WASHINGTON — Four senators from Maryland and Virginia, all Democrats, said Thursday they have sent a letter to the Department of the Interior, demanding answers on the Trump administration’s plan to redevelop the East Potomac Golf Links. 

The senators had sent a similar letter in January with a list of questions, but wrote in their new correspondence that they had yet to receive a response. The letter was signed by Sens. Angela Alsobrooks, Chris Van Hollen, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner. 

The four had said they had “serious concerns” that the Trump administration prematurely canceled the lease held by the National Links Trust, a nonprofit that managed the East Potomac Golf Links, Langston Golf Course and the Rock Creek Park Golf Course — all located on municipal property. 

Though the Trump administration and the nonprofit reached a deal in May that would allow it to continue operating the Langston and Rock Creek courses, President Donald Trump has plowed forward with his plans to transform the East Potomac Golf Links into a championship-level course, which the senators wrote could impact its affordability and accessibility for everyday users. 

“The municipal golf courses of Washington, D.C. are public assets with deep historical, recreational, and community value,” the senators wrote. “Decisions affecting their future, and the health and safety of those who use them, must be guided by law, transparency, and fidelity to the public trust.” 

Senators demand ‘transparent plan’

In their letter, the senators said that Congress, which has oversight over Washington, D.C., has not been informed of any of the project’s details, such as its funding, scope, expected period of disruption, or how it will impact current users. 

“A public commitment to preserve access is welcome, but it is not a substitute for a transparent plan that ensures East Potomac Park remains a genuinely affordable municipal golf course and public parkland for residents of the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia,” they wrote. 

They asked that, by July 20, the department answer a list of eight questions, which include how it plans to preserve the course’s affordability, its plans to protect historic cherry trees located in East Potomac Park and its compliance with federal environmental and public health regulations. 

The National Park Service wrote in a statement to States Newsroom that it does not comment on congressional correspondence, but added that it takes them “seriously and carefully reviews each matter.” 

The Department of Interior did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

‘Old and run down’

The East Potomac Golf Links project comes amid Trump’s plans to transform or update many of the district’s iconic landmarks. Among them are the ballroom planned to replace the White House’s former East Wing, the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool renovations and even a 250-foot triumphal arch. 

In a post on Truth Social last month, Trump described the course as “old and run down” and “virtually unplayable.” He said that the new course, designed by Tom Fazio, who has also designed several of Trump’s own golf courses, will be “one of the Greatest Golf Courses anywhere in the World.” 

While Trump said the planned course will remain open to the public, it will also be able to host major golfing events, such as the U.S. Open or the PGA Championship. 

According to Trump, construction work on the updated course will begin Sept. 1.

Local concern

The redevelopment has drawn scrutiny from some city residents and preservation groups, including the D.C. Preservation League, which filed a suit alongside two local golfers against the Interior Department in February challenging the plan. 

In their initial filing, the league argued that the dramatic transformation would threaten the course’s current status as a more affordable and accessible option for local residents, pricing out longtime players. 

They further argued that the redevelopment has failed to follow federal environmental protection and historic preservation laws, as soil taken from the demolition site of the White House’s East Wing was dumped in the park last year without consideration of the impact it would have or testing for harmful pollutants. 

In a response, the Interior Department said that it did in fact test the dumped soil before it arrived at the course. 

But at a hearing last week, Judge Ana C. Reyes ordered the Interior Department to provide more specific information about the administration’s timeline for construction and actual redevelopment plans. 

The department has a deadline of July 17 to provide the information. 

President Donald Trump has shown the immense power of the executive branch to stymie offshore wind development, as nearly all projects are in waters where federal agencies operate as the landlord.

Now, as the feds block new permits and dangle billion-dollar buyout offers to convince developers to walk away from their projects, state leaders are hoping some companies share their conviction that the industry can be revived after Trump leaves office.

“Any honest assessment of where we need to be to meet our climate goals depends on a thriving offshore wind sector,” said New York state Sen. Andrew Gounardes, a Democrat.

New York and many other East Coast states have set aggressive targets for offshore wind power, both to meet rising energy demands and transition to clean energy sources. But Trump’s attacks on the industry threaten to scare off companies from making the massive long-term investments required to pursue offshore wind projects.

“If there’s no business opportunity here, then they’re not going to stay here and invest here,” Gounardes said. “They’re not going to lay around with good intentions doing nothing, and we’re going to lose out because of that.”

Federal opposition

Last week, Trump’s Department of the Interior announced a $129 million deal with Duke Energy to relinquish its lease to build an offshore wind farm off the coast of North Carolina. The company pledged to reinvest the money into other forms of energy.

Since March, Trump officials have struck four such agreements totaling more than $2.5 billion to get developers to give up on their offshore wind plans. Some analysts say the federal government’s ability to blockade pending projects has caused some companies to reconsider their investments.

