The legal battle over the Trump Administration’s plans to redevelop a golf course in Washington, D.C., escalated Monday after President Donald Trump said the Department of the Interior’s work would start “immediately”—despite a court order to temporarily halt tree removal.

“The United States Department of Interior wants to take a terrible and very unsafe golf course, and make it into a great, safe, and prestigious golf course. They have an absolute right to do so,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Monday morning. 

Read More: All the Things Trump Has Put His Name and Face on as President

He went on to attack Judge Ana Reyes, who is overseeing the case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, saying that she is a “crazed lunatic” and “may be insane.”

About 430 trees had been cleared from the site as of Oct. 13. Reyes said that additional removals must halt while the case, filed by the DC Preservation League and two golfers earlier this year in hopes of stopping the renovation, underwent further review. The suspension is in place through Oct. 26.

On Sunday, Trump announced a plan to close the “old, broken, dilapidated” golf course and said that work would begin Nov. 15. He claimed that a new golf course would open in approximately 15 months. 

The golf course redevelopment is the latest project that Trump has taken on during his second term as he looks to leave his stamp on the nation’s capital. But the precedent of past legal disputes and rising tension between the President and Reyes leave some experts wondering if this project will advance.

Why Trump is clashing with a federal district judge over East Potomac Park

The Trump Administration filed a motion on Oct. 16 looking to disqualify Reyes, accusing her of “conduct [that] continues a pattern of animus against the Trump administration.” 

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. accused Reyes of having “repeatedly belittled and shouted at” a Justice Department lawyer during a heated hearing on Oct. 12 in which Reyes sought to understand who had instructed employees to begin the tree removal process despite her earlier demands for advance notice of significant changes at the site.

Reyes refused to recuse herself, writing in a 13-page opinion filed Sunday that it’s “easy to weaponize selective quotations to bring a baseless recusal motion.”

“But it is much harder to meet the demanding legal standard against a full record,” she continued. 

On Monday, Reyes grilled Trump Administration officials about the government’s plans. She accused officials of failure to communicate with the court amid ongoing proceedings and said they were acting in “bad faith.” 

The Administration, however, claimed the removal had nothing to do with renovating the golf course; it pointed to a 2019 Cultural Landscape Report calling for the removal of dead and hazardous trees in the park.

“There is no universe in which all of this just coincidentally happened at the same time,” she told the lawyers on Monday according to The New York Times. “There just isn’t.”

Why is Trump’s golf course renovation being challenged?

The legal battle began on Feb. 13, when the DC Preservation League and two local golfers sued the Administration over its redevelopment plans for East Potomac Park. They alleged that the government had dumped potentially hazardous debris at the site and begun pursuing the overhaul without legally required reviews of its environmental impact and effects on the park’s historic character.

The golf course is 106 years old, and its miniature golf course, which opened later in 1931, is one of the oldest continually operating miniature golf courses in the United States. It is currently open to guests of all income levels, and some golfers have rebuked Trump’s plans to turn the site into a luxury golf course.

“The finished product will be World Class, and bring income and great prestige back to D.C.,” Trump said in his Truth Social post on Monday, repeating sentiments he has shared since the renovation plan was announced. 

In May, Democracy Forward, a legal advocacy nonprofit representing the plaintiffs challenging the plan, filed an emergency motion asking Reyes to block the Administration from beginning work while the lawsuit was pending. 

At the time, Reyes declined to issue a temporary restraining order on the project, since the golf course remained open and the government had not announced any closures. She told the government’s lawyers that she was giving them the “benefit of the doubt that we’re not gonna be in a situation where we have bulldozers bulldozing down trees and no one has alerted me first.”

The Trump Administration felled over 400 trees at the East Potomac Golf Links on Oct. 10. 

Marissa Piropato, an attorney for the government, said it had given notice in a court filing shortly before 5 p.m. on Oct. 9. 

Reyes called the Trump Administration’s actions “inexcusable.”

“What has happened has cost the government all of its credibility,” Reyes said at the Oct. 12 hearing according to NBC News. 

David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law, tells TIME that Reyes had done the Trump Administration a “favor” by not issuing a temporary restraining order in May. 

“Out of respect for the Executive Branch, because the Justice Department told her that no action was planned imminently, she only ordered them to give enough notice for her to decide the legal questions before they did irreplaceable damage,” Super says.

He adds: “I suspect judges in future cases will just enter injunctions, rather than trusting the Administration to keep their word.”

How the lawsuit echoes other Trump projects in D.C.

The golf course renovation is the latest Trump Administration project to land in court. 

According to The New York Times, Trump has undertaken at least 18 renovation projects in the city with the potential to cost over $1.2 billion. That includes plans for a ballroom at the former site of the White House East Wing, restoring and renaming the Kennedy Center, and constructing a towering Triumphal Arch.

