Upon returning to office on 20 January 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order suspending new offshore-wind leasing in all federal waters. This moratorium aimed to fulfill his campaign promise to “end the offshore wind industry,” which he argued was costly and harmful.
The moratorium placed an estimated 21 GW of planned U.S. capacity under immediate regulatory uncertainty.
However, the administration did not stop at blocking future developments. In April 2025, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum directed Equinor to halt construction on the fully-permitted Empire Wind 1 (807 MW, USD 5 billion) project pending a supplemental environmental review. Equinor reported that the stop-work order was costing roughly USD 50 million per week in idle-vessel and contract penalties, and the pause left about 3,500 associated jobs on hold across the entire project supply chain.
The decision to halt construction at Empire Wind 1 prompted developers and state officials to warn of chilled investment across the sector.
Indeed, there were strong fears that Orsted's 924 MW Sunrise Wind project would meet a similar fate. However, the project continued on schedule with foundation installation beginning in early June. Spinergie systems detected the completion of the first monopile installation on June 5 by HLV Bokalift 2.
By then, the stop-work order at Empire Wind 1 had been lifted and work resumed in May.
.jpg)
How climate funding became a legal battleground
Beyond offshore wind, the administration froze or rescinded several clean-energy funding streams in early 2025, or at least tried to do so. From January, the reversal of Biden-era policies was promptly put in place by the new administration, with federal agencies at the forefront of the charge.
One of the first tools used by the new administration is to stop funding for climate-related projects.
However, the wave of executive orders and agency memos aimed at blocking funding going into climate policies is clashing with the U.S checks and balances system, where Congress appropriates funds to agencies, and the executive branch does not get a say—setting the stage for legal confrontation.
For example, in early February 2025, the Department of Transportation (DOT) instructed states to halt drawdowns from the USD 2.7 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) programme, triggering multi-state litigation by late May. The coalition of states and environmental groups that sued alleged the administration had “unlawfully frozen” the $2.7 billion EV charging fund, in defiance of Congress’s mandate, and with no authority.
A long list of funding-related actions followed. A memo on January 27 from the Office of Management and Budget sought to pause all federal financial assistance for climate-related programmes, before being withdrawn two days later after a court challenge. The EPA’s suspension of clean energy disbursements and NIH and DOE efforts to cap research overheads were all blocked or delayed by court rulings.
In effect, the administration sought to starve renewable and climate initiatives of support through executive power, but quickly ran into legal barriers.
As of June 17, President Trump had signed 161 executive orders, over two dozen of which directly aimed at U.S. energy and environmental policy.
Empire Wind 1: a case study in political interference
The temporary halt of Equinor’s Empire Wind 1 project in April 2025 became the most visible symbol of how executive power translated into immediate disruptions for U.S. offshore wind.
The USD 5 billion, 812 MW project, part of New York’s 3.5 GW offshore wind target, had already started construction when the White House abruptly issued a stop-work order citing permitting concerns. The project was put on hold as Heerema’s giant heavy-lift vessel Thialf, tasked with the foundation campaign, was halfway through the Atlantic Ocean, along with a fleet of construction vessels. The order came despite prior assurances that active projects would be spared, which was also the consensus among analysts during Q1 2025.
The suspension prompted Equinor to form dual crisis teams: one to prepare for shutdown, another to lobby for reversal. Equinor CEO Anders Opedal recounted the episode as a rollercoaster, noting that the company was “surprised, but prepared.”
With intervention from Norwegian officials and direct outreach from New York Governor Kathy Hochul, the Trump administration lifted the Empire Wind halt in late May. Behind the scenes, political negotiations involving reviving the Constitution gas pipeline, a long-stalled USD 1 billion infrastructure project previously blocked by New York regulators, helped secure a resolution. But the episode left a clear warning: even fully permitted, installation-ready offshore wind projects carry significant political risk under the current administration.
