Kevin Griess – Superintendent, National Mall and Memorial Parks
Trump Administration Officials

Kevin Griess – Superintendent, National Mall and Memorial Parks

Skip to main content
Table of Contents
< All Topics
Print

Kevin Griess – Superintendent, National Mall and Memorial Parks

Posted
Updated
ByCitizen Analyst
0 out of 5 stars
5 Stars 0%
4 Stars 0%
3 Stars 0%
2 Stars 0%
1 Stars 0%

Category: National Park Service — Career Federal Official Role: Superintendent of National Mall and Memorial Parks (NAMA), the National Park Service unit that includes East Potomac Park and East Potomac Golf Course. He is the NPS field official whose sworn declarations and live courtroom testimony have been the government’s central account of tree-removal work at the course President Trump wants rebuilt as a championship venue — testimony that, at an October 2026 emergency hearing, a federal judge found undercut the government’s own notice to the court and contributed to her granting a temporary restraining order. Priority: P2 (documented, not individually criminal role — he executes and attests to site work the plaintiffs allege is part of a Trump-directed redevelopment, while the agency maintains that work is separate from any redesign)

Role

SourceNational Park Service press release (Source 1); DC Preservation League v. Department of Interior, No. 1:26-cv-00477-ACR (D.D.C.), Dkt. 48-1 ¶¶ 3–4 (Source 14).Griess oversees roughly 1,000 acres of National Park Service land in Washington, D.C. — the Mall’s monuments and memorials, the Tidal Basin and its cherry trees, and East Potomac Park — with an annual budget of about $38 million, more than 200 employees and 3,000 volunteers. He reports to Jennifer Nersesian, Regional Director of the National Capital Region.

Since the National Links Trust’s lease was terminated at the end of 2025, Griess has held direct responsibility for maintenance and repair at East Potomac Golf Course. In his own words to the court: “With no valid lease in place for the East Potomac Golf Course, responsibility for maintenance and repairs became my responsibility.” That responsibility puts him at the point where the administration’s stated plans for the course meet physical work on it. Court record: Dkt. 48-1 ¶ 9 (Source 14).

Basis for Inclusion Subject classification: Public Official — Career Federal Civil Servant (National Park Service superintendent; not an elected, presidentially appointed or Senate-confirmed position) Role at time of documented conduct: Superintendent, National Mall and Memorial Parks, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior (late 2024–present) This profile documents conduct taken in Griess’s official capacity: sworn declarations filed on the agency’s behalf in federal court, and operational decisions at East Potomac Golf Course that he made or directed. It does not document private conduct. Because superintendent is a career, non-Senate-confirmed position, this profile also applies Anchor E of the private-citizen inclusion framework (use of a documented official, non-elected capacity in the conduct at issue) out of caution. What is not the basis for inclusion: Griess is not a defendant in the litigation, is not named in the operative complaint, and no court has found any statement of his to be inaccurate. The allegations summarized below are made against the Department of the Interior, the National Park Service, Secretary Doug Burgum and NPS Comptroller Jessica Bowron. Griess is profiled because his sworn statements and site decisions are the operative record of what NPS is doing at the course. Protected speech note: Griess’s statements documented here are sworn representations to a court and official agency positions, recorded as such. Where plaintiffs dispute them, the dispute is identified as a dispute, not resolved by this profile.

Background

SourceDkt. 48-1 ¶ 1 (Source 14); LinkedIn self-reported career history (Source 3); NPS press release (Source 1).Griess holds a PhD and an MPA and is a U.S. Army veteran. Before NPS, he spent more than two decades in Army installation management, most recently as Deputy Garrison Commander at Fort Bragg, North Carolina — which he describes as “a military City Manager, responsible for all municipal operations for a military city of 135,000.” He also served as a European liaison officer (2016–2017) and in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment (2014–2015), and is a graduate of the Interior Department’s Senior Executive Service Development Program.

SourceE&E News (Source 2); NPS press release (Source 1).NPS named him superintendent in late 2024, succeeding Jeff Reinbold, who left to lead the National Park Foundation. His two declarations give different start months — November 2024 (Dkt. 48-1 ¶ 1) and December 2024 (Dkt. 74-1 ¶ 1); NPS announced he would begin in early December. Either way, he took the post before President Trump’s second inauguration and is a career appointee, not a political one.

The Trump Conduct at Issue — What the Court Record Alleges

This section summarizes the conduct the plaintiffs allege in DC Preservation League v. Department of Interior, drawn from the filings themselves. These are allegations against the agency and its leadership, contested by the government, and unresolved on the merits as of October 14, 2026 — though the court has since granted a temporary restraining order, detailed in item 7 below, based on a preliminary finding that NPS likely violated NEPA in a second, larger October 2026 tree removal. Where the government has answered a point, its answer is stated.

1. A presidential preference turned into an agency plan

Plaintiffs allege that on or about August 1, 2025, Secretary Burgum and Interior Solicitor William Doffermyre met with President Trump to discuss abandoning Walter J. Travis’s historic design and replacing it with a championship-style course built to attract the Ryder Cup and the U.S. Open, and that Interior leadership proposed calling it “Washington National Golf Course.” The amended complaint frames the project as part of Trump’s effort “to remake the public spaces of Washington, D.C., in his image,” of a piece with the championship courses he owns elsewhere. Court record: Am. & Suppl. Compl., Dkt. 72-1 ¶¶ 9–10, 74–75 (Source 15) — the meeting allegation rests on secondary reporting the complaint cites, not on a government document.

