Editorial News Uncategorized

When Trump Takes Over Washington’s Public Golf Courses to Redesign the Capital

Jacques Pj Provost

2026-06-21 00:20:26

East Potomac Golf Links, the Course in the President’s Crosshairs

East Potomac Golf Links occupies an exceptional geographic location, which largely explains the presidential interest. Established in 1923, this 124-year-old complex spans Hains Point, a peninsula jutting into the Potomac River south of the Tidal Basin. The site features an 18-hole course (the Blue Course), a 9-hole course (the White Course), a 9-hole par-3 course (the Red Course), as well as a two-level driving range and practice areas. From the fairways, golfers enjoy panoramic views of the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Memorial, and the iconic cherry trees lining the basin. Trump regularly flies over this course during his trips on Marine One between the White House and Andrews Air Force Base. According to sources close to the administration, the president has repeatedly expressed his desire to transform the site into something “truly magnificent.” Internal discussions even mention a potential rebranding as the “Washington National Golf Course” and the ambition to host elite professional golf events such as the Ryder Cup. Tom Fazio, the architect who visited the site in November, confirmed to Golf.com magazine that Trump sees enormous potential in this course. “He said he needed a place to put the dirt, and that the course could use it anyway,” Fazio explained, referring to the White House construction debris that was dumped on the ninth hole of the White Course.

This presidential vision clashes head-on with the plans of the National Links Trust. The organization had hired Tom Doak, a respected architect in the golf world, to restore the 18-hole reversible course designed by Walter Travis at Hains Point and to modernize the two shorter courses. Doak’s project favored a historic approach, seeking to restore the original character of Travis’s design while improving playing conditions. The planned investment amounted to several million dollars, funded by community fundraising and partnerships with golf organizations. But those plans are now in limbo. The National Links Trust continues to operate the course on a day-to-day basis, but any long-term improvements have been put on hold. Regular golfers at East Potomac are expressing frustration over this uncertainty. Many fear that the transformation envisioned by Trump will make the course financially out of reach. Current rates—about $25 to $45 for 18 holes, depending on the season—are among the lowest in the Washington metropolitan area. A Trump-style course, with its luxurious aesthetic and high maintenance standards, could easily triple or quadruple those prices, effectively excluding families with modest incomes and young players.

There’s something deeply ironic about all this. Trump already owns sixteen golf courses around the world. Sixteen. Private, luxurious courses where green fees can reach hundreds of dollars. And now he wants this one, too—a public course, a place where a father can take his son on a Sunday afternoon without breaking the bank. Why? Because of the view. Because it’s visible from his helicopter. Because… because it’s Trump. And Trump can’t see something without wanting to put his mark on it—his name, his vision of “magnificent.” Even if it means snatching this course away from those who truly need it.

Rock Creek Park Golf: A Historic Renovation Project Halted in Its Tracks

Rock Creek Park Golf Course represents a particularly tragic case in this matter. Designed by William Flynn and opened in 1926, this nine-hole course is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is one of the oldest public courses in the country, nestled in the wooded Rock Creek Valley, offering a green haven in the heart of the city. The National Links Trust had enlisted the services of Gil Hanse, the renowned architect who designed the Olympic course for Rio 2016, to lead a comprehensive restoration of the site. Hanse had agreed to undertake this work pro bono, viewing the project as a contribution to the preservation of America’s golfing heritage. The plans included a new maintenance facility, a modern clubhouse, a driving range, and a putting course. The project had navigated the complex federal permitting process for five years, finally securing all necessary permits. In November 2025, the course was closed and construction began. Bulldozers were on site, foundations were poured, and excitement was palpable in Washington’s golf community. Then came the termination letter dated December 31.

The consequences were immediate and devastating. The National Links Trust ordered an immediate halt to all work. The general contractor is in the process of winding down operations, removing equipment, and securing the construction site. The course remains closed, in a state of semi-construction that could last for months, or even years. The millions of dollars already invested in the project—from private donations, grants, and the Trust’s own funds—are essentially lost. Gil Hanse, who had devoted hundreds of hours to designing this restoration, sees his work reduced to nothing. Community members who had financially supported the project feel betrayed. Rock Creek Park Golf was not simply a golf course; it was a community project, a collective effort to preserve a piece of history while creating an enhanced recreational space for future generations. The Trump administration has provided no explanation of what will become of Rock Creek Park. Will the course remain closed indefinitely? Will it be reopened in its pre-renovation state? Will it be part of a broader redevelopment plan? No one knows. This uncertainty is perhaps the cruelest part of the whole affair.

Langston Golf Course and the Legacy of Black American Golf

A course steeped in history and cultural significance

Langston Golf Course holds a unique place in the history of American golf. Opened in 1939, it was Washington’s first public golf course open to African Americans at a time when segregation was rampant in the capital. Named in honor of John Mercer Langston—a lawyer, educator, and the first African American elected to the Virginia House of Delegates—the course has become a symbol of resistance and progress. Black golf legends such as Lee Elder, Charlie Sifford, and Ted Rhodes have played on these fairways. The course served as a training ground for countless Black golfers who had no access to any other courses in the region. Even today, Langston upholds this tradition of accessibility and inclusion. The National Links Trust had planned a respectful renovation designed by Beau Welling, who has collaborated with Tiger Woods’ firm TGR Design on several projects. The goal was to modernize the facilities while preserving the course’s historic character and social mission. The project included improvements to the clubhouse, the driving range, and the practice areas, as well as a strategic redesign of the course to make it more playable for golfers of all skill levels.