Uncertainty takes hold as developers exit
The broader impact on clean energy investment has been substantial: offshore wind developers have scaled back U.S. exposure. RWE withdrew from U.S. offshore wind in April 2025, citing “the political developments.” The company had already spent over $1 billion developing leases in New York, Louisiana, and California. Shell withdrew in January 2025, terminating its Atlantic Shores joint venture after a nearly $1 billion impairment; its JV partner, EDF, would file in June 2025 a motion to terminate the project’s offshore renewable energy credits. Vineyard Wind 2 (CIP JV Avangrid) was shelved in December 2024 after Connecticut backed out. TotalEnergies said, the month after the election, that it would not pursue further U.S. offshore wind investments in the short term, citing poor market conditions.
Beyond offshore wind, an estimated USD 14 billion in renewable projects have been delayed or cancelled in the first half of 2025 in the U.S. In parallel, car maker Stellantis had to rethink its $3.2 billion plan to build an EV battery facility in Belvidere, Illinois, opting instead to dedicate the factory to internal combustion mid-size truck production, prompting criticism from union officials, who linked the shift to continued uncertainty over federal EV incentives.
While many state officials, unions, and federal staff have pushed back (New York's governor called the Empire Wind 1 stop work order “a federal overreach,” and the IBEW labor union condemned it as harmful to skilled union jobs), the damage is quite evident. Across offshore wind and climate tech, uncertainty has replaced momentum. Timelines have slipped, project risk premiums have increased, and investor appetite has weakened. There is still resistance.
Ongoing legal pushback
A defining feature, and perhaps a lesser-known fact, of President Trump’s second term has been the rapid pace at which his executive actions have met judicial resistance. In the first half of 2025 alone, courts blocked or delayed a wide range of policy moves, revealing how the legal system continues to serve as a check on presidential authority. Lawsuits have been filed by coalitions of state attorneys general, environmental groups, civil rights advocates, universities, and even business associations, many accusing the administration of executive overreach or outright illegality.
There is an ongoing legal battle over offshore wind. In May 2025, a coalition of 15 states led by Democratic attorneys general from New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and others filed suit to challenge the January 20 federal offshore wind moratorium. The lawsuit alleges that the Trump administration’s withdrawal of leasing authority and the suspension of approved construction projects violate both procedural norms and states’ sovereign rights to pursue clean energy development. The plaintiffs argue that the federal government cannot arbitrarily rescind issued permits, nor can it unilaterally block infrastructure aligned with state energy plans.
The court has not yet issued a decision on the states’ injunction request.
Legal setbacks for the Trump administration have not been limited to offshore wind. Courts have intervened repeatedly across multiple domains. Just weeks into the new term, more than ten federal courts had already issued temporary restraining orders (TROs) or preliminary injunctions blocking key executive actions.
In one early case, when the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health imposed a cap on indirect research costs for federally funded grants, effectively slashing university overheads to 15%, several institutions filed lawsuits. A U.S. District Court in Massachusetts quickly granted a TRO, citing likely violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The judge concluded the administration had overstepped its authority and failed to follow required notice-and-comment procedures, and effectively froze the policy before it could do lasting damage.
One of the most consequential court rulings came in late May 2025, when the judiciary checked Trump’s power on trade policy. The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down as unlawful the series of blanket tariffs Trump had imposed via executive order in 2025, ruling that he exceeded his authority. The three-judge panel reminded that the Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power to regulate international commerce:
"That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it."
Across these and other cases, courts have invoked long-standing doctrines: chiefly, the APA’s guardrails and the Constitution’s separation of powers. And while many legal battles remain ongoing, the pattern is already clear. A significant number of Trump’s headline policies have been either paused or voided in their initial implementation phase. As of Q2 2025, more than a dozen of the administration’s new initiatives had been formally enjoined or delayed by court order.
2025 legal failures echo Trump’s first term
The legal trajectory of the Trump administration in 2025 has started to closely mirror the patterns observed during its first term: namely, a high rate of judicial invalidation stemming from procedural missteps. Between 2017 and 2020, Trump-era agencies were challenged in court at least 246 times over regulatory actions. They won only 22% of those cases, far below the historical average of ~70% for prior administrations. This unusually low success rate was not due to hostile judges, but to systemic failures in legal proceedings:
“the Trump administration loses at an unprecedented rate in front of both Republican-appointed and Democratic-appointed judges. Instead, the findings show the administration violating clear legal requirements in multiple ways”.