Trump’s own public statements are in the record: on January 11, 2026, aboard Air Force One, asked whether he would renovate East Potomac, he said, “Yeah, we’re gonna make it a beautiful, world-class, U.S. Open-caliber course. Ideally, we’re gonna have major tournaments there.” On June 28, 2026, he toured the course with Burgum and golf architect Tom Fazio, then posted on Truth Social that “[w]ork on the new Course, which will go quickly, will begin on September 1st,” and that it would be able to host the U.S. Open, the Ryder Cup and the PGA Championship. Court record: Dkt. 72-1 ¶¶ 98, 100; Pls.’ Notice, Dkt. 58 (Source 16).

Burgum then made it agency policy in public. On May 8, 2026, he announced that NPS “will renovate East Potomac Golf Links” into “a top-tier 18-hole championship golf course capable of hosting pre-eminent tournament golf”; on May 14 he “unveil[ed] the design … from Fazio Design.” Court record: Pls.’ Notices, Dkt. 49, Dkt. 50 (Source 17).

The government’s answer: NPS has not made a final decision on any redesign. Asked by the court whether Burgum or other senior officials gave NPS directives after Trump’s September 1 post, the government answered “No,” but disclosed that, before that post, “NPS received guidance from the Secretary of the Interior that NPS should pursue managing and executing a renovation of East Potomac Golf Course under its own authority.” It confirmed the renderings Trump reviewed were created by Fazio Design, and that the officials who accompanied Trump on the site visit were Burgum, Deputy Chief of Staff Gregory Wischer and NPS Deputy Director Frank Lands. Griess is not on that list. Court record: Defs.’ Resp. to July 6 Order, Dkt. 63 (Source 18).

2. White House demolition debris dumped on the course

Plaintiffs allege the redevelopment began with the East Wing. Burgum proposed dumping the debris from the October 2025 East Wing demolition onto the golf course for later use as fill; the complaint quotes Wall Street Journal reporting that Trump “thought the idea was brilliant,” and Fazio saying Trump “said he needed a place to put the dirt, and the [East Potomac] course could use it anyhow.” NPS approved the dumping on October 16, 2025, through a categorical exclusion from NEPA review that called the material “clean fill” to be “tested and verified as clean prior to placement” and stated there would be no “new construction or a change in land use.” Dumping began October 20, 2025; plaintiffs allege stockpile sampling did not begin until October 28. The pile grew to about 37,000 cubic yards, roughly 25 percent above NPS’s original estimate. Court record: Dkt. 72-1 ¶¶ 11–12, 76–83 (Source 15); Pls.’ Emergency Mem., Dkt. 47-1 at 5–9 (Source 19).

Plaintiffs allege the agency’s own contractor’s results show lead, arsenic, mercury and benzo(a)pyrene above NPS ecological and EPA residential screening levels — lead up to 425 times the ecological screening value — and that dumping continued for months after the results arrived. The government’s answer: the soil was screened at the White House by Clark Construction beginning October 17, 2025, and the contractor’s Final Sampling Report found “limited risk to human receptors from the stockpile … based on the current and likely future use of the site.” NPS “continues to stand behind its assessment that the soil is suitable for beneficial reuse.” Court record: Dkt. 72-1 ¶¶ 84–91; Dkt. 63 at 3; Defs.’ Second Notice of Testing Results, Dkt. 55 (Source 18, 20).

3. Removing the nonprofit operator bound to preserve the historic design

NPS issued the National Links Trust a notice of default on October 29, 2025, nine days after dumping began, and terminated its lease at the end of December 2025. Plaintiffs allege the termination was “a necessary step” because the lease committed the operator to “the thorough restoration of the once-celebrated Walter Travis design.” Griess’s declaration attributes the termination to default and catalogs deferred maintenance he says the operator left undone. Court record: Dkt. 72-1 ¶¶ 13, 97 (Source 15); Dkt. 48-1 ¶¶ 8–10, 12–18 (Source 14).

4. Anonymous private money for the redesign, raised by Trump’s fundraiser

On May 3, 2026, plaintiffs filed an 11-page “Pledge Agreement” from The National Garden of American Heroes Foundation — a 2026 entity seeking 501(c)(3) status — stating that the Foundation “will lead the comprehensive redevelopment and restoration of East Potomac Park Golf Course.” Its renderings are captioned “East Potomac Park with a Championship Golf Course.” It asks donors for a “binding commitment of payment” enforceable against their estates, offers anonymity, and directs questions to Meredith O’Rourke, whom plaintiffs identify as head of the 2024 Trump campaign’s fundraising team. Plaintiffs allege the clubhouse in the renderings resembles those at Trump National Bedminster, Hudson Valley and Charlotte. Court record: Dkt. 47-1 at 3–5; Pledge Agreement, Dkt. 47-2 (Source 19).

Judge Reyes ordered the government to begin compiling communications about the course between the agency and the Foundation (including O’Rourke), the agency and the White House, and the agency and the National Links Trust, and to be ready to say whether the government had any agreement with the Foundation. Court record: Minute Order, May 4, 2026 (Source 13).

