On August 22, 2025, the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), issued a Director’s Order to Orsted North America Inc. to “halt all ongoing activities related to the Revolution Wind Project on the outer continental shelf (OCS).”[1] The order stated that BOEM was addressing concerns related to national security and interference with reasonable uses of the OCS pursuant to a January 20, 2025 Presidential Memorandum which withdrew “from disposition for wind energy leasing all areas within the Offshore Continental Shelf . . . as defined in section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act [OCSLA], 43 U.S.C. 1331” and further directed the Secretary of the Interior to review all existing wind energy leases in the withdrawn areas to identify the “ecological, economic, and environmental necessity of terminating or amending” such leases and legal bases for their removal.[2]

The developers of the Revolution Wind Project and, separately, the Attorneys General of Rhode Island and Connecticut—whose states were “relying on Revolution Wind to meet their electricity needs and renewable energy goals”—filed lawsuits challenging the August 22 stop work order.[3] The developers’ complaint argued that the stop work order, although invoking 43 U.S.C. § 1337(p)(4) and 30 CFR § 585.102(a),[4] was issued without statutory authority or evidentiary basis.[5]  It further argued that the order exceeded BOEM’s authority under the OCSLA, was issued without observance of required procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and was further arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA.[6] On September 22, 2025, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth granted a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from enforcing the BOEM stop work order.[7] Lamberth called the government’s explanations for the halt the “height of arbitrary and capricious” government conduct and said that government assurances were withdrawn without due process.[8]

The Revolution Wind Project has been far from the only target—this year, federal agencies revoked the air quality permit for Atlantic Shores, issued a stop-work order to Empire Wind,[9] filed in court to vacate prior approvals of Construction and Operations plans for the Maryland Offshore Wind Project and SouthCoast Wind project,[10] announced intentions to do the same with New England Wind 1 and 2 projects,[11] and filed a motion to revoke the Ocean City wind project’s permit.[12] As these cases make their way through the courts, attorneys general from seventeen states and Washington, D.C. are also litigating a challenge to the administration’s halt on the necessary approvals for the development of wind energy projects.[13]

Revolution Wind, which was almost complete when BOEM issued the stop work order, underwent an environmental, national defense, and safety review spanning three presidential administrations[14] and completed its permitting process in 2023 under the “FAST-41 process.”[15] A recent proposal for federal permitting reform, the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act, introduced on July 25, 2025, “would exclude more projects from environmental review and set clear deadlines for agencies’ reviews,” diluting the impact of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).[16] This bipartisan bill has been endorsed by organizations from the American Petroleum Institute to the American Council on Renewable Energy,[17] while other groups, such as the Western Environmental Law Center, have expressed concern that fossil fuel interests might disproportionately benefit from the SPEED Act’s streamlined permitting process compared to renewable energy sources.[18] Likewise, Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA) shared that he was “personally deeply skeptical that [the House Natural Resources Committee] can negotiate in good faith . . . to try to accelerate permitting of any kind, while there is an ongoing bad faith attack against solar and wind.”[19]

NEPA has already faced curtailment this year with the rescission of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)’s NEPA regulations effective in March[20] and the Supreme Court’s conclusion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado in May that “NEPA requires an agency only to review the environmental effects of the proposed action, not the effects of ‘future or geographically separate projects,’” thus limiting the scope of its review.[21]

As the next three years of the Trump administration unfold, wind energy developers and investors will need to make decisions about which projects, litigations, and lobbies to pursue as they face changing government policies and priorities for the U.S. energy industry.

 

[1] U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Director’s Order (2025), https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewable-energy/Director%26%23039%3BsOrder-20250822.pdf?VersionId=Y674sNo8zi7jLu3VWRvq2hFb_8KtMldc.

[2] 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, 90 Fed. Reg. 8363, 8363 (Jan. 20, 2025).

[3] See Complaint, Revolution Wind, LLC. v. Burgum, No. 1:25-cv-2999 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2025); Complaint, Rhode Island v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, No. 1:25-cv-00439 (D.R.I. Sept. 4, 2025).

