trump national debt

Court proceedings began at 10 a.m. in Washington, D.C., where the National Park Service and President Donald Trump's administration were hauled in to explain why they violated another federal judge's order.

The administration has refused to comply with orders in New Jersey (more than 50 times), Minnesota, Rhode Island, Illinois and several in Washington, D.C.

So, when it happened again over the weekend, Judge Ana Rayes was understandably irate. Now she's on the hunt for who is to blame and who could be held in contempt.

AlterNet reported that officials at NPS were told to appear and testify immediately at the morning court session, which normally wouldn't be happening on a federal holiday.

The ordeal centers on a dispute over historic cherry blossoms planted at Hains Point in East Potomac Park in Washington, D.C. Trump wants to build a new golf course there.

Circling the island are two rows of pink cherry blossom trees. They're on each side of a walking and biking path. As the petals began to fall in late spring, runners and cyclists were treated to a confetti of beauty around them.

Hundreds of those cherry blossoms have been removed, and the administration was told not to remove them. They were also told not to do any more advanced construction work other than regular maintenance as the lawsuits work their way through the courts. If something major were to be done, the NPS had to inform the court.

The administration ignored that demand this weekend. They flagged it for the judge at 4:55 p.m. on the Friday before the holiday weekend. The following day they began removing hundreds of trees. In total, they plan to remove 729 to restore the golf course to how it was "intended" in the 1920s. That claim is unusual as Trump has said that it will be an official PGA course that can hold tournaments.

The trees were planted from 1910 to 1912, before the golf course was built.

Former CBS News reporter Scott MacFarlane reported from inside the courthouse in Washington, where he watched as a parade of officials came through to answer questions directly from the judge.

Deputy director of the National Park Service, Frank Lands, was named as the person who ordered the tree removal to begin on Saturday. He was ordered immediately to court while the judge questioned others.

Park Service supervisor Kevin Greiss answered questions, confessing that the "discussions began on Oct. 6 at 5:39 p.m." about the tree removal.

According to MacFarlane, "she's livid that the court and plaintiffs weren't notified til PM on Oct. 9."

Once Lands began testifying Monday afternoon, it became clear he knew the trees would be removed on Oct. 5.

As the proceeding entered its third hour, Judge Reyes asked who made the final decision to rush the tree removal on a Saturday during a holiday weekend.

Lands, the deputy director of the National Park Service, was asked who gave the directive. He named the deputy chief of staff to the Department of the Interior. Kate MacGregor previously held that post and was recently promoted to deputy secretary.

Lands then said the full Department of the Interior called a meeting on Oct. 5 to discuss it.

"And there it is," MacFarlane wrote on X, updating followers on the situation. "Judge Reyes demands to get testimony from deputy chief of staff of Dept. of Interior. The buck is being passed... and Reyes is following the buck."

Lands said he was told to implement the plans, including the tree toppling on Oct. 5, and to do it "as soon as practical." The judge asked what that meant, and he said he didn't know.

"Judge Reyes has just ordered deputy director of National Park Service to retain all communications about the East Potomac Golf Course... and orders they ensure records are not destroyed," MacFarlane explained. She also wants notes from the meetings saved as well.

She then asked how much the tree removal would cost, and he said he couldn't even give her a ballpark figure.

The judge also asked why the work needed to be done so quickly, and he said he didn't know that either.

Where things might get fishy is that Lands also testified under oath that "there was some discussion with White House staff about the golf course project," about three months ago.

That's when the judge asked if a Trump administration lawyer had tracked down the deputy director of the Interior Department to come into the hearing. She was told that the deputy couldn't be reached.

"It's a holiday," the person said.

"Oh, I'm well aware it's a holiday," the judge said.

While the judge isn't yelling quite as much as she was this morning, the anger is still bubbling. They've since taken a break as the courtroom regroups, said MacFarlane.

Bloomberg columnist Mary Ellen Klas unleashed a hard-hitting critique of the GOP as the party’s candidates wearily flub their way across the Florida landscape.