The Administration has invoked national security in defending other projects. In the case involving the Triumphal Arch, it said that construction came at the “request” of the U.S. military “for National Security purposes.” The Administration similarly argued that the ballroom at the White House will be part of a military complex that is “vital” to national security.

Peter Byrne, a property and land use expert and a professor at the Georgetown Law Center, tells TIME that he would not rule out the possibility of repeating that strategy with the golf course.

“I'm sure the golf course will be important for national security in some way,” Byrne predicts. He says that judges are reluctant to dismiss outright claims of national security, so it has become a catchall for projects seeking latitude in the courts.

Trump has already said the golf course is “dangerous”—implying that it requires immediate intervention for safety purposes.

In a June Truth Social post, Trump described the course as “dilapidated, worn out, and very dangerous and outdated.” Then, in his Monday morning post, he reiterated that it was a “very unsafe golf course.”

Plaintiffs in the case have expressed concern that the planned renovation will introduce more issues than it would solve.

To bring a case like this in federal court, plaintiffs must show that the proposed renovation has harmed them or poses an imminent threat of concrete harm. They must also show that a favorable court ruling would likely remedy that harm—despite Trump’s claims that they have “ZERO STANDING.”

“In this case, you have all kinds of people who are suffering direct harm in the golf course case, you have golfers, you have bikers, you know, you have people who use the park and won’t be able to use it,” Byrne says. 

Those alleged harms could help distinguish the golf course case from the challenge to the White House ballroom. In August, the Supreme Court allowed construction to continue, finding that the preservation group likely lacked the right to sue based solely on its objections to the ballroom’s appearance.

After Trump’s announcement on Sunday, Democracy Forward said the course is a “national park and golf course for everyone to enjoy.”

“Our litigation is intended to protect this community jewel for the people and communities it serves,” the statement continued, “and we will continue to work with our plaintiffs to defend it from unlawful and harmful intrusion.”

Four service members died in a fire that broke out at one of Canada’s main military bases on Oct. 17, according to Prime Minister Mark Carney. Officials are continuing to assess the damage and an investigation is underway to determine the cause of the deadly blaze.

Carney made a statement at midday Sunday about what he described as a “violent, fast-moving fire” that occurred during a routine training exercise. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith later confirmed that 39 people had been killed with at least 19 in critical condition, saying that some were recovering from severe burns and would require long-term treatment.

“What followed was one of the worst tragedies for forces on Canadian soil in peacetime,” Carney said. 

Read More: What Happens When the World Is on Fire

Canada Defense Minister David McGuinty similarly underscored the severity of the incident in a video statement on Oct. 17. “I cannot recall an incident like this,” he said, describing the event as “very active and delicate.” 

On Sunday, the military said there is no indication that this was an act of terrorism. TIME has reached out to Canada’s Department of National Defence for more information.

Here’s what to know about the event as it unfolds.

What is known about the fire incident at CFB Wainwright

A fire “ignited” within the training area of Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Wainwright in the late afternoon on Oct. 17, according to a statement from the Canadian Armed Forces. 

The flames eventually “spread rapidly due to high winds,” the district said in a Facebook post that evening. The fire extended beyond the base and toward the adjacent Municipal District of Wainwright.

In a subsequent update, the district said that the fire was being held. The Canadian Armed Forces said that additional details would be confirmed after next-of-kin have been notified.

McGuinty did not provide details about what might have started the blaze; however, he said that an investigation would be launched.

The Defense Minister is currently en route to Edmonton. He said he had spoken with Carney and Smith. 

Carney had recently returned to Ottawa after a visit to Alberta, where he is from, as the province prepares to vote on Monday about whether they want to begin the legal process of potentially separating from Canada.

What is CFB Wainwright?

CFB Wainwright is one of the country’s “busiest” army bases, located over 100 miles southeast of the Alberta province capital Edmonton. 

The base hosts the Canadian Manoeuvre Training Centre and the 3rd Canadian Division Training Centre, and it is the “preferred” training ground for army field force units based in Western Canada.

“Our country depends on the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces,” Carney said on Sunday, “and CFB Wainwright is where the women and men of our armed forces learn to do the hardest things this country can ask of anyone.”

Retired Major-General Denis Thompson spoke to CBC on Sunday about the training he had experienced at Wainwright, which included “large formations … bringing together infantry, foot soldiers, with artillery” in large-scale live-fire training that sometimes include air-dropped munitions.

“You're trying to put that together in order to conduct complex operations in as safe an environment as possible, but remember we're talking about live fire, here, to do things like breaching obstacles, which are extremely difficult,” Thompson said.

