The Daily Fuckup

A Feb. 6, 2023 ruling in the District of Columbia did something narrower than the old story around Trump-branded properties suggests: it dealt with attorney’s fees in a FOIA case, not a sweeping merits decision about corruption, abuse, or all Trump properties at once. The case involved WP Co. LLC’s request for records from the Department of Homeland Security tied to the Trump International Hotel lease and related government documents. The court’s job that day was to decide whether the requester had substantially prevailed and, if so, how much fee recovery was reasonable. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/oip/wp-co-llc-v-dhs-no-20-1487-2023-wl-1778196-ddc-feb-6-2023-mcfadden-j))

The dispute grew out of a records fight over the Old Post Office lease arrangement that housed the Trump International Hotel in Washington. According to the court record, the underlying FOIA case concerned documents the agency had not initially produced, and the Feb. 6 opinion addressed the fee question after earlier litigation activity had already forced partial disclosure. The court cited FOIA’s fee-shifting standard and the usual factors for deciding whether a requester is entitled to fees, including public benefit, the requester’s interest, and the reasonableness of the agency’s withholding. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/oip/wp-co-llc-v-dhs-no-20-1487-2023-wl-1778196-ddc-feb-6-2023-mcfadden-j))

The ruling mattered because it kept the records dispute alive procedurally, but it did not say that all spending at Trump properties was improper or that the businesses themselves had been found liable for misconduct. It was a focused order in a specific FOIA case. The court concluded that the requester was eligible for fees, but also said the amount sought was too high and reduced the award. That is a narrower outcome than the broad reputational claims often attached to Trump property litigation. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/oip/wp-co-llc-v-dhs-no-20-1487-2023-wl-1778196-ddc-feb-6-2023-mcfadden-j))

Even so, the case shows why Trump-linked real estate kept drawing legal attention long after the lease became a political flashpoint. When a property is tied to a sitting president or former president, records disputes can take on an outsized significance, especially when they concern government dealings with that property. Here, the issue was not a general verdict on the Trump brand. It was a specific fight over records, fees, and the scope of disclosure under FOIA. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/oip/wp-co-llc-v-dhs-no-20-1487-2023-wl-1778196-ddc-feb-6-2023-mcfadden-j))