“I am not the Lorax. I do not speak for the trees. I am a judge,” U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes said at a hearing last month.

That quote referenced the famous Dr. Seuss character “with a voice that was sharpish and bossy” who angrily defends a forest from destruction, declaring, “I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees.”In a September hearing that was part of a legal challenge brought by a preservationist group and a pair of local golfers, the effort to block President Donald Trump from transforming a historic public golf course into a championship-style course in the president’s image continued, this time focusing on tree removal.

The government had removed 150 trees that it deemed dying, dead, hazardous or invasive. Reyes accepted that argument and declined to intervene. She did not want to become the Lorax, she said.

But could her Lorax-like conduct get Reyes removed from the case?

In a new filing late Friday night, lawyers from the Department of Justice have alleged her “conduct rises to the level of deep-seated and unequivocal antipathy toward the Trump Administration.”Late Sunday night, Reyes denied that request to recuse her from the case.

And the president himself seemed to ignore what role Reyes may play in his plans to reimagine the East Potomac golf course. On Sunday, he posted on Truth Social that the course is “completely overgrown, dysfunctional, and unsafe” and announced work will begin on a new design in November and that the course will reroximately 15 months.

Last week, Reyes presided over a fiery emergency hearing during which the plaintiffs accused the government of abruptly razing 529 trees with little notice over a holiday weekend. Suddenly, Reyes seemed inspired by the beloved Dr. Seuss character known to be “very upset as he shouted and puffed.”Reyes repeatedly raised her voice and spoke sharply at the government for their actions.

“There is no excuse for this and you know why I’m furious right now. It was hearing from everyone on the plaintiffs’ side that this was going to happen and I said no, repeatedly, I trust the government,” Reyes said in that hearing. “I trusted you all repeatedly to not do what you have done.”“I’m just at a total loss to understand what has happened here,” she added.

Those fireworks are sure to return to her courtroom Monday morning when she holds the second part of that hearing with more testimony from top officials from the Department of the Interior and the National Parks Service. On Sunday afternoon, she also demanded testimony from top Department of Justice officials, including Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Jr. Reyes will demand those witnesses to explain why there was suddenly such urgency to quickly remove hundreds of trees without giving her or the plaintiffs real notice, the one thing she had directed the government to do.

The government has argued the tree removal was grounded in a 2019 “Cultural Landscape Report” aimed at restoring the golf course to its original design. The question Reyes asked, though: Why the sudden rush?

During that hearing, Reyes heard nearly four hours of arguments from the government and testimony from two top NPS officials, but no one could answer her questions about the apparent sudden urgency.

Asked whether there was an urgency for the tree removal, Kevin Griess, the superintendent for the National Mall and Memorial Parks in Washington, responded, “Not that I’m aware of.”“So the trees could be cut down tomorrow, or they could be cut down in a month from now, and from the government’s perspective, it’s basically the same,” Reyes asked. “From what I understand, Your Honor, yes,” Griess responded.

As the hearing dragged on, Reyes grew frustrated with the government’s inability to answer her questions. She attempted to get senior government officials on the phone to answer her questions. Frank Lands, a top NPS official, joined the virtual hearing about halfway through as he sat in a parked car.

Through the testimony of Griess and Lands, Reyes began to piece together a timeline between when the decision was formulated and when the first tree fell.

The government officials testified that the tree removal unfolded over the course of five days — seven years after the plan was first outlined.

“It is a coincidence, the Government seems to suggest, that DOI cut down hundreds of trees at the Course weeks after the President asked DOI to cut down trees at the Course, and not, say, any other time in the last seven years,” Reyes wrote in her order blocking tree removal. “That asks rather a lot of coincidence.”Griess said he submitted the tree removal plan to NPS on Oct. 5 and received funding approval the next day.

Reyes didn’t know any of this as it was unfolding. The government didn’t inform the court of the plan until 4:55 p.m. on Oct. 9 — the Friday before a holiday weekend. The Trump administration began felling trees the following morning before Reyes or the plaintiffs could respond.

It’s still unclear what happened between Oct. 6-9 and who knew what when. That’s why she’s so angry — or at least part of the reason.

But perhaps some of that anger is directed internally. She chose to trust the government, opting on multiple occasions to reject official court orders that would have blocked such behavior. In the September hearing, Reyes clarified her directive to the government.

“I have not issued any order stopping anyone from doing anything,” she said. “The only thing I have done, and it wasn’t even in an order, it was a request, was that if more than ten trees are going to be chopped down that we all know so we can move.”During the emergency hearing last week, Reyes said she was “regretting” her decision to not memorialize this request into a formal written order. She chose to trust the government, but now that trust appears to be broken.

“I have no faith, no faith that the government is not going to cut them down unless there’s an order in place not to do so,” Reyes said during the hearing. “So now, we’re all going to have a massive fire drill because the government chat’s be trusted.”On Tuesday, she extended her temporary restraining order through Oct. 26 and memorialized that extension with a 21-page opinion.

“The Court concludes, on this limited record, that government officials raced to undertake the [tree management plan] because President Trump demands haste on his redesign, and not because of some newfound zeal to implement a small part of a seven-year-old [Cultural Landscape Report],” Reyes wrote.

That ruling is perhaps a sign that the government’s word is no longer enough — but perhaps the government should also heed advice from the story of the Lorax when trying to get back on Reyes’ good side.

“Grow a forest. Protect it from axes that hack. Then the Lorax and all of his friends may come back.”But given the president’s plan, a reimagined course seems to have roots and the forest may already be razed.