But Langston represented much more than just a renovation project for the National Links Trust. It was the site of the Jack Vardaman Workforce Development Program, an initiative that has employed nearly two hundred Washington high school students during the summer months since 2020. This program teaches young people the business aspects of golf—course management, customer service, equipment maintenance—while instilling professional and life skills applicable far beyond the golf industry. For many of these teenagers, who come from disadvantaged neighborhoods in the capital, it was their first job and their first exposure to the professional world. The program offered not only a salary but also mentoring, networking opportunities, and an introduction to a sport traditionally perceived as elitist and inaccessible. Several participants went on to pursue careers in the golf industry or used this experience as a springboard to other opportunities. With the termination of the lease, the future of this program is now uncertain. The National Links Trust continues to operate it for the time being, but without the security of a long-term lease, it is becoming difficult to plan, raise funds, or ensure its long-term viability. For the young people who were counting on this program, this uncertainty is heartbreaking.

Langston. That name resonates differently when you know the history. When you know what this course represents. It’s not just a golf course. It’s a monument. A testament. A place where Black men and women were able to play at a time when almost every door was closed to them. And now we’re being told it isn’t being managed well enough? That the Trust hasn’t fulfilled its obligations? I think of those kids in the Vardaman program. Of their faces when they receive their first paycheck. Of their pride. And I wonder if anyone in this administration thought of them before signing that termination letter. Probably not.

The Impact on the Community and Employees

The termination of the lease directly affects hundreds of people whose livelihoods depend on these three golf courses. The National Links Trust employs approximately three hundred full-time and seasonal workers across its operations—golf course maintenance staff, clubhouse staff, golf instructors, managers, and administrative staff. Many of these employees have worked at these courses for decades, some since before the Trust took over in 2020. For them, these courses are not simply workplaces; they are communities and families. The uncertainty created by the lease termination is psychologically and financially devastating. Although the Trust has agreed to continue day-to-day operations temporarily, no one knows how long this situation will last. Employees live in constant fear of a sudden closure or a change in management that could eliminate their jobs. This anxiety affects not only the workers themselves, but also their families and the communities that depend on their income.

Beyond the direct employees, there are the thousands of regular golfers for whom these courses are an integral part of their lives. Retirees who play three times a week. Golf leagues that meet every Saturday morning. Families who come for lessons on Sunday afternoons. Students who work on their game after school. These people have invested not only money, but also time, emotional energy, and a sense of belonging in these spaces. The threat of redevelopment or closure represents a loss that goes far beyond mere access to a golf course. It is the loss of a community gathering place, an accessible green space in an increasingly dense and expensive city. Testimonials are pouring in on social media—stories of first birdies, memorable rounds with friends, and father-son moments on the fairways. These stories reveal the depth of the emotional connection people have with these courses. And that connection is now threatened by an administrative decision made without public consultation, without a comment period, and without apparent consideration for the voices of those who use and cherish these spaces.

The National Links Trust and Its Mission to Make Golf Accessible

An organization founded on the principles of inclusion and accessibility

The National Links Trust was founded by two Washington natives passionate about golf and course architecture—Mike McCartin and Will Smith. Their vision was simple yet ambitious: to restore Washington’s three public courses to their former glory while preserving and even improving their accessibility for golfers of all economic backgrounds. When they secured the 50-year lease in October 2020, at the end of Trump’s first term, it was the culmination of years of planning and advocacy. The Trust positioned itself as a steward of public lands, emphasizing community engagement, historic preservation, and accessibility rather than exclusivity or profit. Its business model relied on a delicate balance: generating enough revenue to fund necessary improvements while maintaining affordable rates. They established partnerships with several top golf architects—Tom Doak, Gil Hanse, Beau Welling—who agreed to work at reduced rates or pro bono out of respect for the Trust’s mission. They launched fundraising campaigns, sought grants, and engaged the golf community across the country.

The results speak for themselves. In five years, the National Links Trust has invested more than $8.5 million in capital improvements across the three courses. These investments include clubhouse renovations, irrigation system upgrades, repairs to greens and tees, maintenance equipment upgrades, and accessibility improvements for people with disabilities. The number of rounds played has more than doubled, rising from approximately 80,000 rounds per year before the Trust to more than 160,000 rounds in 2024. Revenue has increased proportionally, allowing the Trust to reinvest in facilities and community programs. All of this has been accomplished while keeping green fees well below the market average for public courses in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. An 18-hole round at East Potomac costs between $25 and $45 depending on the season and day of the week, compared to $60 to $100 at other public courses in the region. This affordability was at the heart of the Trust’s mission—to ensure that golf remains a sport accessible to everyone, not just the privileged few.

