In late July and early August 2026, U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro dropped the Reflecting Pool “vandalism” charges against four people, including former Olympic canoeist David Hearn, after her office acknowledged in a July 31 court filing that the damage “was the result of a botched installation and not vandalism” (see Trump's $14 Million Reflecting Pool Redo Fills With Algae and Sheds Its Paint, Then He Blames Obama and 'Vandals'). Trump did not accept it. On August 1 he said, “I disagree 100% with Jeanine Pirro,” called it “a pure case of VANDALISM,” and said she “choked” and “folded like an umbrella.” On August 3, at an hour-long Oval Office meeting, Pirro confronted Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and accused him of misleading the president, according to the New York Times and CNN; she kept her job.
On August 9 and 10, Trump acknowledged in a Truth Social post that there was “no video or proof, other than the damage, itself,” and conceded “some contractor error done by rushing the job for a July 4th opening,” while still accusing Hearn and urging Pirro to reverse the dismissal.
In a 26-page order, D.C. Superior Court Judge Todd E. Edelman dismissed the case against David Hearn with prejudice. The government moved on July 31 to dismiss the indictment and asked that the dismissal be without prejudice, which would let it refile; Edelman quickly granted the dismissal but left that question open, and has now ruled against refiling, because “the President of the United States has criticized the decision of the Office of the United States Attorney to drop the case in the most vituperative terms; demanded that the government reinstitute the prosecution, in part because of Mr. Hearn's political activity and the identity of one of his attorneys; and publicly entertained the possibility of firing the United States Attorney as a result of the dismissal.” The order lists Trump's statements, among them that Pirro “folded like an umbrella” and “Anybody who thinks the Reflecting Pool wasn't vandalized should go back to Law School!” Hearn, Edelman wrote, “faces the unique possibility that the government will revive this case” because of political pressure, and “the government has no right to retain the ability to compound the errors it has already made, or even to threaten to do so, at Mr. Hearn's expense.” The judge did not find that prosecutors acted in bad faith; he noted their quick dismissal supported their claim of good faith.
Update (October 21, 2026): David Hearn's lawyers said the Justice Department's inspector general declined their October 6 request to investigate the prosecutors' handling of the case, calling it outside his jurisdiction and referring it to the Office of Professional Responsibility, the AP reported. In a letter asking him to reconsider, they wrote, “The plain fact is that OPR is no longer a fully functioning entity capable of conducting rigorous oversight,” CBS News reported. The inspector general's response has not been made public.