5. Site work timed to the President’s September 1 date

Plaintiffs allege that as Trump’s September 1 date approached, NPS crews felled about 150 trees, including at least one of the park’s Japanese cherry trees, surveyed the course, removed a fence and staged an excavator and Bobcats nearby; and that by mid-September NPS had listed a forecast “construction” contract and awarded a compliance-support contract for the redesign. Plaintiff Dave Roberts declared he watched a crew, supervised by someone in an NPS uniform, cut down the cherry tree by the Blue Course’s 14th green on August 18 while golfers waited in the fairway. When plaintiffs asked, government counsel called the work “routine” maintenance. Court record: Dkt. 72-1 ¶¶ 14, 101 (Source 15); Pls.’ Notice, Dkt. 69; Second Roberts Decl., Dkt. 69-1 ¶¶ 4–5; Krumpos Decl., Dkt. 69-2 (Source 21). The government’s answer: tree removal, fence removal and surveying are “ordinary deferred maintenance,” and the contract listing is a non-binding GSA forecast. Court record: Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Summ. J., Dkt. 75-1 at 18 & n.8 (Source 22). A much larger round of removal followed in October 2026; see item 7 below.

6. Splitting one project into pieces to avoid review

The through-line of the plaintiffs’ case is that the debris dumping, the lease termination, the tree removal and the redesign are one decision — the “Washington National plan” — carried out in segments, each labeled maintenance or a separate action so that none triggers full NEPA and historic-preservation review before the course is irreversibly changed. Their requested relief includes an order “[e]njoining Defendants from segmenting the challenged action into discrete components for purposes of avoiding NEPA or NHPA review.” The amended complaint brings 11 Administrative Procedure Act counts under NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act, the NPS Organic Act and the park’s 1897 founding statute, the federal bar on erecting structures on park land (40 U.S.C. § 8106), and the restriction on solid-waste disposal in national parks (54 U.S.C. § 100903; 36 C.F.R. § 6.1). Court record: Dkt. 72-1, Counts 1–11 and Prayer for Relief ¶ 2(e) (Source 15).

7. October 2026: a second, larger tree removal, and a judicial finding of likely NEPA violation

Building on the August 2026 episode above, NPS removed approximately 430 more trees at East Potomac Golf Course beginning October 10, 2026, under a Tree Management Plan Griess submitted to NPS leadership on October 5 and Acting NPS Director Jessica Bowron approved on October 6 — the same day Deputy Chief of Staff Gregory Wischer separately directed NPS Deputy Director Frank Lands, in a meeting agency counsel attended, to implement the plan “as soon as practical.” The government gave plaintiffs and the court no notice of the plan until 4:55 p.m. on Friday, October 9, announcing it would remove “up to 529 trees” in total. Plaintiffs moved for an emergency temporary restraining order on October 11; the court barred further removal pending a hearing, heard sworn testimony from Griess and Frank Lands on October 12 and 13, and on October 13, 2026 granted the TRO — finding plaintiffs likely to succeed on their NEPA claim and that “[t]here is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.” The order bars further tree felling through October 26, 2026, and requires the government to give the court and plaintiffs three business days’ written notice before any further irreversible change to the course through that date. The court separately ordered Gregory Wischer and Jessica Bowron to appear and testify at a continued evidentiary hearing on October 19, 2026. Griess’s own role in this episode — his declaration, his live testimony, and his signed Categorical Exclusion certifications — is detailed in Documented Actions items 5 and 6 below.

SourceWUSA9 (Source 24); POLITICO (Source 25); CBS News (Source 26); PBS NewsHour/AP (Source 27); ABC News (Source 28); NPR (Source 29).Court record: Dkt. 76 (Pls.’ Emergency Mot. for TRO, Oct. 11, 2026) (Source 30); Minute Orders and Minute Entry, Oct. 12, 2026 (Source 33); Dkt. 79 (Mem. Op. granting TRO, Oct. 13, 2026) (Source 34).

Documented Actions

Each of the following is Griess’s own conduct in the record. Read against the allegations above, his declarations are the factual basis for the government’s position that each step is maintenance, separate from the redesign.

1. May 4, 2026 declaration: maintenance under Trump’s beautification order, and a closure he says is his call

Evidence: On Friday, May 1, 2026, NOTUS reported that the administration would close the course at the end of Sunday, May 3 and begin construction and tree-clearing on Monday, May 4. That same Friday, Griess ordered NAMA’s Chief of Maintenance to conduct a condition assessment of the course. Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion on May 3; Judge Reyes ordered the government to explain by 7:30 a.m. on May 4 “what, if any, work has taken place,” and required a client representative to appear.

Griess’s declaration, signed just after midnight on May 4, became the government’s answer. In it he:

  • grounded NPS’s work at the course in Executive Order 14252, Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful, and Secretarial Order 3428, which implements it — the President’s D.C. beautification program (¶¶ 5–7);
  • stated that he asked for the May 1 assessment “[i]n light of the Presidential and Secretarial Orders to make D.C. Safe and Beautiful,” and to open more space for the Semiquincentennial Fourth of July (¶ 11);
  • reported that every facility assessed except the trash cans was in “poor or critical condition,” with photographs (¶¶ 12–18);
  • stated that a decision to close all or part of the course “is within my authority under 36 CFR § 1.5” and had not yet been made (¶ 23);
  • stated that “[a]t present, no tree removal is planned except for maintenance that would address dead or dying trees or tree limbs that pose a hazard to the public, or to invasive tree species” (¶ 22); and
  • stated that “[t]his deferred maintenance is separate and apart from any renovation or redesign of East Potomac Golf Course” (¶ 24).

Court record: Decl. of Dr. Kevin Griess, Dkt. 48-1, filed May 4, 2026 (Source 14); Defs.’ Resp. to Emergency Mot., Dkt. 48 (Source 14); Minute Order, May 3, 2026 (Source 13).

