because this is totally beyond the pale.”

At the end of the full-day hearing, Reyes left the courtroom with a stern announcement. She had indicated her family had informed her a news organization had reported she was receiving death threats because of this case. The room fell silent.

“That a federal judge is getting death threats over a golf course,” Reyes said. “I really don’t think that’s what the founders envisioned.”

The post The president says a D.C. golf course is about to be overhauled — but that is not what his lawyers are telling a judge appeared first on MS NOW.

“I am not the Lorax. I do not speak for the trees. I am a judge,” U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes said at a hearing last month.

That quote referenced the famous Dr. Seuss character “with a voice that was sharpish and bossy” who angrily defends a forest from destruction, declaring, “I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees.”

In a September hearing that was part of a legal challenge brought by a preservationist group and a pair of local golfers, the effort to block President Donald Trump from transforming a historic public golf course into a championship-style course in the president’s image continued, this time focusing on tree removal.

The government had removed 150 trees that it deemed dying, dead, hazardous or invasive. Reyes accepted that argument and declined to intervene.

She did not want to become the Lorax, she said.

But could her Lorax-like conduct get Reyes removed from the case?

In a new filing late Friday night, lawyers from the Department of Justice have alleged her “conduct rises to the level of deep-seated and unequivocal antipathy toward the Trump Administration.” Late Sunday night, Reyes denied that request to recuse her from the case.

And the president himself seemed to ignore what role Reyes may play in his plans to reimagine the East Potomac golf course. On Sunday, he posted on Truth Social that the course is “completely overgrown, dysfunctional, and unsafe” and announced work will begin on a new design in November and that the course will reopen in approximately 15 months.

Last week, Reyes presided over a fiery emergency hearing during which the plaintiffs accused the government of abruptly razing 529 trees with little notice over a holiday weekend. Suddenly, Reyes seemed inspired by the beloved Dr. Seuss character known to be “very upset as he shouted and puffed.”

Reyes repeatedly raised her voice and spoke sharply at the government for their actions.

“There is no excuse for this and you know why I’m furious right now. It was hearing from everyone on the plaintiffs’ side that this was going to happen and I said no, repeatedly, I trust the government,” Reyes said in that hearing. “I trusted you all repeatedly to not do what you have done.”

“I’m just at a total loss to understand what has happened here,” she added.

Those fireworks are sure to return to her courtroom Monday morning when she holds the second part of that hearing with more testimony from top officials from the Department of the Interior and the National Parks Service. On Sunday afternoon, she also demanded testimony from top Department of Justice officials, including Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Jr.

Reyes will demand those witnesses to explain why there was suddenly such urgency to quickly remove hundreds of trees without giving her or the plaintiffs real notice, the one thing she had directed the government to do.

The government has argued the tree removal was grounded in a 2019 “Cultural Landscape Report” aimed at restoring the golf course to its original design.

The question Reyes asked, though: Why the sudden rush?

During that hearing, Reyes heard nearly four hours of arguments from the government and testimony from two top NPS officials, but no one could answer her questions about the apparent sudden urgency.

Asked whether there was an urgency for the tree removal, Kevin Griess, the superintendent for the National Mall and Memorial Parks in Washington, responded, “Not that I’m aware of.”

“So the trees could be cut down tomorrow, or they could be cut down in a month from now, and from the government’s perspective, it’s basically the same,” Reyes asked.

“From what I understand, Your Honor, yes,” Griess responded.

As the hearing dragged on, Reyes grew frustrated with the government’s inability to answer her questions. She attempted to get senior government officials on the phone to answer her questions. Frank Lands, a top NPS official, joined the virtual hearing about halfway through as he sat in a parked car.

Through the testimony of Griess and Lands, Reyes began to piece together a timeline between when the decision was formulated and when the first tree fell.

The government officials testified that the tree removal unfolded over the course of five days — seven years after the plan was first outlined.

“It is a coincidence, the Government seems to suggest, that DOI cut down hundreds of trees at the Course weeks after the President asked DOI to cut down trees at the Course, and not, say, any other time in the last seven years,” Reyes wrote in her order blocking tree removal. “That asks rather a lot of coincidence.”

Griess said he submitted the tree removal plan to NPS on Oct. 5 and received funding approval the next day.

Reyes didn’t know any of this as it was unfolding. The government didn’t inform the court of the plan until 4:55 p.m. on Oct. 9 — the Friday before a holiday weekend. The Trump administration began felling trees the following morning before Reyes or the plaintiffs could respond.

It’s still unclear what happened between Oct. 6-9 and who knew what when.

That’s why she’s so angry — or at least part of the reason.

But perhaps some of that anger is directed internally. She chose to trust the government, opting on multiple occasions to reject official court orders that would have blocked such behavior.

In the September hearing, Reyes clarified her directive to the government.

“I have not issued any order stopping anyone from doing anything,” she said. “The only thing I have done, and it wasn’t even in an order, it was a request, was that if more than ten trees are going to be chopped down that we all know so we can move.”

During the emergency hearing last week, Reyes said she was “regretting” her decision to not memorialize this request into a formal written order.

She chose to trust the government, but now that trust appears to be broken.

“I have no faith, no faith that the government is not going to cut them down unless there’s an order in place not to do so,” Reyes said during the hearing. “So now, we’re all going to have a massive fire drill because the government chat’s be trusted.”

On Tuesday, she extended her temporary restraining order through Oct. 26 and memorialized that extension with a 21-page opinion.

“The Court concludes, on this limited record, that government officials raced to undertake the [tree management plan] because President Trump demands haste on his redesign, and not because of some newfound zeal to implement a small part of a seven-year-old [Cultural Landscape Report],” Reyes wrote.

That ruling is perhaps a sign that the government’s word is no longer enough — but perhaps the government should also heed advice from the story of the Lorax when trying to get back on Reyes’ good side.

“Grow a forest. Protect it from axes that hack. Then the Lorax and all of his friends may come back.”

But given the president’s plan, a reimagined course seems to have roots and the forest may already be razed.

The post She said she wasn’t the Lorax, but she’s starting to act like him appeared first on MS NOW.