Judge Mulls if He Can Undo Trump Reflecting Pool Project Later

A Washington federal judge wrestled with how reversible President Donald Trump’s efforts to change the color of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool would be, in the latest lawsuit targeting Trump’s moves to renovate some of Washington’s historic landmarks.

US District Judge Carl Nichols of the US District Court for the District of Columbia held a hearing Thursday in a legal challenge to Trump’s project to change the color of the century-old pool’s interior from gray to blue, without putting the project through full historic preservation and environmental processes.

Nichols, a Trump appointee, indicated he may decide not to immediately halt work and instead decide the case on the merits at a later stage, when he could order work to be undone if needed.

The judge said it would seem to him that if there is any harm to the challengers—the nonprofit Cultural Landscape Foundation and its architect founder Charles Birnbaum—"it is both reparable and temporary.” The nonprofit must show it faces irreparable harm to win a temporary ruling in its favor at this stage in the case.

Still, Nichols pressed an attorney for the nonprofit on whether it is harmed by the change in color alone, or also the change in material, from a concrete floor to epoxy. John Heise, a Justice Department lawyer who argued at the hearing, conceded it would be “difficult to chip off” the epoxy that’s already been applied.

The Cultural Landscape Foundation filed its lawsuit this month asking Nichols to immediately halt the work. They argued in court filings that the administration had begun redoing the interior of the pool—“inserting a permanent blemish on the National Mall”—without consulting experts as required under historic preservation and other laws.

The effort represents one of a number of legal challenges accusing the administration of forcing changes to Washington’s buildings without meeting legal requirements.

Ballroom, Arch

Litigation has also been filed challenging Trump’s projects to build a new ballroom on the site of the demolished White House East Wing, to paint the granite exterior of the Eisenhower Executive Office building, to close the Kennedy Center for repairs, and to construct a 250-foot triumphal arch.

Joseph Mead of Washington Litigation Group, who argued for the nonprofit at Thursday’s hearing, said “common sense” dictates that it would be easier to reverse work later if the government is prevented from “making things worse” in the meantime.

“This is a treasured national landmark” intended to be preserved for future generations, Mead said, which is inconsistent with the “rash process” the government underwent before changing it.

Heise accused the heritage group during the hearing of “opposing the change for the sake of opposing the change.” He said the ultimate color would be “dark blue” and that it would still be reflective, which he said is the “north star” characteristic of the pool.

Work began in April to paint the Reflecting Pool, which was constructed in the early 1920s on the National Mall at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial. The New York Times reported the administration awarded a $6.9 million no-bid contract to a company that Trump said had performed work at one of his golf clubs.

Trump posted on Truth Social in May that the project “should be completed before the Fourth of July,” when the country will celebrate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Trump also described “substantially upgraded construction materials” and said he has “made this a much larger job than originally contemplated for purposes of Beauty, and a much longer life.”

The Justice Department has characterized the project in court filings as “routine maintenance and repair that will have trivial aesthetic and environmental impact.” The administration conducted a “streamlined consultation” under a historic preservation law and determined it was exempted from environmental reviews, government lawyers said.

The case is Cultural Landscape Foundation v. Department of the Interior, D.D.C., No. 26-cv-1593, hearing held 5/21/26.