Pattern: The superintendent’s maintenance authority, invoked under a presidential executive order, supplies the legal frame for site work at a course the President has said he will rebuild.

2. Court-ordered appearance; communications ordered produced

Evidence: On the morning of May 4, Judge Reyes ordered the government “to ensure the attendance at this mornings status conference of Kevin Griess” and to produce “the communications between Mr. Griess and NAMA’s Chief of Maintenance (referenced in paragraph 12 of his declaration).” Reporting from the hearing records Griess telling the court he was not aware of any closure order — “I didn’t order any signs put up. I can’t attest to those signs or who may have put them up. There’s been no closure order” — and that he would check with maintenance staff. Judge Reyes warned of “serious consequences” if major construction began without notice. She deferred ruling on the preliminary-injunction motion the next day. Four days later, Burgum announced the championship renovation (Dkt. 49).

SourceABC News (Source 11); The Washington Post (Source 10).Court record: Minute Orders, May 4 and May 5, 2026 (Source 13); Tr. of May 4, 2026 status conference, Dkt. 62 (50 pp., not yet available on RECAP).

Pattern: The court treated the field superintendent, not only the department’s leadership, as the person who could say what was happening at the course.

3. October 9, 2026 declaration: up to 529 trees, accelerated on his direction

Evidence: Under the court’s standing request for notice of “imminent, significant construction or destructive activities of an irretrievable character,” the government filed a Notice of Activity on Friday, October 9, attaching a new Griess declaration. In it he states:

  • NPS’s National Capital Region “has now received temporary workforce support consisting of approximately 20 to 50 trained personnel,” and “I directed staff to accelerate efforts” on long-deferred landscape work while that workforce is available (¶ 6);
  • NPS will carry out a “tree management and cultural landscape rehabilitation project” to restore the course’s original, largely treeless links character, implementing NPS’s 2017 Cultural Landscapes Inventory and 2019 Cultural Landscape Report (¶¶ 7–14);
  • work begins Saturday, October 10 at an overgrown area NPS staff call “Trash Island”; Zone A holds 169 trees slated for removal and Zone B, next, holds 90 (¶¶ 18–19);
  • “In total, the NPS estimates that up to 529 trees that do not contribute to the historic landscape will be removed,” and “[n]o healthy trees that are contributing features … (such as healthy, historic cherry trees) will be removed” (¶ 20);
  • he is “aware that the NPS is also evaluating a potential project to redesign or renovate the Golf Course, and has initiated consultation under Section 106” for it, but the tree project “is not a part of any potential project to redesign or renovate the Golf Course, and would be carried out irrespective of any future renovation or redesign” (¶ 16).

The filing came the same day the government moved for summary judgment, arguing that tree removal is “ordinary deferred maintenance” outside the case.

SourceThe New York Times (Source 6); ABC News/AP (Source 5).Court record: Defs.’ Notice of Activity, Dkt. 74, and Decl. of Dr. Kevin Griess, Dkt. 74-1, filed October 9, 2026 (Source 23); Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J., Dkt. 75 (Source 22). CourtListener’s docket text labels Dkt. 74-1 an “affidavit”; the document is a declaration under penalty of perjury.

Pattern: A large, visible alteration of the course is documented as a separate, independently justified decision while the court that would review the redesign is still considering whether the steps are one project.

4. From “no tree removal planned” to 529 trees in five months

Evidence: On May 4, Griess swore that, apart from hazard and invasive-species work, “no tree removal is planned.” By late August, plaintiffs documented about 150 trees felled, including a cherry tree. On October 9, he swore that NPS would remove up to 529 more. Each statement was qualified — May’s by “[a]t present,” October’s by a stated rationale in NPS planning documents that predate the administration and do call for thinning trees between fairways. But the change tracks the timeline the President set: a June 28 announcement that work would “begin on September 1st,” tree-felling in late August, and a 529-tree program in October.

The rationale also cuts against itself in the record. The 2017 inventory Griess cites as calling for a “wide open, treeless landscape” is the same document plaintiffs cite for the determination, made with a prior NAMA superintendent, that the course is a NAMA asset that “[m]ust be [p]reserved and [m]aintained.”

Court record: Dkt. 48-1 ¶ 22 (Source 14); Dkt. 74-1 ¶¶ 9, 12, 20 (Source 23); Dkt. 72-1 ¶¶ 67, 100–101 (Source 15).

Pattern: Stated scope of “maintenance” expands in step with a presidential timeline, while each expansion is presented to the court as independent of the President’s project.

5. October 12–13, 2026: live testimony undercuts the written declaration, and the court finds no urgency

Evidence: At an October 12, 2026 emergency hearing, Griess testified that sometime in September 2026 he asked his staff for a tree-management plan (TMP) for East Potomac Golf Course; that he received a draft TMP from one of his architects on October 2; and that he submitted the TMP and a funding request to NPS leadership on October 5 — the same day Deputy Chief of Staff Gregory Wischer, in a separate meeting agency counsel attended, directed NPS Deputy Director Frank Lands to implement the plan “as soon as practical.” Acting NPS Director Jessica Bowron authorized execution of the TMP the next day, October 6.

In his October 9 declaration, Griess had stated the work was beginning then because NPS had “now received temporary workforce support” and “additional budgetary resources” (Dkt. 74-1 ¶ 6). At the October 12 hearing, Griess testified he had not in fact received any additional budgetary resources, and that he could have submitted the TMP “at any point” from a budgetary perspective. Judge Reyes’s opinion treats this gap between the written declaration and the live testimony as part of the basis for her finding that the government had not shown any genuine urgency.