Wainwright Mayor Bruce Pugh told CBC on Sunday that, prior to the incident, he could hear cannon fire and weapons firing, though he noted that the sounds were not unusual for the training base. He said that the base went quiet and then the fire department was activated, and he realized then that something might have happened. 

He also explained that weather conditions were a contributing factor. “October has been dry,” he observed, while acknowledging the impact of high winds.

The base employed around 1,300 military and civilian personnel, including roughly 1,070 military members, according to October 2025 figures published by the Town of Wainwright.  Wainwright is home to over 6,600 people. That excludes personnel living on the base.

“We have neighbors who are either serving or former members of the Canadian Armed Forces. We’re integrated, our kids playing the same hockey teams, attend the same schools,” Pugh told CBC.

Hospitals declare ‘Code Orange’

According to CBC, Edmonton hospitals have called a code orange alert. The designation is reserved for an external disaster or mass casualty incident.

"This would be the largest mass casualty event that we have seen in this community," Push confirmed to CBC.

He went on to praise first responders working at the local hospital, which served as the initial triage point. 

“Our local health care facility was the reception area for those casualties,” he said. 

Of the first responders at the scene, Pugh said: “They were witness to things that you would pray that you never see, or that if you do, it would be a once-in-a-lifetime experience of service.”

Alberta Health Services responded to a request from TIME on midday Sunday, saying: "We are working to gather additional information and will provide an update as soon as we can."

“Canadians come together in crisis,” Carney said on Sunday, commending the fast and coordinated response on the ground as the incident unfolded. 

The Prime Minister Carney said he is expecting an official statement from leadership in Wainwright by Sunday afternoon.

This is a developing story and will continue to be updated.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday that waives many of the sanctions in the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act, which Congress passed in the late senator’s name last month. The waiver, coming a week after Trump announced a diesel deal with Russia, also underscores fraying relations between the U.S. and Ukraine.

The law, which was set to take effect Oct. 18, called for sanctions targeting Russian officials, financial institutions, and other entities, alongside tariffs of up to 100% on goods imported into the U.S. from major buyers of Russian crude oil or natural gas. Those measures were intended to restrict the financial resources supporting Russia’s war against Ukraine.

Read More: Lawmakers Argue Trump's Russia Diesel Deal 'Violates' the Law. Here's What Legal Experts Say

The U.K.’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office estimated in June 2025 that international sanctions had deprived the Russian state of at least $450 billion in war funds since February 2022, including through lost oil tax revenues and immobilized central-bank reserves.

While Trump’s waiver leaves existing sanctions in place, it blocks the additional pressure the new measures were intended to exert.

Trump has also pushed Ukraine to scale back its own campaign against Russia’s energy sector, repeatedly urging Kyiv to halt strikes on Russian fuel infrastructure and suggesting that those attacks are driving up U.S. fuel prices. But Ukrainian strikes are only one factor affecting fuel prices; disruptions linked to the war with Iran are largely responsible for constraining global supplies, while reduced Russian refinery activity has added pressure to diesel markets.

On Oct. 11, Trump claimed that Russia and Ukraine had agreed to an “energy ceasefire.” But Ukrainian officials reported Russian strikes on energy infrastructure hours after his announcement, and Zelensky said the purported agreement was news to him.

That same day, Trump called for Ukraine to replace President Volodymyr Zelensky. Withdrawing sanctions within a week of those statements, and thereby improving Russia’s financial position,  points to an increasingly uneven display of support from the U.S.

Jeff Colgan, a professor of political science at Brown University, tells TIME that the decision is basically “is like trading [Ukrainian] democracy for diesel.”

A diesel deal with Russia, announced Oct. 9, is one of the many recent actions Trump has taken in an effort to reduce fuel prices for Americans ahead of midterm elections on Nov. 3. The deal came with an easing of sanctions as the Treasury Department issued a temporary license authorizing transactions involving Russian diesel, including imports into the U.S., through April 7, 2027.

In his announcement of the deal on Truth Social, Trump said that Russia had agreed to supply global markets with more than 4.8 million tons of diesel, claiming  that it would bring diesel prices down “IN RECORD NUMBERS.”

But experts question whether the deal would actually have any material impact on the price of fuel for American consumers.

“There could be a modest short-term effect on wholesale prices, but only a small and delayed benefit, if any, would reach consumers at the pump,” says Tatiana Mitrova, a fellow at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy.

The waiver signed Friday, in comparison, could potentially prevent additional disruption to the global energy market. It allows Russian oil to continue flowing to importers like China and India, preventing further market volatility.

“The broader sanctions waiver may prevent additional market disruptions, but it does not itself create new supply,” Mitrova says. “The potential economic benefit to American consumers looks rather modest compared with the geopolitical cost of weakening sanctions pressure.”

Reducing that pressure—which has widely been interpreted as a component of the diesel deal, though it has not been explicitly identified as such—likely benefits Russia more than the monetary value of the diesel deal itself, Mitrova points out. 