Republican gubernatorial nominee Byron Donalds’ performance at Florid A&M University is only the start of a cadre of lazy Florida candidates representing what was the state’s once proud and vigorous party.

“Florida’s Republican Party — very much including its gubernatorial nominee — is a weak collection of stale rhetoric, failed ideas and vague plans,” reported Klas, the former capital bureau chief for the Miami Herald.

When a FAMU student noted that Florida ranks 42nd in the nation on affordability, and asked what Donalds planned to do to improve things, the candidate droned on about the high price of property insurance, housing and healthcare. “But he offered no real fixes,” said Klas, beyond deregulation.

“Less regulation might help, but only if accompanied by industry reforms that prevent parent companies from siphoning off profits so their affiliates can justify higher premiums — details Donalds ignored,” said Klas.

Donalds' Democratic candidate proposes solutions like state-backed housing assistance and greater access to healthcare, as well as a state-backed property insurance fund to lower the state's sky-high insurance costs. He also supports new taxes on insurance industry profits and caps on the profits of investor-owned utility companies. But Donalds calls it all “government-run socialism,” while taking money from the industries that would feel the bite of these progressive policies.

“That’s the mindset that kept Governor Ron DeSantis and the Republican-controlled legislature from doing anything to prepare the state’s aging labor pool for a tech-torn future or addressing the growing number of uninsured Floridians crowding hospital emergency rooms,” said Klas. “They preferred to wage culture wars over gender identity, education policy and academic speech, distracting voters from their government grift — like DeSantis awarding contracts to donors to build the ill-considered and ill-fated “Alligator Alcatraz” immigrant detention center in the Everglades.”

"Donalds has made clear that he’s going to continue the governor’s “small-minded, transactional politics,” said Klas. “It’s why his $111 million campaign has received seven-figure donations from a casino mogul, a school-choice billionaire, a private prison operator, an electric monopoly, and a hedge fund manager.”

Nevertheless, Klas points out that Republicans remain the favorite in a state Trump won by 13 points in 2024.

“But most voters in Florida are unhappy with the president’s performance and have signaled they are restless with Republicans,” she added. Even Donalds scrubbed Trump’s name from his website, instead laboring to tie himself to local Republicans.

“[But] Donalds has repeatedly defended Trump’s Iran war, tariffs and handling of immigration,” said Klas. “If enough voters give Donalds the same kind of scrutiny he received at FAMU, he won’t be Florida’s next governor.”

President Donald Trump has refused to rule out a dangerous new escalation involving the military as he grapples with an impending midterm wipeout, and as a trio of military experts warned in a new piece for The Hill, he could "easily" create the "false facts" needed to justify it.

Published on Monday morning, the piece hailed from Steven Lepper, a retired Air Force major general; Dan Maurer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel; and Eugene R. Fidell, an expert in military law. Despite the insistence of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine that military forces will not be deployed to election sites during the midterms, the trio argued that "Trump has made it impossible to dismiss fears of military interference."

"To the contrary, his persistent assault on the integrity of the voting process, his suggestion that Republicans 'should take over the voting in at least 15 places,' and his refusal to rule out invoking the Insurrection Act have led many to begin bracing for an imminent collision," they wrote. "Americans across the country are worrying that their constitutionally-assured right to vote will be curtailed by Trump’s increasingly frantic search for anything that will preserve his party’s congressional majorities."

Analyzing the possibility further, the trio explained that "the bar for legally deploying troops to polling places is high," as the Posse Comitatus Act, previously used to oppose Trump's National Guard deployments in blue cities, bars the president from using "federal military troops for law enforcement purposes." The law also bars, with some exceptions, "troops or armed men" being stationed at polling places; the Insurrection Act could allow Trump to get around that rule, though.

"If the president wants to deploy troops to election sites, he can easily come up with a set of fake facts that satisfies both legal loopholes," the trio warned. "Most senior commanders understand the damage that can be done if troops are deployed to polling places; not only would it present real threats to democracy but it could subject them — not the president — to criminal prosecution."