Asked directly about urgency, Griess testified:

The Court: Is there any urgency of continuing with the tree removal? Griess: Not that I’m aware of, Your Honor. The Court: So the trees could be cut down tomorrow, or they could be cut down a month from now, and from the government’s perspective, it’s basically the same? Griess: From what I understand, Your Honor, yes.

Judge Reyes had ordered, in a same-day minute order halting further tree removal, that “Dr. Griess must be prepared at the 10:00 am hearing to inform the Court, among other topics: who ordered the tree removal and when he received that order; the exact time preparations first began for the tree removal on October 10, 2026; the full chronology and steps of that preparation; and when government counsel was first informed of the plan and timing.” Griess and Frank Lands both testified at the hearing, which was continued from October 12 to October 13; the court credited neither of them with establishing any urgency for the timing of the removal.

SourceCBS News, reporting from the hearing that Griess “said he submitted a tree-management plan, which included removals, to the head of the National Park Service on Oct. 5 and received approval for the plan the following day,” and that “there wasn’t any urgency to remove the trees Saturday” (Source 26); WUSA9, reporting Lands’s testimony that Wischer “called the meeting and told him to move as soon as practical” (Source 24); POLITICO, reporting that Griess “said the removal of the trees … had nothing to do, to the best of his knowledge, with Trump’s desire to revamp the public golf course” (Source 25).Court record: Minute Order, Oct. 12, 2026 (ordering Griess to address the chronology) (Source 33); Minute Entry, Oct. 12–13, 2026 (hearing witnesses: Kevin Griess and Frank Lands) (Source 33); Dkt. 79, Mem. Op. at 2, 7–8, 20 (quoting Oct. 12 Rough Tr. at 31:13–33:15, 44:9–46:7, 50:4–10, 95:6–97:4), Oct. 13, 2026 (Source 34).

Pattern: A sworn written declaration’s stated justification for timing does not survive the same official’s live, cross-examined testimony four days later — and the court treats that gap, not any new document, as central to its finding that the government’s account was “preposterous.”

6. October 9 and 11, 2026: Griess’s own Categorical Exclusion certifications, and a 200-tree undercount

Evidence: On October 9, 2026, Griess signed a Categorical Exclusion Documentation Form certifying that the tree-removal plan would not have “significant impacts on [the] natural resources or unique geographic characteristics” of the historic course, and that it was therefore exempt from further NEPA analysis as “routine maintenance.” He signed that certification one week after receiving the draft TMP and four days after sharing it with Bowron. The form estimated approximately 169 trees for removal in the first work zone.

On October 10, NPS removed roughly 430 trees — about 200 more than the first form’s estimate for that zone. On October 11, Griess signed a second Categorical Exclusion form covering the additional removals, attributing the undercount to dense vegetation that made individual trees — most 3 to 5 inches in diameter — difficult to inventory in advance. In that second form, Griess himself wrote that “[a]dditional review is necessary to document the discrepancy between the estimated and actual number of trees removed, evaluate whether the additional removals resulted in effects beyond those previously assessed, and determine whether further analysis or consultation is warranted” under NEPA, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, “or other applicable environmental compliance requirements.” Judge Reyes’s opinion notes that the record does not reflect whether NPS has since conducted that review.

Court record: Kevin Griess, Categorical Exclusion Documentation Form, Oct. 9, 2026 (“CatEx Form 1”), cited at Dkt. 76-1 at 9 (Source 31); Dkt. 76-2, Kevin Griess, Determination of NEPA Adequacy When Taking a New Proposed Action and Making a New Decision, Oct. 11, 2026 (“CatEx Form 2”) (Source 32); Dkt. 79, Mem. Op. at 16–18, Oct. 13, 2026 (Source 34).

Pattern: The official who certifies a NEPA exemption is also the official whose own after-the-fact paperwork documents that the agency’s advance review undercounted the removal by more than half in at least one zone — and who flags, in his own words, that further legal review may be required.

Pattern Analysis

Cross-References

Griess is not the author of the “Washington National” plan. The record puts its origin with President Trump and Secretary Burgum, and its private financing with a foundation fronted by a Trump fundraiser. What Griess supplies is the operational and evidentiary layer: the maintenance authority that took over when the nonprofit operator was removed, the sworn statements that each step on the ground is maintenance, and the decisions — the May 1 assessment, the October acceleration — that put crews on the course. If the court ultimately accepts the plaintiffs’ segmentation theory, his declarations are the documents that drew the lines between segments. If it accepts the government’s, they are the record of a superintendent working through a real maintenance backlog under unusual pressure. That question is pending.

The October 2026 episode sharpened this record rather than resolving it. Griess is still not a defendant and the court has made no finding of wrongdoing against him personally, but his live testimony — that he received no additional budget, that there was no urgency, that he did not himself direct the October 5 “as soon as practical” instruction (that came from Wischer to Lands) — is now the court’s own account of what happened, cited at length in a published opinion. His signed Categorical Exclusion forms are likewise now part of the record the court used to find a likely NEPA violation. Deputy Chief of Staff Gregory Wischer, who gave the October 5 directive and was ordered to testify October 19, 2026, is profiled separately; that profile remains in draft as of this update (gregory-wischer-profile, not yet published).