Eight and a half million dollars. Let that number sink in for a moment. Eight and a half million invested by a nonprofit organization in public courses. Not to get rich. Not to build an empire. But to serve a community. To preserve history. To give kids a chance to swing a club. And now they’re being told: “Sorry, that’s not enough. You’re in default.” In default of what, exactly? Of not having turned these courses into exorbitantly priced private clubs? Of not having excluded families who can’t afford a hundred dollars for eighteen holes? Is that what the default is?

The Default Charges and the Trust’s Response

On October 29, 2025, the Department of the Interior sent the National Links Trust a notice of default—a two-sentence letter that did not detail any specific violations nor propose a way to remedy the situation. This approach stands in stark contrast to the requirements of the fifty-year lease, which stipulates that the government must identify specific violations and give the operator time to correct them before declaring a breach. The notice was signed by William Doffermyre, the Interior Department’s solicitor, rather than by the National Park Service, which had signed the original lease. This direct involvement by the Interior Department, bypassing the NPS, raised questions about the political motivations behind the action. In the final termination letter dated December 31, the Department of the Interior provided further details, accusing the Trust of failing to complete major renovation projects within the forty-five-day timeframe stipulated in the lease and of failing to submit a satisfactory “remediation plan.” The letter also states that the Trust owes the government up to $8.8 million in unpaid rent.

The National Links Trust vigorously disputes these allegations. In its public statement, the organization asserts that it “fundamentally disagrees with the administration’s characterization” and maintains that it has “always had a productive and cooperative working relationship with the National Park Service.” Regarding the renovation projects, the Trust points out that the lease contains language stipulating that “timelines are general and subject to change due to compliance delays or other circumstances.” Federal permitting processes for projects on historic lands are notoriously complex and time-consuming, often taking years rather than months. The Rock Creek Park project, for example, required five years of navigating the permitting processes before work could begin. As for the allegedly unpaid rent, the Trust explains that the lease allows for rent to be offset by improvements made to the property, and that these offsets were approved by the National Park Service. Mike McCartin, co-founder of the Trust, told the Washington Post that the organization is exploring its legal options and seeking to maintain a dialogue with the administration to find a solution that preserves affordable public golf in Washington.

Trump and His Vision for Washington's Golf Courses

A President Obsessed with Golf and Architecture

Donald Trump owns sixteen golf properties around the world, ranging from championship courses in Scotland and Ireland to resort clubs in Florida and California. Golf is not merely a hobby for Trump; it is an integral part of his identity and his business empire. His courses are known for their luxurious aesthetics, impeccable maintenance standards, and premium prices. A typical Trump-branded course features perfectly manicured fairways, fast and true greens, artistically sculpted bunkers, and opulent clubhouses with high-end amenities. This approach to golf reflects Trump’s overall philosophy on real estate and development: big, luxurious, and bearing his brand. During his presidency, Trump played golf more than three hundred times, often on his own courses, generating millions of dollars in revenue for his companies while serving as free advertising for his properties. His love of golf is well documented, as is his desire to leave a lasting physical imprint on the landscapes he touches.

This obsession with golf and architecture partly explains his interest in Washington’s public courses. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal in December 2025, Trump stated, “If we do them, we’ll do them really beautifully.” This statement reveals his vision: to transform these municipal courses into something that meets his aesthetic standards and aligns with his personal brand. The meeting with Tom Fazio at the White House reinforces this impression. Fazio, who has designed several Trump courses, is known for creating spectacular courses that are expensive to build and maintain. His style emphasizes visual drama, bold features, and strategic challenges that appeal to experienced golfers. This is exactly the kind of golf that Trump enjoys and promotes. But it is also the kind of golf that requires high green fees to cover maintenance costs. Internal administration discussions have raised the possibility of hosting major professional events, such as a Ryder Cup, at East Potomac. Such an ambition would require a complete transformation of the course, with massive investments in infrastructure, spectator facilities, and broadcast equipment. The cost could easily reach tens of millions of dollars.

Trump wants to do things “magnificently.” Magnificently. That word haunts me. Because for Trump, magnificent means gold, marble, his name in giant letters. Magnificent means exclusive, expensive, inaccessible to ordinary people. But you know what’s truly magnificent? A twelve-year-old kid who shoots his first par on a public course. A retiree who can still afford to play three times a week. A family spending a Sunday together on the fairways without breaking the bank. That’s magnificent. But that’s not the kind of magnificent Trump is interested in.

The Disturbing Precedents of Transforming Public Spaces

The takeover of golf courses is part of a broader pattern of the Trump administration’s transformation of Washington’s public spaces and monuments. Since returning to power, the president has launched a series of architectural projects and renovations that have sparked controversy and concern among heritage advocates and residents of the capital. In September 2025, Trump announced his intention to build a Arc de Triomphe in Washington, telling Politico that he would begin construction “within the next two months.” This project, inspired by the Parisian monument, has been criticized as an attempt at self-glorification disguised as a national celebration. In December, Trump added his name to the Kennedy Center, the national cultural institution, sparking outrage among artists and patrons who view this move as an inappropriate politicization of a neutral cultural space. But the most controversial project remains the demolition of the East Wing of the White House to build a massive ballroom. This decision has shocked historians and architects, who consider the East Wing an integral part of the White House’s architectural heritage.