Should Trump manage to force his way past the rules against deploying the military to polling places, the trio suggested that "military commanders and their judge advocates can mitigate the impacts of these actions by exercising good judgment."

"First, state and local officials and commanders must be transparent with each other and with the media about what is happening at every polling site," they explained. "Commanders will need to display moral courage if the facts they perceive on the ground are different from those Trump and his minions are peddling. If ordered to polling places, they must first and foremost focus on de-escalation."

They added later: "They must also resist the inevitable pressure of mission creep. Exceptions to federal law allowing deployment of troops to polling places are very narrow. Commanders cannot let their responses exceed those narrow limits. For example, federal troops deployed to quell discontent cannot seize voting equipment, ballots, or otherwise interfere in election processes. If the Secretary of Defense orders commanders to wield an iron fist, they can and must refuse to intimidate anyone or to interfere in the voting process, donning velvet gloves instead."

President Donald Trump has reportedly been in a “foul mood” as his once massive rallies are dwindling and Republicans in tough races distance themselves from his toxic poll numbers.

The Washington Post reported Monday that an insider with knowledge of the president’s behavior said his mood has declined, contradicting an adviser who said he has been enjoying the travels and believes the campaign is going well.

The conflicting accounts on his mental state come as he faces smaller venues during his campaign and the massive rallies he once held appear to be a thing of the past. GOP strategists are tasked with figuring out how a historically unpopular president can help GOP candidates in tough districts without hurting their odds at the midterms.

Trump still has his devoted fans. The report cites Blake Marnell, who is a devoted rally-goer who drives up to 14 hours to make it to his rallies. One MAGA devotee was stunned at how empty one of the rallies was compared to the past, telling WaPO, “I’m surprised we’re still pretty empty right now.”

Mark Mitchell, an independent pollster who previously supported Trump, questioned the logic of his campaign because he is the “most unpopular president.” Mitchell also predicted this will be the last time he will be able to campaign in “full force.”

Trump's advisers believe his rallies can energize loyal supporters and boost Republicans' odds of winning. However, his campaign stops have been in safely red districts rather than competitive seats.

In more competitive areas, some conservatives have begged Trump not to visit. In New York, where gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman is trailing behind by double digits in many polls, a conservative radio host Bob Lonsberry publicly urged Trump to skip the Empire State.

"Stay away, Mr. President," Lonsberry wrote, adding: “The last thing Bruce Blakeman needs is a visit from you.”

The political stakes are very high. Of those who said they were extremely motivated to vote, Democrats led Republicans 59% to 35%, according to a Pew Research Center survey quoted by the Post.

Trump's team hopes the rallies will help close that enthusiasm gap by engaging occasional voters and collecting their contact details to send election reminders later.

But the President's influence is a conundrum for the Republican candidates. In the conservative heartlands, he can draw in the loyalists. In the more competitive districts, he may well turn off the voters that the GOP candidates need.

For Trump, the rallies are all about the crowds and the fun of it. For Republicans facing November, the question is whether those crowds will translate into votes.

Former Fox News host Megyn Kelly is having a difficult time accepting that the conspiracy theories around James Talarico were false, and legitimate journalists can't stop mocking her.

After a week full of conspiracy theories, a right-wing personality posted an audio recording that he claimed was from a woman working for a mental health facility in Ohio that confirmed Talarico had been a patient there. The facility, Lindner Center of Hope, released a statement Sunday afternoon telling journalists that it would never reveal any patient's name because it would violate HIPAA.

By Sunday evening, the Center sent out a statement making it clear that Talarico was never a patient there. Talarico, for his part, reposted the statement saying that he'd never even been to Ohio.

Kelly couldn't understand.

"Could you pls clarify @LindnerCtrHope: 1. Has James Talarico been to your facility at all at any point in the last 9 days? 2. Was the facility operator who said he had been there mistaken? Will you allow her to speak publicly?" she asked on X.

The recording from political commentator Nick Sortor is authentic, but it didn't contain all of the information.