Related profiles:

  • doug-burgum-profile (Secretary of the Interior; named defendant; announced the championship renovation and toured the site with Trump)
  • donald-trump-profile (publicly committed to a “U.S. Open-caliber” course and a September 1 start)
  • gregory-wischer-profile (Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of the Interior; per Griess’s and Lands’s testimony, directed the October 5 “as soon as practical” instruction; ordered to testify Oct. 19, 2026 — profile currently a draft, not yet published)

Related skills:

  • legal-research-specialist (tracking the underlying litigation)
  • public-records-research-specialist (court filings, NPS planning records, contracting)

Severity Assessment

Immediate harm: Moderate — about 150 trees felled in August 2026 and roughly 430 more on October 10, 2026 (of up to 529 planned) at a National Register historic district, beside a 37,000-cubic-yard debris stockpile whose safety is disputed in court; further removal is now barred by court order through October 26, 2026. Democratic erosion: Moderate — a career official’s sworn written declaration did not survive his own live testimony four days later, and a federal judge has now found, in a published opinion, that the government likely violated NEPA and gave notice she called “preposterous”; plaintiffs allege this structure is designed to defeat judicial and environmental review. Authoritarian marker: Public land reshaped to a President’s personal preference, financed in part by anonymous donors through a vehicle run by his campaign fundraiser, and executed through career staff under maintenance authority rather than through the review the law requires for a redesign — now the subject of a judicial finding of likely unlawfulness, with the Deputy Chief of Staff who directed the accelerated timeline ordered to testify under oath.

Accountability Status

Current status: Active (serving as Superintendent, National Mall and Memorial Parks, NPS)

Legal exposure:

  • No criminal or personal civil exposure is documented. Griess is not a defendant; the defendants (Interior, NPS, Burgum, Bowron) are sued in their official capacities, and the operative complaint does not name him.
  • His two written declarations are made under penalty of perjury (28 U.S.C. § 1746). No party has moved to strike them. At the October 12, 2026 hearing, Griess’s own live testimony contradicted one stated basis in his October 9 declaration — that NPS had received “additional budgetary resources” (Dkt. 74-1 ¶ 6) — by testifying he had received no additional budgetary resources at all. The court’s opinion records this gap but does not find that Griess committed perjury or any other offense; it treats the gap as evidence the government lacked genuine urgency, not as a finding against Griess personally.
  • The court has ordered production of his May 2026 communications with NAMA’s Chief of Maintenance; whether those communications are consistent with his declaration is not public.

Litigation status (as of October 14, 2026): On September 4 the court denied the original stay/preliminary-injunction motion, plaintiffs’ discovery motion and the government’s motion to dismiss as moot in light of the amended complaint. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the amended complaint (Dkt. 72) and the government’s summary-judgment motion (Dkt. 75) remain pending. Separately, on October 13, 2026, the court granted plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a temporary restraining order covering the October tree removal: it bars further tree felling at the course through October 26, 2026, and requires the government to give the court and plaintiffs three business days’ written notice before any further irreversible change to the course through that date. A continued evidentiary hearing on a preliminary injunction is scheduled for October 19, 2026, at which the court has ordered Gregory Wischer and Jessica Bowron to testify under oath; plaintiffs must post a $1.00 bond under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) by that date. Court record: Minute Orders, Sept. 4, Sept. 21, and Oct. 12, 2026 (Source 13, 33); Dkt. 79, Oct. 13, 2026 (Source 34).

Congressional oversight:

  • House Natural Resources Committee (NPS management; the park’s 1897 founding statute). Rep. Jared Huffman, the ranking Democrat, has disclosed that NPS hired a civil-engineering firm for the project without notifying Congress (Source 4).
  • House Oversight and Accountability (agency contracting, including the reported $389,355 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin award).

Public accountability:

  • DC Preservation League v. Department of Interior, No. 1:26-cv-00477-ACR (D.D.C.) — plaintiffs DC Preservation League, Dave Roberts and Alex Dickson; represented by Democracy Forward Foundation, Lowell & Associates and Democracy Defenders Fund. The Walter J. Travis Society, the designer’s historical society, filed an amicus brief (Dkt. 61).
  • Democracy Forward litigation tracking (Source 7).
  • Continuing coverage by The New York Times, The Washington Post, AP, NBC Washington, NPR, PBS NewsHour, ABC News, CBS News, WUSA9 and POLITICO, including live reporting from the October 12–13, 2026 emergency hearing.

Truth and Reconciliation Considerations

Investigation priorities

  1. Who, above Griess, set the timing of the August tree-felling and the October acceleration, and was the President’s September 1 date communicated to NAMA staff in any form?
  2. What do Griess’s May 1–4, 2026 communications with NAMA’s Chief of Maintenance — ordered produced by the court — show about why the condition assessment was ordered the same day NOTUS reported an imminent closure?
  3. What was the “guidance from the Secretary of the Interior that NPS should pursue managing and executing a renovation … under its own authority,” when was it given, and did it reach Griess?
  4. Did anyone at NPS or Interior communicate with The National Garden of American Heroes Foundation, The O’Rourke Group or the White House about the course, as the court ordered compiled — and who are the Foundation’s donors?
  5. Who decided that the tree project would be documented as a separate action from the redesign, and was that decision legal strategy for the litigation?
  6. Why did Griess’s October 9 declaration cite “additional budgetary resources” as a reason for the timing when he later testified under oath that he had received none — was that line drafted by him, by counsel, or by someone else at NPS or Interior?
  7. Has NPS conducted the “[a]dditional review” of the 200-tree undercount that Griess’s own October 11 Categorical Exclusion form says is “necessary,” and if so, with what result?
  8. What, if anything, did Gregory Wischer tell Griess or Lands about why the work needed to proceed “as soon as practical,” and will his October 19, 2026 testimony corroborate or contradict Griess’s and Lands’s account of the October 5 meeting they were not present for?