The soil and debris from this demolition were transported and dumped at East Potomac Golf Links, creating enormous piles of rubble along the ninth hole of the White Course. Tom Fazio justified this action by saying that Trump “needed a place to put the dirt, and the course could use it anyway.” This dismissive explanation ignores the fact that dumping construction debris on an active golf course without proper consultation constitutes a flagrant violation of public land management standards. Golfers playing at East Potomac must now navigate around these unsightly mounds, which obstruct views and disrupt play. The incident illustrates Trump’s approach to public spaces: they exist to serve his needs and vision, regardless of their current function or the people who use them. This mindset raises troubling questions about what might happen to the golf courses once they come under direct presidential control. Will they be transformed into extensions of the Trump brand? Will they become venues for private events for political allies and donors? Will they lose their character as accessible public courses?

The Legal and Political Implications of Termination

A Legally Questionable Termination Process

The way the Trump administration handled the lease termination raises serious legal questions. The 50-year lease between the National Park Service and the National Links Trust contains clear provisions regarding breaches and terminations. According to these provisions, the government must identify specific violations of the lease, notify the operator in writing, and grant a cure period during which the operator can correct the identified issues. Only after the operator fails to remedy the issues may the government proceed with termination. The October 29 notice of default did not meet any of these requirements. The two-sentence letter did not mention any specific violations, did not propose any remediation plan, and gave no indication of what the Trust needed to do to avoid termination. This approach appears to violate the terms of the lease itself. Furthermore, the direct involvement of the Department of the Interior—bypassing the National Park Service, which had signed the original lease—raises questions about the legal authority of this action. The NPS is the federal agency responsible for managing public lands, including Washington’s golf courses. The fact that the Interior Department’s solicitor signed the termination letter suggests high-level political intervention.

Several members of Congress have expressed concerns about the legality and fairness of the process. The Democratic representative from Washington, who serves on the House Oversight Committee, told the Washington Post that the default process “appears to deviate from the National Park Service’s lease requirements.” He called for an investigation into the motivations behind this action and whether proper procedures were followed. Public lands advocacy groups have also sounded the alarm, warning that this precedent could open the door to arbitrary terminations of other leases on federal lands. If the government can terminate a fifty-year lease without clear justification or due process, what prevents similar actions against other concession operators on public lands? The National Links Trust has indicated that it is exploring its legal options, which could include a lawsuit in federal court. A lawsuit could focus on several questions: Did the government follow the termination procedures stipulated in the lease? Are the allegations of default based on facts or on political motivations? Did the Trust receive a fair opportunity to remedy the alleged problems? The answers to these questions could have significant implications not only for Washington’s golf courses but for the management of public lands across the country.

There is something deeply troubling about the way this whole situation has unfolded. No dialogue. No negotiation. Just a two-sentence letter that essentially says, “You’re fired.” Is this how you treat a partner who has invested millions, who has served the community for five years, who has done exactly what was asked of them? No. That’s how you treat someone who’s in the way. Someone who’s occupying a space you want for yourself. And that should concern us all. Because if it can happen to a golf course, it can happen to anything.

The Political and Community Reaction

The termination of the lease sparked a wave of criticism from local elected officials, advocates for public golf, and Washington residents. The mayor of Washington, D.C., although he has no direct jurisdiction over federal lands, issued a statement expressing his “deep concern” about the future of public golf in the capital. Several city council members called for public hearings on the issue, demanding that the Trump administration explain its plans for the courses and guarantee that public access will be maintained. At the federal level, Democrats in Congress have been particularly vocal in their criticism. Washington’s representative in the House of Representatives called the termination a “blatant power grab” and vowed to fight to protect the interests of her constituents. Democratic senators have called on the Secretary of the Interior to testify before Congress regarding this decision and the criteria used to determine the Trust’s failure. Even some Republicans, who traditionally support Trump’s initiatives, have expressed reservations, acknowledging the importance of municipal courses to their constituents who play golf.

The golf community has also reacted strongly. National organizations such as the National Golf Course Owners Association have issued statements supporting the National Links Trust and expressing concerns about the future of municipal golf. Jay Karen, the association’s executive director, said: “The DNA of municipal courses is somewhat different from that of privately owned and operated courses, and very different from country clubs. Municipal courses are all focused on supporting the broadest possible access to the game, while preserving critical green spaces for perpetuity. ” Renowned golf architects who had worked with the Trust also spoke out. Tom Doak posted a statement on social media expressing his disappointment and frustration over the end of the East Potomac project. Gil Hanse shared photos of the Rock Creek Park construction site before work was halted, accompanied by a poignant message about the importance of preserving historic courses. On social media, the hashtag #SaveDCGolf emerged, with thousands of golfers sharing their personal stories and memories of the three courses. A petition on Change.org calling for the restoration of the Trust’s lease gathered more than fifty thousand signatures in just a few days.