The Bulwark obtained the full six-minute recording, where the woman on the phone makes it clear that Talarico was never there. Sorto didn't put that in his audio edit, meaning he knew that Talarico wasn't at the facility, but broadcast the claim anyway.

"Sortor hadn’t actually made the call. That was Amacher, who had also cut his teeth filming the Portland ICE protests. Amacher had posted call logs that indicated his actual conversation with (allegedly) the person at Lindner lasted roughly six minutes. So, we asked him for the full recording (not the 45-second clip Sortor had posted). And, thankfully, he sent it along."

"It turns out, that the 45-second portion came at the very end of the actual call. What came before was a series of lies Amacher told to trick the apparent Lindner employee into handing over private information. It also included the employee’s repeated denials that anyone named 'James Talarico' was in her system at all," the report said.

Semafor editor-in-chief Ben Smith noted, "What a crazy information environment."

"No wonder she got fired from NBC. Totally conspiracy-pilled," commented political analyst and strategist Neera Tanden.

"What stage of grief is this?" asked ZenithPolls founding partner Adam Carlson.

"You’ve really lost the plot buddy," ex-Republican Sarah Longwell shot back at Kelly.

Huffington Post reporter SV Dáte commented to Kelly, "Trump acts like a complete lunatic every single day, if suddenly we’re that concerned with mental health."

NewsNation's Chris Cuomo got in on the mockery too, "Next target."

Patrick Pfingsten, who writes for The Illinoize and hosts in the afternoon on WMAY News, noted, "'Never' seems as if it would cover the last 9 days."

A leading Supreme Court expert has given a scathing assessment of the Pentagon's plan to live stream a military execution, arguing that the very nature of the spectacle could be precisely what the killer wants.

Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown law professor and constitutional law expert, took issue with the Defense Secretary's suggestion that the execution of Nidal Hasan, the former Army psychiatrist who murdered 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, should be broadcast. Writing Monday in his One First Substack newsletter, Vladeck was questioning both the wisdom of the proposal and whether the Supreme Court would intervene to stop it.

Before getting into the constitutional issues, Vladeck argued that airing Hasan's death would actually serve the killer's own ends. He called the proposal "colossally stupid" and pointed out it would very likely be yet another step in Hasan's "homicidal quest for martyrdom."

Hegseth announced plans to livestream Hasan’s execution, which received pushback from his own party. But Vladeck pointed to another troubling element of the controversy: the Supreme Court's evolving interpretation of the Eighth Amendment could make it a lot harder to mount a legal challenge.

He wrote that the justices would have previously found a public execution incompatible with the “evolving standards of decency,” citing the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. He then argued that the Court has been more willing to embrace an ancient view of punishment since Justice Anthony Kennedy retired.

The conservative majority has increasingly stressed how punishments were conceived at the time of the Constitution. That distinction could be the deciding factor, as public executions were the norm in the American founding era.

Vladeck pointed to the Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Bucklew v. Precythe, which spoke to the long-established understanding of what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. He also pointed out that the Court had upheld execution by shooting in the 1879 case of Wilkerson v. Utah.

The legal scholar indicated that neither the firing squad nor the public broadcast would necessarily breach the court's current reading of the Constitution. He also doubted that Hasan would challenge the execution, pointing out that the prisoner in question has apparently shown no desire to pursue any further legal challenges.

Vladeck's criticism went well beyond constitutional law to the morality of the executions themselves. He referenced a 2014 opinion of former federal appeals court judge Alex Kozinski who described executions as "brutal, savage events."

Kozinski also contended that Americans should face up to the reality of state-sanctioned killing rather than hide it behind the veneer of humane procedures.

For Vladeck, the whole thing is a case study in just how the Supreme Court's evolving view of constitutional protections can have consequences which go way beyond this one execution.

His main point was that a form of spectacle which would be utterly unacceptable in modern society could well survive constitutional challenge under the current jurisprudence of the Court.

President Donald Trump is almost constantly repeating the boast that the U.S. is the "hottest country" in the world under his second term, but according to a new piece from The i Paper, expert concerns over "mind-boggling" tourism declines have firmly put a damper on his claims.

