The Trump administration has paused leases for five offshore wind projects along the East Coast, citing national security risks identified by the Pentagon.
The Pause
The pause, effective immediately, targets the Vineyard Wind project in Massachusetts, Revolution Wind in Rhode Island and Connecticut, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, and the two New York projects, Sunrise Wind and Empire Wind. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said the action would give the Interior Department time to work with the Defense Department and other agencies to assess how to mitigate any security risks posed by the projects.
National Security Concerns
Burgum stated, “The prime duty of the United States government is to protect the American people,” adding, “Today’s action addresses emerging national security risks, including the rapid evolution of the relevant adversary technologies, and the vulnerabilities created by large-scale offshore wind projects with proximity near our east coast population centers.”
The Interior Department noted that unclassified reports have long found that the movement of massive turbine blades and highly reflective towers creates radar interference called “clutter.” This clutter can obscure legitimate moving targets and generate false targets near wind projects. National security expert and former USS Cole commander Kirk Lippold said the projects were awarded permits “following years of review by state and federal agencies,” including the Coast Guard, the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, the Air Force, and more. He added, “The record of decisions all show that the Department of Defense was consulted at every stage of the permitting process.”
Legal Backdrop
The pause follows a federal judge’s ruling that struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order blocking wind energy projects. Judge Patti Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacated the Jan. 20 order and declared it unlawful. She ruled in favor of a coalition of 17 states and Washington, D.C., led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, which had challenged the order that paused leasing and permitting for wind energy projects.
The judge said the order was “arbitrary and capricious” and violated U.S. law. Trump’s administration had been hostile to renewable energy, especially offshore wind, and had prioritized fossil fuels for electricity production.
Industry Reaction
Wind supporters called the administration’s actions illegal and said offshore wind provides some of the most affordable, reliable electric power to the grid. Ted Kelly of the Environmental Defense Fund said, “For nearly a year, the Trump administration has recklessly obstructed the build-out of clean, affordable power for millions of Americans, just as the country’s need for electricity is surging.” He added, “Now the administration is again illegally blocking clean, affordable energy. We should not be kneecapping America’s largest source of renewable power, especially when we need more cheap, homegrown electricity.”
The Conservation Law Foundation, a Boston-based environmental group, called the pause “a desperate rerun of the Trump administration’s failed attempt to kill offshore wind,” noting that courts had already rejected the administration’s arguments. Kate Sinding Daly, senior vice president for law and policy at the foundation, said, “Trying again to halt these projects tramples on the rule of law, threatens jobs and deliberately sabotages a critical industry that strengthens – not weakens – America’s energy security.”
Key Takeaways
- Five offshore wind projects on the East Coast have had their leases paused immediately.
- The pause is justified by national security risks identified by the Pentagon and radar interference concerns.
- A federal judge struck down a prior executive order blocking wind projects, finding it unlawful.
The pause represents the latest step the Trump administration has taken to curb offshore wind development in its broader push against renewable energy sources. While the Interior Department will work with defense agencies to assess mitigation options, the move has drawn sharp criticism from environmental groups and industry supporters who argue that it undermines clean, affordable energy and violates the rule of law.