[4] These provisions outline generic factors for the government’s granting and oversight of leases for energy purposes. After such permits are granted, they are typically only “paused or revoked in extraordinarily limited circumstances, such as malfeasance by the project proponent or the discovery of material new information that was not available to the decision-maker at the time the permit was issued.” Josh Kaplowitz et al., Empire Wind 1 Stop-Work Order Targets Offshore Wind but Raises Questions for Other Industries, Troutman Pepper Locke (Apr. 18, 2025), https://www.troutman.com/insights/empire-wind-1-stop-work-order-targets-offshore-wind-but-raises-questions-for-other-industries/.

[5] Complaint ¶ 11, Revolution Wind, LLC.

[6] Id. ¶¶ 11–13.

[7] Jan Wolfe & Nichola Groom, US Judge Rules Trump Cannot Block Rhode Island Offshore Wind Project, Reuters (Sept. 22, 2025, 3:20 PM), https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/us-court-weighs-trump-halt-rhode-island-offshore-wind-project-2025-09-22/. In order to succeed in a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, a plaintiff must establish “[1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1038 (quoting Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 392 (D.C. Cir. 2011)) (alteration in original).

[8] Wolfe, supra note 7.

[9] Andrew S. Lewis, Facing a Hostile Administration, U.S. Offshore Wind Is in Retreat, YaleEnvironment360 (Oct. 23, 2025), https://e360.yale.edu/features/east-coast-offshore-wind. The stop work order on Empire Wind was lifted in May after negotiations. Id.

[10] Miriam Wasser, In Latest Anti-Wind Action, Trump Administration Moves to Revoke SouthCoast Wind Permit, WBUR (Sept. 19, 2025), https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/09/19/southcoast-wind-permit-seek-to-revoked-trump.

[11] Miriam Wasser, What’s Up with Offshore Wind in New England? Here’s a Map, WBUR (Oct. 3, 2025), https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/10/01/map-offshore-wind-projects-new-england-vineyard-southcoast-revolution-south-fork.

[12] Christian Olaniran, Trump Administration Asks Court to Revoke Permit for Ocean City Wind Project, CBS Baltimore (Sept. 16, 2025, 1:22 PM), https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/trump-administration-court-permit-ocean-city-wind-project/.

[13] States Challenge Trump’s Order to Block Wind Power, NRDC (May 5, 2025), https://www.nrdc.org/press-releases/states-challenge-trumps-order-block-wind-power.

[14] Complaint ¶ 3, Revolution Wind, LLC.

[15] Revolution Wind is the Latest FAST-41 Covered Project to Complete Federal Permitting Review, Permitting Council Press Office (Dec. 6, 2023), https://www.permits.performance.gov/fpisc-content/revolution-wind-latest-fast-41-covered-project-complete-federal-permitting-review.

[16] Yessenia Funes, Could Weakening Environmental Law Actually Strengthen Climate Action?, Atmos (Sept. 24, 2025), https://atmos.earth/political-landscapes/could-weakening-environmental-law-actually-strengthen-climate-action/ (“The SPEED Act . . . aims to expedite climate action, counterintuitively, by eroding the US’ landmark environmental law.”) (citation modified).

[17] Id.

[18] Aidan Hughes, As Congress Takes a New Swing at Bipartisan Permitting Reform, Environmental Groups Are Calling Foul, Inside Climate News (Sept. 13, 2025), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13092025/congress-energy-permitting-reform-speed-act/.

[19] Id. Non-renewable energy sources have already benefited from expedited processes. A January 20, 2025 executive order declaring a national energy emergency pursuant to the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., directed agencies to facilitate, using all relevant lawful emergency authorities, the generation of energy resources and delivery of energy infrastructure, defining “energy” as “crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, uranium, coal, biofuels, geothermal heat, the kinetic movement of flowing water, and critical minerals.” Exec. Order No. 14,156, 90 Fed. Reg. 8433 (Jan. 20, 2025).

[20] Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations, 90 Fed. Reg. 10610 (Feb. 25, 2025) (as corrected by 90 Fed. Reg. 11221 (Mar. 5, 2025)). This rule was promulgated on instruction from Exec. Order No. 14,154, 90 Fed. Reg. 8354 (Jan. 29, 2025).

[21] U.S. Supreme Court Limits Scope of National Environmental Policy Act Reviews, Sidley (June 3, 2025), https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2025/06/us-supreme-court-limits-scope-of-national-environmental-policy-act-reviews (quoting Seven Cnty. Infrastructure Coal. v. Eagle Cnty., 605 U.S. 168, 190 (2025)).