Testimony value

Griess is the official best placed to say whether the maintenance and restoration work he authorized was driven by NPS’s own backlog and planning documents or by direction tied to the President’s announced timeline. Compelled testimony could establish the chain from the Secretary’s “guidance” to field decisions, what he knew about the Foundation’s fundraising and the Fazio renderings when he signed his declarations, and whether he was asked to frame site work as unrelated to the redesign. His October 12, 2026 live testimony has already done some of this work involuntarily, under cross-examination, in a way his written declarations alone had not — including the admission that the “additional budgetary resources” cited in his October 9 declaration did not exist. Compelled testimony on the record now developed could further establish who drafted that declaration’s language and whether Griess raised the discrepancy with anyone before the hearing exposed it.

Institutional reform

  • Anti-segmentation rule: Require NPS to treat maintenance, removals and site preparation at a unit as part of a pending redesign for NEPA and Section 106 purposes once the agency head has publicly announced that redesign.
  • Statutory reform: Clarify 40 U.S.C. § 8106 and the solid-waste restrictions at 54 U.S.C. § 100903 so that staging fill or clearing sites for a prohibited structure is itself covered.
  • Donor transparency: Require public disclosure of any private donor or foundation funding a capital project on National Park System land, with no anonymity for gifts tied to a specific project.
  • Career-staff protection: Bar political officials from directing career superintendents’ sworn litigation statements, and give superintendents a protected channel to report pressure to frame site work for litigation purposes.

Investigative trail pointers (public records)

Education only — verify independently. Absence of hits is not proof.

Channel Starting points
Federal courts CourtListener / PACER: DC Preservation League v. Department of Interior, No. 1:26-cv-00477-ACR (D.D.C.) — declarations, minute orders, and the May 4 and July 2, 2026 transcripts once released
Campaign finance FEC + OpenSecrets for The O’Rourke Group and donors linked to The National Garden of American Heroes Foundation
Corporate / nonprofit IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search and state registries for The National Garden of American Heroes Foundation (EIN 41-4674063, per its pledge form)
Sanctions / PEP Not applicable — no international business context documented
Contracts / grants USAspending.gov and SAM.gov for NPS awards to Fazio Design, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Jacobs Engineering and Clark Construction related to East Potomac

Use public-records-research-specialist, corporate-intelligence-investigator, and public-corruption-ombudsman evidence tiers.

Factual correction requests: If you believe information in this profile is incorrect, please contact factcheck@citizenanalyst.ai with your name (optional), the specific claim, and any supporting documentation. We review all submissions and correct verified errors promptly.