Writing for the outlet on Monday, reporter Lauren Trevelyan argued that Trump's brag can no longer stand up to reality, as reports show that the U.S. is one of the only major countries in the world losing tourism as the world continues to rebound from COVID-19 shutdowns. This trend comes despite the country recently hosting the FIFA World Cup, one of the biggest international events around, causing major alarm among experts and analysts.

"America is on track to receive two million fewer overseas visitors than in 2025 (which saw a drop of four million from the year before)," Trevelyan detailed. "Not even hosting the FIFA World Cup could boost the numbers. The lure of the Grand Canyon, Route 66, Las Vegas, the Empire State Building and the rest of America’s famous charms have been overshadowed by Trump’s trade wars, tariffs, jabs at allies and aggressive immigration enforcement. Geoff Freeman, president and CEO of the US Travel Association, described the situation as 'mind-boggling,' telling Axios, 'we’re the only country in the world losing visitation.''"

Breaking down the available information further, Trevelyan explained how the trends in which tourists are no longer visiting the U.S. make the cause of the decline "blindingly obvious."

"Canadians are voting with their feet," she wrote. "In 2025, visits by Canadians to the US fell by about 25 percent, and this year is on track to show similar declines. Apparently, Canadians don’t like Trump saying their country should become the 51st U.S. state, they don’t appreciate having tariffs slapped on them because they’re 'ripping America off,' and they’re taking their (admittedly weak) currency elsewhere."

She added later: "Visitors from Germany and France, traditional allies of the US, are also staying away – down 16 percent and 15 percent so far this year. Trump has claimed that Germany owes 'vast sums of money' to the US, and described various of French President Emmanuel Macron’s remarks as 'brain dead, very nasty.' Early in Trump’s second term, Vice President JD Vance flew to Germany and told the Munich Security Conference that America’s European allies were destroying themselves with immigration and unfairly barring the far right from power. The fiery rhetoric has not gone unnoticed by European tourists, who after all have a choice about where to spend their vacations."

The tourism numbers from the U.K., meanwhile, were largely flat in 2025, defying the downward trend to start. In the first half of 2026, however, "headlines about the deadly shootings of people protesting against aggressive immigration enforcement operations sped around the world, there was a 2.2 percent decline in visitors from the U.K. to the U.S."

"In New York City, where Britons traditionally love to come and shop and take in a Broadway show and a Statue of Liberty harbour tour, the number of UK tourists declined nearly 16 percent in the first six months of 2026, compared to last year," Trevelyan added. "That’s a lot of 'I heart NY' T-shirts, mugs and key rings going spare."

Flawed Texas senatorial candidate Ken Paxton is already riding a bumpy train to Congress, especially with a likeable and photogenic Democrat. But a series of damaging leaks of private conversations and public details of his marriage philandering is doing nothing to help things.

But now, NBC News says sources inside the Paxton campaign are certain the GOP old guard is also working to sabotage Paxton’s race.

“There’s no doubt on our end that John Cornyn and Karl Rove are working against us,” a Republican working on Paxton’s race said when asked about damaging private conversations leaked to media outlets. “They’d rather be able to say ‘told you so’” than risk a Democrat winning the seat, added the person, who, like others in this article, was granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Cornyn could have legitimate hard feelings against the Paxton enclave. Cornyn lost his primary for the Republican Senate nomination in a painful upset to Paxton, but only after President Donald Trump unexpectedly endorsed Paxton. It did not appear to matter to Trump that Cornyn had voted with the president on almost every major issue. Trump considered Paxton more loyal due to his far-right views. And the resentful president may hold hard feelings after Cornyn jumped ship against Trump’s attempt to derail the 2020 election that he lost.

Since his return to the White House, Trump has systematically targeted GOP lawmakers deemed insufficiently loyal, orchestrating primary challenges against sitting senators and representatives. Notable victims include Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who lost his primary after voting to convict Trump during his second impeachment trial, and Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who challenged Trump on government spending and the Epstein files. Trump has also threatened Senators Rand Paul and Lauren Boebert for supporting Massie.