The underlying causes of these defeats persist in the 2025 term. Early injunction data suggests that Trump’s second-term executive actions may be tracking at or below the prior term’s win rate. As of June 11, the Trump administration is facing 289 active lawsuits challenging its executive actions, including more than 100 cases calling for his executive orders to be limited or invalidated, according to data from Lawfare, a legal publication. Courts have already paused or struck down several initiatives, from the NEVI charging fund freeze to research grant restrictions, citing the same APA-based violations that plagued earlier efforts.
These rulings have immediate consequences in clean energy. In March, judicial intervention had already prevented disruption by safeguarding funding when the Office of Management and Budget tried to freeze grants for programs related to health care, education, clean energy, and infrastructure.
Ideological ambition vs. implementation constraints
The 2025 policy and judicial landscapes reveal a clear divergence between the Trump administration’s energy objectives and the enforceability of its executive actions. While the administration has issued 161 executive orders in its first five months, with a significant portion targeting renewables and energy-sector oversight, an important share remains challenged or blocked in courts, or are suspended pending further review. The Trump administration’s efforts to reshape energy and environmental policy in 2025 have been sweeping and symbolic, but translating those ideological goals into durable policy has proven far more difficult. In many cases, Trump’s executive orders amount to signals of intent.
The administration’s offshore wind moratorium was broadly intended to signal a reversal of the previous leasing regime. But it encountered two types of resistance: legal, in the form of state-led lawsuits seeking injunctive relief; and negotiated, as demonstrated by the Equinor Empire Wind 1 case.
Equinor opted not to pursue a temporary restraining order against the stop-work directive, despite the company’s strong legal position and likely success. Instead, Equinor engaged in direct political negotiations through the state of New York, which ultimately led to the order being lifted at the cost of a pragmatic trade-off involving a long-stalled gas pipeline project.
This approach avoided a protracted legal battle that could have escalated to the appellate level, where judicial review of executive permitting authority remains unpredictable. In the current environment, it could be argued that enforcement risk is shaped as much by political leverage as by legal remedies. Equinor’s negotiated reversal highlights how companies view litigation as suboptimal under regulatory threat, even when legal success is likely, when weighed against urgent business priorities, like a fleet of idle construction vessels complete with equipment and crew.
For developers and investors, this translates into heightened risk premiums and timeline extensions rather than outright project cancellations. Empire Wind is proceeding despite a few weeks' delay. State-level renewables targets remain in effect, albeit under greater federal hostility. Some firms, like RWE, have exited the U.S. offshore wind space, but others are adopting a wait-and-see stance, pending the outcome of litigation or policy stabilization.
The show must go on, despite executive headwinds
In the midst of federal uncertainty, some states continue to advance offshore wind permitting on their own terms. On June 9, Maryland granted US Wind an air quality permit to construct the MarWin & Momentum Wind offshore wind projects, a key pre-construction milestone. This move underscores how some blue states remain committed to offshore wind, even as federal executive actions create deep uncertainty about the pace of national project approvals. The divergence in pace and policy between state and federal actors reinforces the current climate of regulatory risk.
At the same time, several flagship offshore wind projects continue to advance on schedule despite federal headwinds. Dominion Energy is proceeding at full speed with the construction of the 2.6 GW Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) project, the largest in the United States. Ørsted and Eversource’s 704 MW Revolutionary Wind 1 has completed its foundation installation phase, while Avangrid and CIP’s Vineyard Wind 1 is nearing completion of its turbine installation. Ørsted’s 924 MW Sunrise Wind began foundation work as planned in early June 2025, and Equinor’s Empire Wind 1 resumed installation activity.