“The much bigger financial benefit for Moscow is avoiding additional sanctions that could have undermined its much larger crude oil export revenues,” she says. 

And while Trump has touted the benefits of the deal, Colgan questions whether they will be tangible to any country other than Russia itself.

“Easing the sanctions probably won't move global prices very much (big market), but could mean substantial extra revenue for Russia,” he says. 

But the potential consequences extend beyond Russia’s balance sheet. The waiver also raises questions about Washington’s commitment to Ukraine as relations between the two countries deteriorate.

How might the sanctions waiver affect Ukraine?

Beyond its impact on global diesel prices, Trump’s sanctions waiver could deepen a growing rift between the U.S. and Ukraine—raising further questions about Washington’s support for Kyiv.

Konstantin Sonin, a Russian economist and a professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, reads the move as a symbolic gesture of support for Russian President Vladimir Putin. He suggests that it could send a message to U.S. allies that extends beyond economic considerations. 

“I think this will be read by Ukraine and Ukraine leadership—and European leadership—as another step in the United States withdrawing from being an active European player,” he tells TIME.

In addition to bolstering Russia’s finances and giving it latitude in its invasion of Ukraine, Sonin says that the waiver of additional sanctions could also “boost morale” for Putin.

“It’s another bit of signaling that the United States is not as supportive of Ukraine as they were historically,” he adds. “You still cannot say that the United States is on Putin's side, but it is another bit of diminishing support for Ukraine.”

Mitrova agrees that the biggest benefit to Russia might be more strategic than financial.

“For Putin, the most valuable outcome may not be additional diesel revenues but the perception that Washington is increasingly prioritizing domestic energy prices over sustained pressure on Russia,” she says. “That could reinforce the Kremlin’s belief that it can outlast Western support rather than make meaningful concessions.”

Zelensky criticized the decision to block the new sanctions.

“The decision to undo all of this, to block all of it, seems wrong to me,” the Ukrainian President wrote on X on Saturday. “And it definitely helps only the Russians. It only fuels their satisfaction and their desire to keep killing people. This certainly does not stop the war.”

Mitrova argues that in easing sanctions, the U.S. also compromises its position with European leadership that has continued to align closely with Zelensky and Ukraine.

“Europe is still tightening sanctions against Russia, while Washington is now moving in the opposite direction,” she says. “By suspending sanctions that were designed to discourage major countries from buying Russian energy, Washington risks undermining a central pillar of the Western strategy toward Russia.”

Why Republicans and Democrats are criticizing the waiver

Trump’s waiver earned a flood of criticism from both sides of the aisle, particularly since it undermined a widely supported act of Congress. The Sanctioning Russia Act of 2026 cleared Congress on Sept. 16 with overwhelming bipartisan support: a vote of 86-11 in the Senate and a vote of 262-159 in the House.

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis, who is leaving office in January, called the decision “beyond irresponsible” on Saturday.

Suggesting that the Trump Administration is overtly snubbing the will of the legislative branch, Tillis wrote on X: “It’s unconscionable that this administration is capitulating to a Russian dictator who illegally invaded Ukraine.”

Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn reacted by saying “Lindsey would be appalled,” referencing the late Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham—a staunch Ukraine supporter after whom the sanctions act was named. Graham had spent over a year petitioning for the move before his death on July 11.

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, said in a statement that Trump was “enabling Vladimir Putin to continue his war of aggression.”

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer released a statement Saturday saying that “by giving the Russian economy life support, Trump’s deal with the devil keeps getting dirtier.”

Trump was able to waive the sanctions through a safety valve provision embedded in the legislation. The law allowed Trump to waive its sanctions and tariffs after submitting a written certification to Congress that doing so was in the national interest, along with a report explaining that determination. In Friday’s order, Trump said he had submitted both.

“I am hereby waiving the application of such sanctions, restrictions, and duties provided for in the Graham Act,” Trump wrote in the order. “I have submitted to the Congress a certification that the issuance of such a waiver at this time is in the national interests of the United States.”

A White House spokesperson tells TIME that enforcing the sanctions would impede U.S. efforts to negotiate peace, but did not elaborate.

"Enforcing the sanctions provisions now would impede ongoing U.S. efforts to negotiate a durable and comprehensive peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia," the spokesperson says. "The President retains the ability to exercise these authorities at any time if he determines that doing so would advance national interests.”

Darline Graham, the late senator’s sister who was appointed to fill his seat in South Carolina and is running for election this November to keep it, said at a campaign stop on Saturday that the decision was Trump’s to make; however, she voiced disapproval, saying that she would prefer to “keep the pressure on Russia.”

“I don’t trust Putin and I don’t trust Russia,” she said.