The Uncertain Future of Public Golf in Washington

Possible Scenarios for the Three Courses

With the termination of the lease, several scenarios are possible for the future of Washington’s golf courses. The first—and most concerning for advocates of public golf—would be a complete transformation under Trump’s leadership, potentially involving Tom Fazio or another top-tier architect. This scenario could see East Potomac become a resort-style championship course, with significantly higher green fees and luxurious amenities. Rock Creek Park and Langston could undergo similar transformations, or be closed entirely if the administration decides to focus solely on East Potomac. A second scenario would involve the National Park Service resuming direct management of the courses, as was the case prior to 2020. However, the NPS has historically lacked the resources and expertise to effectively manage golf operations, which had led to the deterioration of the courses and the decision to seek a private operator in the first place. A return to NPS management could mean a return to the problems of the past: dilapidated facilities, poor maintenance, and a disappointing playing experience.

A third scenario—perhaps the most optimistic—would see the Trump administration negotiate a new lease with the National Links Trust or another similar nonprofit organization, with clarified terms and expectations. This scenario would preserve the mission of accessible public golf while addressing the administration’s concerns regarding improvements and management. However, given Trump’s rhetoric and his personal interest in the courses, this scenario seems unlikely. A fourth scenario would involve full privatization, with the courses sold or leased to a private commercial operator. This could generate revenue for the federal government but would almost certainly eliminate the courses’ public and accessible nature. Green fees would rise, community programs would be scaled back or eliminated, and the courses would essentially become semi-private clubs. For now, the National Links Trust continues to operate the courses on a day-to-day basis, but this situation is clearly temporary. The organization has suspended all long-term renovation projects and is operating in a state of constant uncertainty. Employees do not know how much longer they will have jobs. Golfers don’t know how much longer they’ll be able to keep playing. The community waits anxiously to see which direction the Trump administration will take.

Uncertainty. That may be the cruelest part of it all. Not knowing what’s going to happen. Living in this limbo where anything is possible and nothing is guaranteed. Employees wondering if they’ll still have a job next month. Golfers unsure if they’ll still be able to afford to play next year. The kids in the Vardaman program who don’t know if they’ll have a job this summer. This uncertainty is a form of cruelty. And it’s deliberate. Because uncertainty makes people docile, resigned. It erodes resistance. It makes people accept the unacceptable.

Lessons for Municipal Golf Across America

The Washington golf courses case has implications that extend far beyond the nation’s capital. Across the United States, hundreds of municipal courses face similar challenges: aging facilities, tight budgets, pressure to generate more revenue, and threats of privatization or closure. The model of the National Links Trust—a nonprofit organization that takes out a long-term lease to restore and manage public courses—had been viewed with interest by other cities and communities facing similar situations. The Trust’s apparent success in Washington, with a doubling of rounds played and millions invested in improvements, seemed to validate this approach. But the abrupt termination of the lease sends a chilling message: even with success, even with community investment, even with popular support, a municipal course can be snatched away from its managers if more powerful political or commercial interests decide they want control. This lesson has not been lost on advocates for public golf across the country.

The case also highlights the vulnerability of courses located on federal land. Unlike municipal courses owned and managed by local governments, courses on federal land are subject to the vagaries of national politics and the shifting priorities of administrations. What is considered an appropriate use of public land under one administration may be called into question under another. Golf courses, in particular, are often perceived as “frivolous” uses of public land by those who do not play golf, making them vulnerable to rezoning efforts. Yet, as advocates point out, municipal golf courses serve important functions beyond the game itself: they preserve green spaces in urban environments, provide habitats for wildlife, offer affordable recreational opportunities, and create local jobs. The loss of these spaces would represent a significant decline in the quality of urban life. The Washington case could catalyze a national movement to better protect municipal golf courses, perhaps through legislation that establishes clear standards for the management and termination of leases, or that gives local communities more control over courses located on federal land within their jurisdictions.

Golf as a Democratic Space Under Threat

The History of Public Golf in America

Golf has long been perceived as an elitist sport, reserved for the wealthy and privileged. This perception is not entirely unfounded—private country clubs, with their exorbitant membership fees and waiting lists stretching back several years, have historically dominated the American golf landscape. But alongside this elitist tradition lies another story: that of municipal and public golf. The first public golf courses in the United States were established in the early 20th century, driven by a progressive vision of golf as a recreational activity accessible to everyone, regardless of social class or wealth. Cities such as Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco invested in the construction of municipal courses, viewing them as essential public amenities on par with parks, libraries, and swimming pools. These courses democratized golf, allowing workers, immigrants, and middle-class families to discover and play the sport. They also played a crucial role in the racial integration of golf, often providing the only spaces where Black golfers could play during an era of widespread segregation.

Over the decades, municipal courses have become community institutions—places where generations of families have learned the game, where friendships have been formed, and where memories have been made. They have produced some of the greatest golfers in history—players who would never have had access to the sport without these affordable public courses. But since the 1990s, American municipal golf has faced growing challenges. Participation in golf has stagnated and then declined, reducing revenue. Maintenance costs have risen, creating budget deficits. Many cities, facing fiscal constraints, have cut back on investments in their golf courses, leading to a deterioration of facilities. Some courses have been closed and converted to other uses—real estate development, non-golf parks, or alternative sports facilities. Others have been privatized, sold to commercial operators who have raised prices and reduced accessibility. The National Links Trust model represented an innovative attempt to save municipal golf by combining nonprofit management with professional expertise and community engagement. Its apparent failure in Washington sends a discouraging message about the viability of such approaches.