In sum, Trump’s 2025 energy agenda has friction in courtrooms. Bold announcements, whether banning wind leasing, freezing clean energy funding, or dismantling regulatory oversight, are being challenged and could fail to convert into durable change. The delta between stated intent and implemented policy is structural, driven by a robust legal framework that requires procedural rigor. The offshore wind sector remains exposed to headline volatility, but it is also proving resilient despite the federal overreach.
.webp)
What’s in it for Americans?
Let’s look four years back. Over the course of his presidency, President Biden significantly accelerated the development of a domestic offshore wind supply chain. As of mid-2023, 18 new and expanded ports and manufacturing facility projects were announced as part of the offshore wind supply chain, totaling nearly $3.5 billion in investments (a volume that would keep growing until Q4 2024) across 12 manufacturing facilities and 13 ports.
This push sought to make the U.S. self-reliant in offshore wind by creating a full-fledged domestic supply chain, capable of delivering the foundations, nacelles, cables, and operational bases required by the growing industry. Nearly 4,100 companies from every state registered as potential offshore wind suppliers, reflecting broad national mobilization. In parallel, the offshore wind boom reinvigorated the dormant Jones Act vessel market, particularly for Crew Transfer Vessels (CTVs) and Service Operation Vessels (SOVs), despite a high domestic construction cost. Around 20 new Jones Act–compliant CTVs have been built or are currently under construction, while two dedicated SOVs are being developed. Historical players from the offshore oil and gas sector seized the opportunity to reconvert laid-up assets for wind service, leveraging their experience.
A notable milestone was the U.S. launch of its first Jones Act–compliant wind turbine installation vessel, the Charybdis, built at the Keppel AmFels shipyard in Brownsville, Texas, and scheduled to be operational by 2025. The launch was a breakthrough in domestic capability, against a pressing need for several more such vessels to meet the 30 GW by 2030 target.
In a 60-page publication released just a week before Trump’s inauguration, Oceantic Network (ex-Business Network for Offshore Wind) mapped offshore wind supply chain investments by area. Out of a total investment volume of USD 6.1 billion, 43% primarily impacted Democratic congressional districts, while 57% were made in Republican congressional districts - Trump’s electoral base. Before Trump started his second term, Oceantic estimated that offshore wind would support 56,000 jobs by 2030.
Four-year mandates are short. Especially when markets are shaken by a global pandemic, war, and inflation crisis, in a series of grey swans that hindered smooth-sailing supply chain development. When Trump issued the offshore wind moratorium and proceeded with slashing the public spending that Biden had directed toward fighting climate change, the house of cards started collapsing fast. Manufacturers tied to the offshore wind supply chain, including cable, blade, and tower plants, pulled back investment amid the regulatory uncertainty. Orders for Jones Act–compliant vessels also dropped sharply, further weakening the outlook. Ports developments were cancelled.
“The president’s declared a domestic energy emergency, and at the same time, cancels a significant potential for generation. Those two don’t make sense,” said Sen. John Burzichelli (D-Gloucester).
Alas, Trump’s crusade against offshore wind is rooted less in fact than in personal grievance and misinformation. Despite expert consensus that wind is the cheapest new source of electricity in the U.S., Trump insists it's "the most expensive," baselessly claims turbine noise causes cancer, and derides them as “windmills,” conflating modern energy infrastructure with medieval grain grinders. His objections, ranging from aesthetics to fabricated health risks, are wildly out of step with his broader pro-industry rhetoric. This hostility ignores wind’s critical role in grid reliability and energy independence.
In the end, it’s Americans who pay the price through higher bills, lost jobs, and stalled industrial momentum.
References
BBC News. (2015, December 16). Donald Trump loses wind farm legal challenge. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-35106581
Buljan, A. (2025, June 9). US Wind granted air quality permit-to-construct for Maryland offshore wind project. OffshoreWIND.biz.
Campbell, J. (2025, June 10). Stellantis confirms 2027 reopening of Belvidere plant, scraps battery facility plans. CBT News.