“If you have a lease that appears to be going nowhere for at least the next three years, you want to pivot to other options,” said Timothy Fox, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners LLC, an independent research firm. “There’s still a lot of leases out there, but the Trump administration has made this aggressive push, and we think there could be future similar announcements.”

According to Fox, developers hold leases for roughly two dozen other offshore wind areas, agreements that could be targeted for similar buyout deals.

While developers consider buyout offers from the federal government, state leaders say such deals are illegal. Seven states filed a lawsuit earlier this month saying the administration lacks the authority to cancel the leases and pay out funds, focused on a March deal with TotalEnergies to block a project off of New York.

The lawsuit challenges the administration’s use of a federal fund set aside to pay court judgments and settlements of lawsuits against the government. The deal, state attorneys general argue, “is not the result of a compromise settlement between adverse parties, but rather an agreement resulting from [federal officials’] pretextual national security concerns and TotalEnergies’ desire to receive unauthorized compensation for an expensive offshore wind lease.”

The state of California has also announced that it intends to file a lawsuit over another buyout targeting a lease area off the state’s Pacific coast.

Since taking office, Trump has halted permits and leases for other planned offshore wind projects, canceled hundreds of millions in funding to support manufacturing and ports and ended clean energy tax credits. His administration also issued stop-work orders for five offshore wind projects that were already under construction, but courts have overturned those orders and allowed work to resume.

Aside from the five wind farms currently being built, progress on dozens of other pending projects has ground to a halt.

“There’s little to be done if the federal government still controls the permits, leases and pace of development,” said Fox, the researcher.

State goals

The clash comes as many East Coast states have been counting heavily on the maturation of the offshore wind industry to meet their energy needs. Eight Atlantic states have committed to building more than 45 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2040 — enough to power more than 30 million homes. They’ve made major investments in ports, manufacturing facilities, transmission infrastructure and workforce training.

In addition to their climate goals, many states are facing surging energy demands, largely driven by data centers and artificial intelligence.

State leaders say that offshore wind farms can harness massive amounts of electricity, especially during nighttime and winter periods when solar power is in short supply. For heavily populated East Coast states, with limited areas to put sprawling energy projects on land, tapping into strong winds over the ocean has become a major part of their strategy.

“Offshore wind is key to a future that allows us to move off of fossil fuels,” said Maryland state Del. Lorig Charkoudian, a Democrat who has been a strong backer of offshore wind. “Every time the (Trump administration) makes these moves, it reminds me that their numbers show how much offshore (wind) would allow us to retire fossil fuel plants.”

Trump has long opposed offshore wind, falsely asserting that it harms whales, is unreliable and drives up energy costs. While offshore wind generation is intermittent, it has a much higher capacity factor than onshore renewables, meaning that it operates for longer periods at its maximum output level. New offshore wind projects have capacity factors that match some gas and coal-fired power plants, according to the International Energy Agency.

While still more expensive than onshore renewables, offshore wind projects globally produce electricity at a rate cheaper than natural gas and coal plants, according to Energy Solutions Intelligence, a digital consulting platform.

Backers and energy analysts say offshore wind in the U.S. should become cheaper over time as supply chains mature and investments in ports and other infrastructure pay off.

The Department of the Interior did not grant a Stateline interview request about its buyout deals for offshore wind projects, but the agency has claimed in statements that the deals will lower energy prices.

Changing plans

Many state leaders acknowledge that the delays caused by Trump’s opposition will cause them to miss their targets for building new projects over the next 5 to 10 years. But they say the industry is still essential for meeting their long-term climate goals and energy needs.

“I don’t think anyone is at the point of saying no offshore wind ever again,” said Gounardes, the New York lawmaker. “It might not be part of the alchemy in the near future, but it certainly must be part of the alchemy to meet our overall goals.”

For now, state leaders are hoping their ongoing commitments to offshore wind will convince developers to wait out the remainder of Trump’s term and stay in the U.S. market.

“[The buyouts] are a blow to the industry, but it’s not a death knell but there are other projects out there that are still in some stage of development,” said Sam Schacht, project director for offshore wind with the Clean Energy States Alliance, a nonprofit coalition of state energy agencies.

“There’s this bad news story happening about the attempts to erode these future projects, while at the same time there’s a very positive story about the projects that are under construction and producing power now and their ability to capably meet states’ power demands.”

While states play the waiting game with offshore wind, they’re making new plans to meet their energy needs in the near term. Lawmakers in Maryland have invested in battery storage, which Charkoudian described as a “no-regrets” option that can help meet energy needs today while complementing offshore wind once it comes online.

Other states, including New York and New Jersey, have looked at increasing subsidies for nuclear power.

“I wouldn’t say that they’re giving up on offshore wind, but states are pivoting to other carbon-free resources that  are favored by this administration, namely nuclear power,” said Fox, the energy researcher.

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.