Sources

  1. National Park Service, “National Park Service Announces Dr. Kevin Griess as Superintendent of National Mall and Memorial Parks,” press release, 2024. https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1207/national-park-service-announces-dr-kevin-griess-as-superintendent-of-national-mall-and-memorial-parks.htm
  2. E&E News, “NPS picks next National Mall superintendent,” 2024. https://www.eenews.net/articles/nps-picks-next-national-mall-superintendent
  3. LinkedIn, Kevin Griess professional profile. https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevingriess
  4. NBC Washington, “NPS quietly awards contracts for Trump’s East Potomac golf project.” https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/park-service-awards-contracts-work-trumps-takeover-east-potomac-golf-links/4155481
  5. ABC News (AP), “Park service could remove more than 500 trees at historic golf course Trump wants to redesign,” October 10, 2026. https://abcnews.com/US/wireStory/park-service-remove-500-trees-historic-golf-trump-137163526
  6. The New York Times, “More Than 500 Trees to Be Cut Down at D.C. Golf Club That Trump Wants to Redo,” October 10, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/10/us/politics/trump-trees-golf-national-park.html
  7. Democracy Forward, “Challenging the Trump-Vance Administration’s Attempts to Convert a Longstanding Public Recreational Space into a Private Golf Course for the President.” https://democracyforward.org/work/legal/challenging-the-trump-vance-administrations-attempts-to-convert-a-longstanding-public-recreational-space-into-a-private-golf-course-for-the-president
  8. Democracy Forward, “Legal Challenge Highlights New Claims in Effort to Preserve East Potomac Park From Ongoing Unlawful Trump-Vance Administration Assault.” https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/legal-challenge-highlights-new-claims-in-effort-to-preserve-east-potomac-park-from-ongoing-unlawful-trump-vance-administration-assault
  9. The Athletic (NYT), “Lawsuit aims to halt Trump administration’s takeover of D.C. golf course,” February 14, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7046638/2026/02/14/lawsuit-trump-takeover-dc-golf-course
  10. The Washington Post, “East Potomac Golf Course, eyed by Trump, remains open,” May 4, 2026. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2026/05/04/east-potomac-open-judge-ruling
  11. ABC News, “Judge warns of ‘serious consequences’ if administration begins work at East Potomac Golf Course.” https://abcnews.com/US/judge-warns-consequences-administration-begins-work-east-potomac/story?id=132639390
  12. Mezha, “Crews begin removing 169 trees from DC golf course Trump wants to turn into championship venue,” October 10, 2026. https://mezha.net/eng/news/mezha-63d5f08975fdad013d3e0e7f_crews_begin_removing
  13. DC Preservation League v. Department of Interior, No. 1:26-cv-00477-ACR (D.D.C.), filed Feb. 13, 2026, Judge Ana C. Reyes — docket and minute orders (May 3, May 4, May 5, July 1, July 6, Aug. 13, Sept. 4, Sept. 21, 2026). CourtListener docket 72278895. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72278895/dc-preservation-league-v-department-of-interior/
  14. Same case, Dkt. 48 (Defs.’ Resp. to Emergency Mot., May 4, 2026) and Dkt. 48-1 (Decl. of Dr. Kevin Griess, May 4, 2026). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401.48.1.pdf
  15. Same case, Dkt. 72-1 (Pls.’ Amended and Supplemental Complaint, lodged Sept. 18, 2026). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401.72.1.pdf
  16. Same case, Dkt. 58 (Pls.’ Notice re Trump, Burgum and Fazio Site Visit, June 29, 2026). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401.58.0_4.pdf
  17. Same case, Dkt. 49 and Dkt. 50 (Pls.’ Notices of Factual Development re Burgum announcements, May 11 and May 14, 2026). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401.49.0.pdf ; https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401.50.0_4.pdf
  18. Same case, Dkt. 63 (Defs.’ Resp. to the Court’s July 6, 2026 Minute Order, July 17, 2026). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401.63.0_2.pdf
  19. Same case, Dkt. 47-1 (Pls.’ Emergency Mem., May 3, 2026) and Dkt. 47-2 (National Garden of American Heroes Foundation Pledge Agreement). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401.47.1_1.pdf ; https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401.47.2.pdf
  20. Same case, Dkt. 55 (Defs.’ Second Notice of Publication of Testing Results, June 24, 2026). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401.55.0_1.pdf
  21. Same case, Dkt. 69, 69-1, 69-2 (Pls.’ Notice of Factual Developments; Second Decl. of Dave Roberts; Decl. of Kalli Krumpos, Sept. 3, 2026). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401.69.0_3.pdf
  22. Same case, Dkt. 75-1 (Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. and Resp. to Rule 15 Mot., Oct. 9, 2026). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401.75.1.pdf
  23. Same case, Dkt. 74 (Defs.’ Notice of Activity) and Dkt. 74-1 (Decl. of Dr. Kevin Griess, Oct. 9, 2026). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401.74.1.pdf
  24. WUSA9, “‘I am thoroughly unamused right now’ | East Potomac Golf Course tree removal must stop temporarily, federal court orders,” Oct. 12, 2026. https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/legal/east-potomac-park-golf-course-tree-removal-must-stop-temporarily-federal-court-orders/65-3ceba10a-21e0-4b78-a007-efc1c626cebd
  25. POLITICO, “‘Furious’ judge halts Trump admin’s tree demolition at DC’s East Potomac golf course,” Oct. 12, 2026. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/10/12/golf-course-trees-hearing-donald-trump
  26. CBS News, “Judge chastises Justice Department lawyers after hundreds of trees cut down at D.C. golf course,” updated Oct. 12, 2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-ana-reyes-justice-department-trees-east-potomac-golf-course
  27. PBS NewsHour / Associated Press, by Gary Fields (Matthew Daly contributing), “Federal judge orders Trump administration to halt work for a day on historic D.C. golf course,” Oct. 12, 2026. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/federal-judge-orders-trump-administration-to-halt-work-for-a-day-on-historic-d-c-golf-course
  28. ABC News, “Judge explodes at Trump admin lawyers after hundreds of trees felled at DC public golf course,” Oct. 13, 2026. https://abcnews.com/Politics/judge-explodes-trump-admin-lawyers-after-hundreds-trees/story?id=137204023
  29. NPR, by Rachel Treisman, “Judge blocks Trump’s East Potomac Golf Course tree clearing,” Oct. 13, 2026. https://www.npr.org/2026/10/13/nx-s1-6000055/east-potomac-golf-course-tree-clearing-judge
  30. Same case, Dkt. 76 (Pls.’ Emergency Mot. for Temporary Restraining Order, Oct. 11, 2026) and Dkt. 76-1 (Memorandum in Support). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401.76.0.pdf
  31. Kevin Griess, Categorical Exclusion Documentation Form, Oct. 9, 2026 (“CatEx Form 1”), cited at Dkt. 76-1 at 9. https://perma.cc/ERL7-UHYV
  32. Same case, Dkt. 76-2, Kevin Griess, “Determination of NEPA Adequacy When Taking a New Proposed Action and Making a New Decision,” Oct. 11, 2026 (“CatEx Form 2”). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401.76.2.pdf
  33. Same case, Minute Orders and Minute Entry, Oct. 12, 2026, Judge Ana C. Reyes — including the order halting all tree removal and directing Griess to address the chronology of the October 10 removal, the order clarifying that Griess must appear and testify, the order rescheduling the continued hearing to Oct. 19 and directing Gregory Wischer and Jessica Bowron to testify, and the Minute Entry recording Griess and Frank Lands as hearing witnesses. CourtListener docket 72278895. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72278895/dc-preservation-league-v-department-of-interior/
  34. Same case, Dkt. 79 (Memorandum Opinion granting Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, signed by Judge Ana C. Reyes, Oct. 13, 2026). https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401/gov.uscourts.dcd.289401.79.0.pdf

Last Updated: 2026-10-14 Profile Status: Draft Next Review: Weekly until the Oct. 19, 2026 evidentiary hearing; monthly thereafter

Was this article helpful?
0 out of 5 stars
5 Stars 0%
4 Stars 0%
3 Stars 0%
2 Stars 0%
1 Stars 0%
5
Please Share Your Feedback
How Can We Improve This Article?

Related Articles