Dans Papers (Bolger, T.). (2025, April 24). Wind worries: Will Sunrise Wind farm project get cancelled next?
https://www.danspapers.com/2025/04/will-sunrise-wind-farm-get-cancelled/
Dwyer, D. (2024, November 11). Courts restrained Trump in first term. Will they “check” his power again? ABC News.
https://abc7.com/post/courts-restrained-donald-trump-term-will-check-power/15537250/
Federal Highway Administration. (2025, February 6). Suspending approval of state electric vehicle infrastructure deployment plans [Memorandum].
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nevi/resources/state-plan-approval-suspension.pdf
Financial Times. (2025, May 19). How a gas deal helped save Equinor’s $5 bn New York wind farm [Paywalled].
https://www.ft.com/content/e083e0a8-072e-4967-a9f5-4750b1cb8cf2
Gallucci, M. (2025, January 28). Trump’s offshore wind assault threatens factory jobs in GOP districts. Canary Media.
Groom, N. (2025, May 12). Equinor says it could cancel New York offshore wind project over Trump order. Reuters.
Knauth, D., & Wiessner, D. (2025, May 29). US court blocks most Trump tariffs, says president exceeded his authority. Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-court-blocks-trumps-liberation-day-tariffs-2025-05-28
Lavelle, M. (2025, May 29). Clean-energy project cancellations top $14 billion so far in 2025. Inside Climate News.
Lawfare Institute. (2025). Trump administration litigation tracker [Database].
Local Union No. 3 IBEW. (2025, April 29). Climate Jobs Coalition responds to federal stop-work order.
https://www.local3ibew.org/news/climate-jobs-coalition-responds-federal-stop-work-order
Magtulis, P. (2025, May 7). How Trump unleashed executive power [Interactive graphic]. Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-TRUMP/EXECUTIVE-ORDERS/gdpznealwpw/
Moritz, J., & Associated Press. (2025, May 5). Tong joins other state AGs in lawsuit over Trump’s wind moratorium. CT Mirror.
https://ctmirror.org/2025/05/05/trump-offshore-wind-ct-lawsuit/
Oregon Department of Justice. (2025, May 5). Wind energy (New York v. Trump, D. Mass., 1:25-cv-11221) [Lawsuit tracker].
Peters, A. (2025, January 22). Why Donald Trump hates wind power. Fast Company.
https://www.fastcompany.com/91264701/why-donald-trump-hates-wind-power
Piovaccari, G., & Parodi, A. (2025, January 21). Italy’s Prysmian ditches plan to build U.S. plant for offshore wind parks. Reuters.
Plumer, B. (2019, April 3). We fact-checked President Trump’s dubious claims on the perils of wind power. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/climate/fact-check-trump-windmills.html
Schuler, M. (2025, April 17). Equinor weighs legal challenge to Trump administration’s Empire Wind shutdown. gCaptain.
https://gcaptain.com/equinor-weighs-legal-challenge-to-trump-admins-empire-wind-shutdown/
Shenk, M. (2024, June 13). Launch of US wind installation vessel masks critical shortage. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/launch-us-wind-installation-vessel-masks-critical-shortage-2024-06-13/
Shutt, J. (2025, March 27). Appeals court turns down Trump administration on reinstating OMB funding freeze. Idaho Capital Sun.
Smith, M. (2025, January 14). Offshore energy at work. Oceantic Network.
https://oceantic.org/offshore-energy-at-work/
Sorg, L. (2025, May 23). States, environmentalists sue Trump over billions in funding freezes for EV charging. Inside Climate News.
Steitz, C. (2025, April 25). Major offshore wind developer has stopped activities in United States. Reuters.
Storrow, B. (2025, May 9). Equinor threatens to cancel NY offshore wind project. E&E News by POLITICO.
https://www.eenews.net/articles/equinor-threatens-to-cancel-ny-offshore-wind-project/
The White House. (2023, July 20). Fact sheet: Bidenomics is boosting clean energy manufacturing for offshore wind and creating good-paying American union jobs.
The White House. (2025, January 20). Temporary withdrawal of all areas on the outer continental shelf from offshore wind leasing and review of the federal government’s leasing and permitting practices for wind projects [Presidential memorandum].
.jpg)