Public golf is a radical idea when you really think about it. The idea that this sport, historically reserved for the elite, should be accessible to everyone. That anyone, regardless of their bank account, should be able to walk down a fairway, feel the grass beneath their feet, and attempt that impossible drive. It’s a democratic idea. An American idea, even. And now, we’re witnessing its dismantling. Not through arguments or debates. But through termination letters and piles of rubble dumped on the greens. This is how democratic ideas die. Not in a great battle. But in the silence of an administrative decision.

The Issues of Accessibility and Equity

Affordability is just one aspect of the importance of municipal courses. There’s also geographic accessibility—having courses located in or near urban centers, accessible by public transit, without the need for long drives. The three courses in Washington excel in this regard. East Potomac is just a few minutes by metro from downtown. Langston is easily accessible from several neighborhoods across the city. Rock Creek Park is literally located within an urban park. This proximity is crucial for residents without cars, for young people who rely on their parents for transportation, and for older adults who can no longer drive long distances. If these parks become too expensive or are transformed into facilities requiring reservations made well in advance, this geographic accessibility becomes meaningless. There is also cultural accessibility—creating environments where people from all walks of life feel welcome and at ease. Municipal courses, at their best, are inclusive spaces where diversity is celebrated rather than merely tolerated. The Jack Vardaman program at Langston exemplifies this approach, actively introducing young people from underrepresented communities to golf and the golf industry.

Equity issues are particularly acute in the context of Washington, a city with a complex history of racial segregation and economic inequality. Neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River—which are predominantly Black and low-income—have historically had less access to quality recreational facilities. Langston Golf Course, located near these neighborhoods, has served as a vital resource for these communities. The threat of Langston’s redevelopment or closure is therefore seen not only as the loss of a golf course, but as yet another instance of environmental and recreational injustice. Advocates point out that if the Trump administration succeeds in transforming these courses into high-end facilities, the residents most affected will be those with the least political and economic power to resist. Affluent golfers will find other places to play—private clubs in the suburbs, golf resorts in neighboring states. But for working-class families, for young people in disadvantaged neighborhoods, and for retirees on fixed incomes, the loss of these affordable municipal courses could mean the end of their participation in golf. This equity consideration should be at the heart of any decision regarding the future of these courses, but it seems largely absent from the administration’s deliberations.

Voices from the golf community

Testimonials and Mobilization by Local Golfers

On social media and golf forums, reactions to the lease termination have been passionate and almost unanimously critical of the Trump administration. Golfers are sharing photos of their memorable rounds on the three courses, accompanied by personal stories about what these places mean to them. One Reddit user wrote: “I learned to play golf at East Potomac with my grandfather in the 1980s. I took my own children there. The idea that this course could become inaccessible to families like mine breaks my heart.” Another shared: “Langston isn’t just a golf course. It’s a monument to the struggle for equality. Losing it or seeing it turned into a private club would be a betrayal of its legacy.” These testimonials reveal the depth of the emotional connection people have with these courses. They aren’t simply interchangeable recreational facilities; they are places steeped in memory, history, and personal significance. The threat of their transformation or loss is experienced as a kind of anticipated grief.

This emotion has translated into action. Public golf advocacy groups have formed, organizing community meetings, launching letter-writing campaigns to elected officials, and planning protests. A coalition called “Save DC Golf” has emerged, bringing together golfers, local residents, environmental advocates, and historians. The group organized a protest outside the Department of the Interior, with hundreds of participants holding signs and chanting slogans in support of public golf. Prominent figures from the golf world also lent their voices to the cause. Professional golfers who grew up playing on municipal courses issued statements of support. Golf commentators have dedicated segments of their shows to discussing the issue. The popular podcast “No Laying Up” conducted an in-depth interview with Mike McCartin, co-founder of the National Links Trust, who provided details on the situation and called for community support. This mobilization demonstrates that public golf has passionate advocates willing to fight for its preservation. The question is whether this passion and mobilization will be enough to influence the decisions of an administration that seems determined to pursue its own vision.

There is something powerful about these voices. These stories of grandfathers and grandchildren, of first rounds and last rounds, of memories etched into the grass and sand. They remind us that golf courses are not just real estate assets or development opportunities. They are living places. Places where history is made and passed down. And when these places are threatened, it’s not just the grass and bunkers that are at risk. Communities, traditions, and the bonds between generations are at stake. That should matter. It should tip the scales. But does it matter to those who make the decisions? I’d like to believe so. But I’m not sure.

