The Trump administration has moved to pull a Biden-appointed judge off a Washington golf course dispute, accusing her of deep-seated bias against the president and his officials.
Justice Department lawyers filed a motion Friday seeking the removal of U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes from a legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s plans to overhaul the East Potomac Golf Course in Washington, D.C., CNN reported.
The filing accuses Reyes of “bias,” a “pattern of animus,” and conduct that is “nothing short of egregious.” The administration says the president is entitled to a neutral forum, not a courtroom already marked by open hostility.
Reyes, appointed by former President Joe Biden, is overseeing a suit brought by a preservationist group and two local golfers who oppose the renovation. Trump’s plan would transform the public course into a championship-caliber layout as part of broader construction work reshaping parts of the capital since he returned to the White House.
The removal request followed a tense hearing earlier in the week. At that Monday session, Reyes said she was “furious” that federal crews had cut down 169 trees at East Potomac Golf Links without first notifying the court.
She went further.
"The government can’t be trusted."
Reyes also required high-level federal officials to appear at the hearing. The administration’s lawyer said that demand showed contempt for both the officials’ time and basic limits on judicial power.
In Friday’s filing, the Justice Department lawyer put the charge in blunt terms.
"Judge Reyes’s conduct rises to the level of deep-seated and unequivocal antipathy toward the Trump Administration."
The same filing argued the White House deserves an impartial adjudicator and that Reyes has shown she cannot provide one.
"The Trump Administration is entitled to a neutral forum and an adjudicator who is capable of maintaining the appearance of impartiality. Judge Reyes has demonstrated she cannot do that."
On the demand for senior officials, the motion added that Reyes “demonstrates a cavalier disregard for these officials’ valuable time, as well as a blatant disregard for black-letter separation of powers principles she should be aware of as a federal judge.”
Federal officials have told the court that nearly 730 trees will need to be cleared as part of the renovation. They describe the work as routine maintenance meant to eliminate potential hazards, not a stealth assault on the landscape.
Reyes treated the earlier cutting of 169 trees as proof the government could not be trusted. The administration treats the same episode as ordinary project work that a hostile judge turned into a political showdown. That gap is now central to the recusal fight.
Legal fights surrounding Trump are not new. Armed man at Trump golf course had 208 pages of Secret Service notes and detailed schedules in a separate prosecuted threat case, underscoring how often courts become the arena for disputes tied to the president’s security and properties.
Here the issue is different: whether a sitting district judge can keep the appearance of neutrality after publicly declaring the government untrustworthy and hauling senior officials into her courtroom.
The motion does not stop at the golf course docket. It points to Reyes’s record in other Trump administration matters, including the ban on transgender service members.
In that litigation she said the administration is “literally erasing transgender people.” She ultimately blocked the ban. The Justice Department now cites those remarks as part of a broader pattern of animus, not isolated frustration over trees.
Conservative readers will recognize the pattern. A Biden-appointed judge uses charged language against the current administration, forces high-level officials to appear, then claims the moral high ground when the executive branch objects. The filing says that record destroys the appearance of impartiality the public is owed.
Other Trump-related federal cases have also drawn hard lines over process and accountability. Three South Alabama students face federal charges over alleged threats before a campus rally, another reminder that courts remain a primary battleground around the president’s public life.
What matters in the East Potomac case is simpler. The administration is not asking for a friendly judge. It is asking for one who has not already announced that the government cannot be trusted.
The golf course project sits inside a larger Trump effort to rebuild and upgrade federal and public spaces in Washington. Opponents cast tree removal as environmental vandalism. Officials call it hazard control ahead of a major renovation.
Reyes elevated the dispute into a trust crisis. By declaring the government untrustworthy from the bench and ordering senior officials to answer in person, she turned a land-use fight into a test of judicial restraint. The Justice Department says she failed that test.
Process fights around Trump’s circle have a long paper trail. White House records show Biden FBI monitored Melania and Barron Trump travel and related communications, material that continues to shape how many voters view institutional neutrality.
Declassified files have added still more detail on that era of scrutiny. Declassified records show FBI tracked Melania and Barron Trump travel and monitored associated lawyer calls, reinforcing public doubts about even-handed treatment.
Against that backdrop, a motion to remove a judge who has already voiced open distrust of the Trump administration is not a technicality. It is a demand that the same rules of neutrality apply in a D.C. courtroom as anywhere else.
The plaintiffs remain a preservationist group and two local golfers. Their suit challenges the overhaul itself. The new filing does not decide that underlying dispute. It asks a different question: whether Reyes can still hear it after the Monday hearing and her prior comments.
No absolute calendar dates appear in the public reporting beyond the relative markers of Monday’s hearing and Friday’s motion. Case captions, docket numbers, and the name of the filing attorney were not included in the available account. The core facts are not in doubt: the motion was filed, the bias charge was made in writing, and the judge’s own words are on the record.
Taxpayers fund both the course and the court. They are entitled to renovations handled under the law and to judges who do not begin from the premise that the executive branch is the enemy. When a judge calls the government untrustworthy and the Justice Department answers with a recusal motion, the conflict is no longer about trees. It is about whether federal power still answers to neutral rules.