The Reflecting Pool case appeared to be over last week when federal prosecutors moved to drop felony charges against Olympic canoeist David Hearn. It is not over. According to reporting from the Wall Street Journal, the White House has asked the Justice Department to look at whether a fresh case, this time built on possible misdemeanor charges, could be brought against the same man.

That request arrives after the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington conceded in court, with specificity, that damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool stemmed from a poorly executed renovation rather than from vandalism.

A Dismissal That Angered the President

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, formerly a Fox News host, originally charged Hearn with felony vandalism. Her office then filed the motion that ended the prosecution.

President Trump has made no secret of his displeasure, publicly accusing her of choking.

On Truth Social, he urged Pirro to reconsider what he characterized as a hasty decision, arguing that the man involved is significantly connected to ActBlue, which he described as a fundraising scam, and objecting to Hearn’s representation by attorney Norm Eisen and the organization CREW, which the president claimed uses charitable status for political ends.

Sources familiar with the matter told the Journal that Justice Department discussions about a new case are informal and preliminary. Newly confirmed Attorney General Todd Blanche has not participated in them.

The Hearing That Could End It Permanently

A significant procedural question sits directly ahead.

Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman, who dismissed the case last week, is scheduled to decide whether that dismissal should be with prejudice.

If he rules that it should, the Justice Department would be barred from charging Hearn again over the same alleged conduct. That single determination may matter more than any internal deliberation at DOJ.

How much the reported discussions about new charges will influence the hearing is unclear, though defense attorneys generally treat evidence of continued pursuit as an argument for finality.

How the Pool Got Damaged

The underlying facts are considerably less dramatic than the legal fight surrounding them.

The Reflecting Pool was one of several Washington landmarks targeted for renovation ahead of the nation’s 250th anniversary celebrations. Work included painting the bottom of the pool blue.

The result did not go as planned. The water developed a substantial algae bloom, and portions of the coating began peeling away from the pool floor.

Hearn has said he reached into the water to touch a piece of the coating that had already surfaced. Trump maintains that a credible witness observed something quite different.

The Justice Department’s own court filings earlier this month acknowledged that vandalism was not the cause of the damage.

Trump’s Partial Concession

In a Truth Social post Sunday, Trump acknowledged that the renovation involved rushing and some contractor error, while continuing to allege deliberate vandalism.

He wrote that a career National Park Service employee, whom he described as highly credible, witnessed Hearn violently ripping and tugging at the pool’s coating in broad daylight, and that this account was provided to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in early July.

The post also referenced additional alleged incidents, including an acid-like substance applied to newly installed grass beside the pool where the characters 86 47 had been written. Trump attributed the phrase to former FBI Director James Comey.

He acknowledged there was no video or other proof beyond the damage itself, and said contractor error affected only a small and relatively inconsequential portion of the structure. He added that security cameras have been and are being installed, and that the pool would reopen shortly.

The admission of contractor error is notable precisely because it aligns with what prosecutors told the court, even as the rest of the post argues the opposite conclusion.

Congressional Scrutiny

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin announced Tuesday that he is opening an investigation into what he called a bogus felony prosecution of a three-time U.S. Olympian who faced a decade in prison on baseless allegations.

In letters to Pirro and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Raskin posed three questions: whether prosecutors knowingly brought a groundless indictment, whether the Interior Department withheld evidence that would have attributed the renovation failure elsewhere, and whether the president pressured either department to act against a private citizen.

He argued that at minimum, members of the administration appeared willing to imprison an innocent person for a decade over a bad paint job and a wasteful contract.

Raskin requested documents by August 25 covering the decision to prosecute, specifically including the choice to pursue felony rather than misdemeanor charges, along with communications between DOJ, Interior, and the White House, and all evidence presented to the grand jury.

The remainder of the letter needled an apparent rift between Pirro and Burgum, suggesting they pool resources to investigate a Florida man temporarily residing in Washington.

An Unusual Grand Jury

Separately, the Washington Post reported Wednesday that the Justice Department has convened a special grand jury in Washington.

The distinguishing feature of a special grand jury is that it can issue a potentially damaging public report about an investigation’s subject even when prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to bring a case to trial.

According to three government officials speaking anonymously, the panel will be overseen by Steven Vandervelden, described as one of Pirro’s closest allies within her office.

No public evidence connects this grand jury to the Hearn matter. The timing has nonetheless attracted attention.

Why This Keeps Escalating

Ordinarily, a prosecutor’s acknowledgment that the alleged crime did not occur ends a case cleanly.

What has kept this one alive is that the dispute is no longer really about a pool lining. It has become a test of whether an admission by career prosecutors settles a matter when the president disagrees with it.

The hearing on whether dismissal is with prejudice will supply the clearest answer available in the near term.