Many of Cornyn's fellow Republicans were disappointed by Trump's actions in Texas, and now Paxton’s campaign smells what they feel are hard feelings aggravating a series of damning leaks.

“Many in Paxton’s corner are convinced those aligned with Cornyn are trying to tank his chances, while other Republicans say Paxton’s negatives are so high and his litany of scandals so long that few want to associate with him,” reports NBC News. “They also say it was incumbent on Paxton and the groups supporting him to smooth things over with Cornyn, who pledged to endorse the Republican ticket without specifying Paxton.”

Even sources that are struggling to stay neutral are convinced that both sides are “laying the groundwork” to cast blame if Democrat James Talarico ends up claiming the Senate seat.

Cornyn’s camp adamantly denies the accusations.

“If Sen. Cornyn wanted Ken to lose, I can assure you he’d be more active in the campaign,” Cornyn strategist Rob Jesmer told CNN. “He has said he supports the Republican ticket. Given all Ken has said and done, I think that’s a pretty good place for Sen. Cornyn to be.”

But NBC News reports Paxton himself has said Cornyn isn’t in his corner, according to recently leaked audio.

“He’s clearly not helping. He wants me to lose,” Paxton said at a recent fundraiser, according to leaked audio of the event obtained by CNN, the fifth such leak from that fundraiser in recent weeks.

A judge is furious that on Friday at 4:55 p.m., President Donald Trump's administration told a federal judge it would cut down more than 160 trees protected by a court order at Hains Point in East Potomac Park in Washington, D.C. There are now plans to remove more than 500 trees. By the middle of the hearing, it was discovered that 430 trees had been chopped down.

It's just the latest in another example of the administration and the Justice Department refusing to follow judges' orders.

The incident unfolded after a collection of historic cherry blossoms on the Potomac golf course was cut down. In 1910, Japan sent over 3,000 cherry blossoms to the United States as a gift. They were planted all over Washington, D.C., and have become one of the biggest tourist attractions in the spring.

The ones on the manmade island in the Potomac River were planted before the golf course was built in the early 1920s. However, the trees themselves were among the oldest surviving cherry blossoms gifted from Japan.

Trump tore down the trees in August to make way for his new golf course he intends to build on a manmade island in the Potomac River, the Washington Post reported.

The court demanded updates before anything was done. So, the administration did it at the last possible moment before the weekend and by Monday the trees were gone.

In court on Monday, Judge Ana Reyes was incensed, reporter Scott MacFarlane posted from the court.

"I don't know how I could've made it clearer!" she shouted. "What has happened has cost the government all of its credibility!"

"At 4:55 pm on a Friday of a holiday weekend, the plaintiffs and I get (little) notice that hundreds of trees are going to be chopped down!" she continued.

"When did the government become aware the (the tree toppling) was going to happen?" she asked, according to MacFarlane.

The Trump administration's lawyer said, "There are two parts to your question, Your Honor"

"No... there's only one part!" she said

MacFarlane said, "The judge is screaming."

She asked when they knew this would unfold, and they said on the 8th or 9th. She asked why it took them so long to notify her.

"We were waiting for details?" the administration lawyer said.

"Do you have email or a cellphone?" she asked, probing what prevented him from contacting the court.

MacFarlane explained, "Court rules prohibit me from sharing audio of this hearing. But I've never heard a judge scream at full voice at a lawyer before. Not like this. Trump administration lawyer is getting excoriated."

When the administration revealed 430 trees had been removed, she began screaming again.

"In what universe did anyone in your office think that was acceptable?!" she asked.

Trump administration attempted to claim, "We did our best..."

But the judge interrupted, "No, you didn't! You did your absolute worst!"

She said that no further work can move forward until 7 am tomorrow, and if that is violated by one second, she'll initiate contempt proceedings.

The administration revealed 299 more trees are set to be chopped down. Total they will tear out 729 trees.

“The work is not routine maintenance, and therefore, for a designated property, they need to undertake Section 106,” Charles A. Birnbaum, president of the Cultural Landscape Foundation, told the New York Times on Saturday.