The Role of Golf Architects and Professionals

The professional golf community—architects, agronomists, course managers—has also reacted with concern to the situation in Washington. These professionals understand the complexity and challenges of managing municipal courses, and many admired the work of the National Links Trust. Tom Doak, the architect who was set to restore East Potomac, has been particularly vocal. In a series of social media posts, he expressed his frustration at the project’s cancellation and his concern about the course’s future. “East Potomac had the potential to be one of the best public courses in the country,” he wrote. “Walter Travis’s original design was brilliant, and we had a plan to restore it to its former glory while making it more playable for modern golfers. Now, all that work is lost.” Gil Hanse, whose Rock Creek Park restoration project was halted midway through construction, shared similar sentiments. “Working on Rock Creek was an honor,” he said. “It’s a historic course that deserved to be preserved and improved. Seeing it abandoned halfway through is heartbreaking.”

These architects aren’t simply disappointed for professional reasons. They are passionate advocates for public golf and the preservation of historic courses. Their willingness to work at reduced rates or pro bono on the Washington projects reflected that commitment. Their frustration over the lease termination is therefore both personal and philosophical. Other golf professionals have highlighted the broader implications of this case for the industry. If even a well-managed, community-supported project like that of the National Links Trust can be arbitrarily terminated, what message does that send to other organizations and individuals considering getting involved in the restoration of municipal courses? Why invest time, money, and energy in such projects if the government can simply take back control at any time? This uncertainty could act as a deterrent to future efforts to preserve public golf, not only in Washington but across the country. Golf industry professionals are calling for greater transparency and stability in the management of courses on federal land, with clear and fair processes for lease terminations and protections for operators who fulfill their obligations.

Environmental and Heritage Aspects

Golf Courses as Urban Green Spaces

Beyond their recreational function, municipal golf courses play an important role as green spaces in urban environments. Washington’s three golf courses collectively comprise several hundred acres of open land, mature trees, and wildlife habitat in the heart of a dense city. East Potomac, in particular, provides a green corridor along the Potomac River that serves as habitat for migratory birds, mammals, and aquatic species. Rock Creek Park Golf is located within one of the nation’s largest urban parks, contributing to the forest ecosystem of the Rock Creek Valley. These spaces provide important ecosystem services: carbon sequestration, stormwater filtration, mitigation of the urban heat island effect, and preservation of biodiversity. Transforming these lands into more intensively developed facilities could compromise these environmental functions. Larger clubhouses, expanded parking lots, and more intensive irrigation systems—all of these potential “improvements” could reduce the ecological value of the sites.

Environmental advocates have expressed concerns about the potential impact of a major redevelopment of the courses. Organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society have issued statements emphasizing the importance of preserving the open and natural character of these spaces. They have also pointed out that the National Links Trust has adopted sustainable management practices, reducing the use of pesticides and fertilizers, improving water management, and creating habitat areas for wildlife. The Trust’s 2024 sustainability report documents these efforts, showing significant reductions in the courses’ environmental footprint. A transformation under the Trump administration—with its emphasis on luxurious aesthetics and high maintenance standards—could reverse this progress. Resort-style courses generally require higher levels of chemical inputs to maintain the impeccable playing conditions expected by high-end golfers. They also use more water for irrigation, a particularly concerning issue in the context of climate change and increasingly frequent droughts. The environmental aspect of this issue has received less attention than questions of accessibility and equity, but it is just as important for the long-term future of these spaces.

We sometimes forget that golf courses are green lungs in our cities. Not perfect, certainly. But alive. Breathing. I’ve seen deer in East Potomac at sunrise. Herons at Rock Creek. Hawks soaring over Langston. These creatures don’t care about green fees or politics. They just need space. Grass. Trees. And if we transform these courses into something more “magnificent,” more manicured, more… Trump-like, what happens to these creatures? Where do they go? We never ask these questions. But we should.

Preserving Architectural and Historical Heritage

Washington’s three golf courses have significant heritage value that transcends their recreational function. Rock Creek Park Golf, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is recognized as one of the oldest public courses in the country and an important example of William Flynn-era golf architecture. East Potomac, with its Walter Travis design, represents a formative period in the evolution of American golf. Langston, as mentioned earlier, holds crucial historical significance in the history of Black American golf. These courses are not merely sports facilities; they are historical documents, physical testaments to the evolution of golf and American society. Their preservation requires a sensitive approach that respects their historical integrity while allowing for the improvements necessary to make them viable in the 21st century. This was precisely the approach taken by the National Links Trust and its partner architects. The restoration plans sought to restore the original design features while modernizing the infrastructure and improving playability.

Golf historians and heritage advocates fear that a Trump-led transformation would fail to respect this historical sensitivity. Trump’s approach to development generally prioritizes the new and the spectacular over preservation and restoration. His own golf courses, though often located on historic sites, tend to erase rather than celebrate existing history. At Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, for example, Trump built a family mausoleum on the course, transforming a recreational space into a personal monument. At Trump International Golf Links in Scotland, his development was criticized for damaging a protected dune system. These precedents do little to reassure those concerned with the heritage preservation of the Washington courses. There are also concerns regarding nomenclature and significance. If the courses are renamed—“Washington National Golf Course” or, worse, something incorporating the Trump name—it erases their existing history and identity. Langston, in particular, derives its name and significance from John Mercer Langston, and any name change would be perceived as an affront to his legacy. Heritage advocates are calling for any future decisions regarding these courses to involve historians, preservation architects, and representatives from the communities that have a historical connection to these spaces.

