By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration has terminated the lease agreement with the National Links Trust, a nonprofit operating three public golf courses in Washington, D.C. The Department of the Interior cited the nonprofit’s failure to meet lease terms and implement required capital improvements as the reason for the termination. While the administration’s future plans for the courses are unclear, this decision provides President Trump with the opportunity to potentially influence the courses, some of which are located on federal land. The National Links Trust has stated it is “devastated” by the decision.
Read the original article here
The Trump administration has ended the lease agreement for three public golf courses in Washington, and it’s certainly generating a lot of buzz. It appears the former President, with his well-known love of golf and history of developing golf courses, has the potential to reshape these green spaces overlooking the Potomac River, nestled in Rock Creek Park, and even one tied to Black golf history.
This move immediately brings up questions about what’s next. Considering the former President’s business background, it’s natural to wonder about his intentions. Will he seek to buy the properties? Could they become part of the “Trump National Golf Club” empire? There’s a prevailing feeling that this could be just the beginning of another chapter in his business ventures. The potential for renaming the courses with his moniker is also on the table, which doesn’t sit well with many.
There’s a palpable frustration around this decision, and it’s understandable. Some express deep concern over what they perceive as blatant self-interest. The idea that someone would use the power of the presidency to secure more opportunities for personal gain, like purchasing or transforming these public spaces, feels to many like a betrayal of the public trust. The term “grift” has been used quite a bit, pointing to the idea of taking advantage of a situation for financial benefit.
Many feel a sense of loss, especially in relation to Langston Golf Course, a place seen as welcoming to a diverse group of golfers. There’s a worry that these courses, which provided accessible and inclusive spaces, might become exclusive, potentially altering the character of the city itself. The possibility of these courses being converted into something inaccessible to the general public evokes a strong negative reaction.
There’s a strong desire for the next administration to reverse this action if the former President does indeed attempt to take over these courses. The sentiment is that the former President should not be allowed to benefit from this move. There’s a belief that this decision needs to be undone, and the courses should be returned to the public. There’s a longing for a return to the status quo, or perhaps something even better in the future.
The idea of the courses being converted to Trump properties triggers a lot of strong reactions. Some view it as a continuation of a pattern, and an extension of commercial property development. This move is seen by many as another example of his taking advantage of his position for his own benefit. The potential for no-bid contracts is also being flagged. The idea that his name could be plastered across the courses, memorializing his time in office, also raises eyebrows.
The conversation extends beyond the golf courses. There’s a broader concern about the potential for his actions to harm a wide variety of public assets and interests. This brings up talk of a pattern of behavior, which is perceived as inappropriate and harmful. Some believe it highlights an erosion of ethical standards in the nation’s capital.
There are calls for the next administration to pursue legal action against these moves. This has to be corrected. The desire is to have all properties associated with the former President seized to pay for the “damage” that has been done. The idea that there is a way to rectify the situation, once he is gone, brings a sense of hope.
Finally, the tone is one of both outrage and resolve. The decision has sparked a heated debate about the role of the presidency, the use of public resources, and the importance of safeguarding public spaces. It remains to be seen how this plays out, but it’s clear that this move has struck a nerve with many who feel strongly about the future of these golf courses and the city as a whole.