Deputy director of the National Park Service, Frank Lands, was named as the person who ordered the tree removal to begin on Saturday.

She ordered him into the courtroom immediately. They're now holding until he arrives. As they waited, she ordered Park Service supervisor Kevin Greiss to answer her questions and he confessed that "discussions began on Oct. 6 at 5:39 p.m." about the trees.

According to MacFarlane, "she's livid that the court and plaintiffs weren't notified til PM on Oct. 9."

Once Lands began testifying on Monday afternoon, it became clear that he was made aware the trees would be removed on Oct. 5.

Trump claimed that the work would begin on his new PGA-level golf course Sept. 1. Much of the debris from the East Wing of the White House was dumped onto the sinking island to be used for the course.

"An informal count Thursday found that more than 60 trees appeared to have been removed in recent weeks. Many were around the perimeter and parking lot, but others had been removed from playing corridors on the Blue, Red and White courses," the Post reported earlier this year.

At the time, the Interior Department spokesperson claimed, “Arborists are doing routine maintenance at East Potomac Park with selective removal of hazard trees, non-native invasive trees, and declining and dying trees that cannot be brought back to good health through any degree of intervention."

That's when a court intervened.

There were once over 1,400 Yoshino cherry trees in the area, the National Park Service said, in East Potomac Park.

Trump terminated the National Links Trust’s 50-year lease, then moved to direct renovations through the National Park Service and golf architect Tom Fazio. His golf course plan has faced a lawsuit and criticism that it could displace an affordable, accessible public facility, remove recreational areas and smaller beginner-friendly courses, and bypass required planning and environmental reviews. Trump has said he wants a “world-class” course as part of his D.C. renovation.

President Trump's Justice Department has admitted that a false allegation, involving former CNN anchor Don Lemon and another journalist, appeared in the federal court filings relating to its investigation of the anti-ICE protest.

The revelation comes as newly uncovered records show that federal investigators obtained warrants authorizing the use of sophisticated surveillance technology to track down Lemon's 21-year-old producer Jerome Richardson, even though Richardson was prepared to turn himself in.

According to Wired, the investigation followed a protest at a church in Minnesota that disrupted a service and drew national attention after Lemon and independent journalist Georgia Fort documented the incident.

Per the report, the federal authorities were looking to build a criminal case against people who were involved in the protest, including journalists who maintained they were there as journalists covering the event rather than as participants.

The contested allegation came in the affidavits in support of applications to track Richardson. The investigators claimed that the video showed Lemon, Fort, Richardson and others “chanting with agitators.”

But the prosecutors later admitted that Lemon and Fort had not been chanting.

As per Fort's lawyers, the government admitted that the false allegation appeared in at least 15 warrant affidavits.

The admission doesn't establish that the investigators knowingly submitted false information. It does, however, add another wrinkle to an investigation which has already been fraught with judicial pushback and disputes over the nature of the federal surveillance.

The warrants also show just how far the investigators were prepared to go in order to track down Richardson.

Federal judges in Minnesota and Pennsylvania have approved the use of cell site simulators, devices which mimic a cell tower to identify and locate a phone.

The tech can also harvest identifying information from devices of people in the vicinity who are not the subject of the investigation.

Investigators got the second warrant just two days before Richardson voluntarily turned himself in at a federal courthouse in Philadelphia.

Richardson had publicly stated that he expected to go into federal custody. He was released on bond that afternoon upon his surrender.

The records don't establish that the agents actually deployed the surveillance devices.

The investigation had already met with resistance from the courts.

A magistrate judge initially denied five of the eight arrest warrant applications. The government's request to have that decision overturned by the appeals court was also rejected, and the government has since withdrawn its request.

In the filing, the court's chief judge states that two of the people the government was targeting were journalists rather than protesters and finds no evidence of any criminal conduct on their part.

Prosecutors then secured a grand jury indictment.

The newly released records don't answer the question of why the investigators were seeking such intrusive surveillance or how the false allegation kept reappearing in the documents they submitted to federal judges.