Judge Ungaro rejects watchdog request in Trump golf course case

A federal judge on Friday declined an unusual request from environmental groups to appoint a court-appointed watchdog to oversee the Justice Department in a case over felled trees at a Trump-owned golf course in Virginia. U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro said the groups’ proposal was “odd” and signaled skepticism about their arguments that the DOJ might not aggressively defend the case. The ruling came as she faces a flood of public calls and letters—many from environmental activists—demanding action over the clearing of trees near the Trump National Golf Club in Sterling.

The legal fight centers on a 2022 lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club and the Southern Environmental Law Center, accusing the Trump Organization of violating the Clean Water Act by clearing wetlands and cutting down trees without proper permits. The case gained new urgency after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority expanded presidential immunity in Trump v. United States, emboldening his team to argue that federal agencies and courts should defer to executive decisions—even in environmental disputes tied to his businesses. Legal experts say the judge’s reaction to the watchdog request could preview how she views the broader merits of the case, especially as the DOJ now faces pressure from both sides: activists demanding accountability and Trump’s legal team pushing to dismiss the suit.

Judge Ungaro, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said the idea of a court-appointed monitor to police the DOJ was “unusual” and questioned whether it was necessary. She noted that the government’s lawyers had already filed responsive briefs and argued that existing oversight—through public records and court filings—was sufficient. The environmental groups had claimed the DOJ might soft-pedal the case under political pressure, pointing to former President Trump’s history of intervening in legal matters involving his properties. But the judge appeared unconvinced, telling the plaintiffs their request risked turning the court into “an overseer of the overseer.”

The ruling does not end the case—it only rejects the unusual oversight request—leaving the core legal dispute over the golf course project still in play. The next step is likely a hearing on the Trump Organization’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit entirely, where the judge’s earlier skepticism about executive overreach could re-emerge. If she allows the case to proceed, it would mark a rare legal setback for Trump’s businesses in environmental enforcement, setting a potential precedent for future challenges to his properties. The outcome could also signal how courts balance presidential power with regulatory enforcement in cases tied to former presidents.