Conclusion: A Battle for the Soul of American Public Golf

What’s Really at Stake in This Battle

The issue of Washington’s golf courses goes far beyond the question of three courses in the nation’s capital. It represents a defining moment in the broader struggle for the future of public golf in America. On one side is a vision of golf as an accessible sport, as a democratic space where people from all walks of life can come together, and as a community resource that enriches urban life. On the other side is a vision of golf as a luxury product, a status symbol, and an opportunity for commercial development. These two visions have coexisted in American golf for over a century, but they are increasingly at odds as economic and political pressures intensify. The termination of the National Links Trust’s lease represents a victory for the elitist vision of golf—a signal that even well-managed, community-supported public courses are not immune to takeover by more powerful interests. If this action succeeds in Washington, it could inspire similar efforts elsewhere, creating a domino effect that threatens municipal courses across the country.

But this case also concerns something more fundamental than golf. It concerns the nature of public spaces in a democracy, the right of communities to control their own recreational resources, and the limits of executive power over federal lands. When a president can arbitrarily terminate a fifty-year lease without clear justification or due process, simply because he has a different vision for the space, it raises troubling questions about governance and accountability. When the interests of a single powerful individual can override the needs and desires of an entire community, it calls into question fundamental democratic principles. Washington’s golf courses have unwittingly become a battleground in these broader struggles. Their future will say a great deal about the kind of society we are and the kind we want to be. Do we value accessibility or exclusivity? Community or commerce? History or development? Democracy or unilateral executive power? The answers to these questions will be played out on the fairways of East Potomac, in the woods of Rock Creek Park, and on the historic greens of Langston.

I often think about what we’re leaving behind. Not just us as individuals, but us as a collective. What kind of society are we building? What values are we passing on? And when I look at this issue of Washington’s golf courses, I see an answer that pains me. We’re building a society where everything has a price, where nothing is sacred, where power and money always trump community and history. Is that what our legacy is? Is that what we want to leave our children? Golf courses turned into private clubs? Privatized public spaces? Dispossessed communities? I refuse to believe this is inevitable. I refuse to believe we can’t fight back. But we must fight. Now. Before it’s too late.

The Call to Action and Enduring Hope

Despite the gravity of the situation, the National Links Trust and its supporters refuse to give up. In its public statement, the organization expressed that it remains “stubbornly optimistic that a path forward can be found that preserves affordable and accessible public golf in the nation’s capital for generations to come.” This determination is shared by the thousands of golfers, residents, and advocates who have rallied around this cause. They are organizing, advocating, lobbying their elected officials, and raising public awareness. They believe that if enough voices are heard, if enough pressure is applied, the Trump administration might reconsider or at least modify its plans. This belief is not naive; it is based on the understanding that political decisions—even those that seem final—can be influenced by public opinion and community mobilization. The history of public golf in the United States is full of examples of courses saved from closure or privatization thanks to the efforts of determined advocates. Washington could become another such example.

For those who want to support this cause, there are several courses of action. Contact your representatives in Congress and demand hearings on the lease termination. Sign online petitions calling for the restoration of the National Links Trust’s lease. Donate to the organization to support its legal and advocacy efforts. Share personal stories on social media to humanize the issue and show what these courses mean to real people. Participate in protests and community meetings. Write letters to the editors of local and national newspapers. Every action, no matter how small, helps build the pressure needed to bring about change. And beyond Washington, this case should serve as a wake-up call for public golf advocates everywhere. It’s time to recognize that municipal courses are under threat and require active defense. It’s time to build stronger coalitions, develop more effective advocacy strategies, and make public golf a political priority. The future of accessible golf in America depends on our willingness to fight for it. Washington is the current battleground, but it won’t be the last. Let’s be ready.

Sources

Primary sources

Politico, Aaron Pellish, “Trump loves golf. His administration is now eyeing an overhaul of Washington’s courses,” December 31, 2025. The Washington Post, Rick Maese, “Future of D.C. golf courses uncertain as Trump administration terminates lease,” December 31, 2025. Golf News Net, Ryan Ballengee, “Trump administration terminates National Links Trust’s 50-year lease to operate D.C. public golf courses,” December 31, 2025. National Links Trust, “Statement on lease termination,” December 31, 2025. The Wall Street Journal, interview with Donald Trump on Washington’s golf courses, December 2025.

Secondary Sources

The Hill, Dominick Mastrangelo, “Trump’s attempted takeover of D.C. golf courses sets off controversy,” December 22, 2025. The Washington Post, Rick Maese, “Lawmakers criticize Trump’s bid to take over D.C. golf courses,” December 18, 2025. Alternet, Sarah K. Burris, “Trump’s golf course takeover could disrupt Marine Corps marathon and cherry blossoms,” December 18, 2025. Golf.com, interview with Tom Fazio on golf course projects in Washington, 2025. No Laying Up Podcast, interview with Mike McCartin of the National Links Trust, December 21, 2025. Golfweek USA Today, “National Links Trust served notice of default by Trump administration,” December 15, 2025.

This content was created with the help of AI.

Commentaires

0 0 votes

Article Rating