DOJ Seeks Recusal of Judge Who Ordered Trump Officials to Testify
The Justice Department's move to disqualify Judge Ana C. Reyes escalates a separation-of-powers dispute over executive branch testimony in a federal civil case.
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a formal demand that U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes recuse herself from a lawsuit involving a golf course, after the judge ordered several Trump administration officials to testify, according to reporting by The New York Times published October 16, 2026.
The recusal demand represents the Justice Department's most direct step yet in what the Times described as an escalating standoff between the executive branch and Judge Reyes, who sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Judge Reyes had issued an order requiring multiple Trump officials to provide testimony in connection with the golf course litigation. The court filing underlying the recusal demand is a public record in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, though the specific docket number was not included in the Times report. The full text of the DOJ motion would reveal the precise legal grounds cited for disqualification.
Federal recusal standards are governed by 28 U.S.C. Section 455, which requires a federal judge to disqualify herself in any proceeding where her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. A separate provision, 28 U.S.C. Section 144, allows a party to file an affidavit of personal bias. Which statute the DOJ invoked in this instance is not specified in the available source material and would be stated in the court filing.
Requests by executive branch agencies to disqualify sitting federal judges are procedurally rare. Under the federal recusal statute, if a judge declines to step aside voluntarily, the matter is typically referred to another judge on the same court for a ruling on the recusal motion itself.
The underlying lawsuit involves a golf course, but the specific parties, the legal claims, and the amount in controversy are not identified in the source material reviewed by The Congressional Times. Those details are contained in the case's publicly available docket in federal court.
The order compelling Trump officials to testify is at the center of the conflict. The executive branch has historically asserted that certain communications and testimony involving senior officials are shielded by executive privilege, though courts have ruled inconsistently on the scope of that doctrine depending on the context of the litigation.
This standoff occurs alongside other active disputes between the current administration and the federal judiciary. The Congressional Times has separately reported on appellate court scrutiny of DOJ arguments regarding presidential records ownership. See: Appeals Court Challenges DOJ Argument That Trump Owns Presidential Records.
It is not yet known whether Judge Reyes has responded to the recusal demand, whether she intends to step aside voluntarily, or whether a separate judge has been assigned to rule on the motion. The docket for the case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia would contain any filed responses and orders on the recusal question.
What remains unknown: the identity of the Trump officials named in the testimony order, the specific legal claims in the underlying golf course suit, and the statutory basis cited by the DOJ for disqualification. All of those details are contained in the public court record and would be reported by The Congressional Times upon review of the filed documents.