Lawyers in Reflecting Pool case say U.S. Justice Department knew case was flawed

Former Olympic canoeist David Hearn, second from left, listens as his attorney Norman Eisen, right, speaks after he pleaded not guilty to allegedly damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, Thursday, July 9, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr.)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Justice Department knew or should have known for weeks that its case against a former Olympian charged with intentionally damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool was flawed, and that he bore no responsibility for longstanding problems at the landmark, defence lawyers said Tuesday.

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro on Friday moved to dismiss the indictment against David Hearn, saying in a 20-page filing that newly produced evidence from the Interior Department showed the former Olympic canoeist was not responsible for damage to the pool’s lining.

Pirro’s office attributed the damage instead to a botched installation by a contractor as well as “the rush to complete the project prior to events associated with the America 250 celebration” in the weeks surrounding July 4, as directed by President Donald Trump.

Lawyers for Hearn on Tuesday urged a judge to permanently dismiss the case and foreclose the possibility that the Trump administration could revive it. They took issue with Pirro’s assertion that prosecutors only recently learned about the pre-existing defects at the pool, saying the government had “disregarded readily available evidence” that the liner was already failing because of installation flaws.

“From the outset, the evidence showed that the pool liner was already failing and that Mr. Hearn did not cause the damage alleged in the indictment,” Hearn’s legal team argued in a 28-page motion filed Tuesday in D.C. Superior Court.

The poor condition of the pool was “plainly visible” for weeks and was publicly documented through photographs, video and news reports, the lawyers wrote.

“Defying both decency and common sense, the government proceeded to indict Mr. Hearn before it had obtained or evaluated the information necessary to establish a good-faith basis for the charge,” the defence attorneys wrote.

In addition, they say, the government’s key eyewitness was never presented to the grand jury, and a key prosecution witness on the question of damages “stated that the repairs at issue would have been necessary regardless of Mr. Hearn’s alleged conduct and could not identify any additional cost caused by Mr. Hearn.”

The contractor, Virginia-based Atlantic Industrial Coatings, “publicly acknowledged, before Mr. Hearn was indicted, that portions of the project required repair,” the lawyers said. The firm was awarded a US$14.7 million no-bid contract to repaint and waterproof the pool’s concrete floor.

A spokesperson for Pirro’s office did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Trump said Monday that Pirro “choked” and “folded like an umbrella” in moving to drop charges against Hearn. Trump, who met with Pirro late Monday, said he remained disappointed by her assessment that damage to the Reflecting Pool was the result of shoddy construction, not vandalism. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has backed Trump’s claims that vandals damaged the pool.

The dismissal of charges against Hearn was an embarrassing setback for the Justice Department and marked a rare moment during Trump’s second term of an aide or political appointee openly defying him.

Hearn has said he was on a bike ride June 19 when he reached in to examine the pool’s newly peeled coating and briefly touched a chunk attached to the side of the pool. But he said he obeyed a park worker who told him to let go of it.

Felony charges, including a possible prison sentence, were brought “without a meaningful investigation into the central and obvious question in this case: whether Mr. Hearn caused, or even could have caused, any damage to the Reflecting Pool,” Hearn’s lawyers said. “Defying both decency and common sense, the government proceeded to indict Mr. Hearn before it had obtained or evaluated the information necessary to establish a good-faith basis for the charge.”

Matthew Daly And Eric Tucker, The Associated Press