In a controversial move that has sent shockwaves through the renewable energy sector, United States President Donald Trump issued an executive order on his first day back in the Oval Office, effectively halting the growth of wind energy in the United States.
The sweeping order pauses offshore wind lease sales, freezes approvals for both onshore and offshore projects and calls for a comprehensive review of existing wind energy leases. This decision has drawn widespread criticism from environmental groups, renewable energy advocates, and industry stakeholders, while creating significant uncertainty about the future of wind energy in the US.
The executive order imposes an immediate halt to offshore wind lease sales in federal waters and suspends permits and loans for both onshore and offshore wind projects. This includes a temporary moratorium on the Lava Ridge Wind Project in Idaho, a large-scale onshore development with more than 1.2 GW capacity that had been approved under the Biden administration. The suspension of these projects signals a significant policy reversal, jeopardising the progress made during the previous administration in expanding renewable energy infrastructure.
The directive also mandates a "comprehensive review" of existing wind energy leases, raising concerns that projects already underway could face termination or modification. This review is expected to assess the environmental impacts of wind energy, the economic costs of intermittent electricity generation, and the role of federal subsidies in supporting the sector.
Trump's executive order has left wind energy developers scrambling to reassess their strategies. Many are now weighing the risks of continuing operations in the US against the possibility of relocating investments to more favourable markets. European companies with significant stakes in US wind energy, such as Germany’s RWE and Denmark’s Orsted, have been particularly affected. RWE has already shelved plans for offshore wind parks in the US, while Orsted has announced a multi-billion-dollar write-off on its American projects.
The uncertainty is further compounded by the order's potential economic fallout. Wind power currently supplies 10% of the nation's electricity, standing as one of the most cost-effective energy sources at approximately $27 per megawatt-hour. In comparison, gas plants incur a production cost of $45 per megawatt-hour, while coal plants generate electricity at $69 per megawatt-hour, according to the National Public Utilities Council. A suspension of wind energy development could jeopardise this cost advantage, potentially leading to higher energy prices and hindering the transition towards cleaner energy alternatives.
President Trump has long been a vocal critic of wind energy, frequently making claims that have been widely debunked by experts. He argues that wind turbines are expensive, harm wildlife and lower property values. Additionally, he has accused the wind energy sector of being overly reliant on Chinese manufacturing.
However, these claims lack significant supporting evidence. Studies demonstrate that wind energy is highly cost-competitive among electricity sources. Furthermore, the production of most turbine components, including generators, blades and hubs, is concentrated in countries like Denmark, Germany, India, Spain, Vietnam, and Mexico — not China, as outlined in the Land-Based Wind Market Report 2024 by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Critics suggest that Trump’s opposition to wind energy is rooted in ideology and his close ties to the fossil fuel industry. This perception is reinforced by the order’s apparent alignment with policies that benefit traditional energy sectors at the expense of renewable energy development.
The suspension of wind energy projects is likely to have a disproportionate impact on states that rely heavily on wind power, including several that supported Trump in the 2024 election. States like Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming generate more than half of their electricity from wind power. The executive order could disrupt these states' energy strategies, potentially affecting their economies and energy security.
The Lava Ridge Wind Project in Idaho has emerged as a flashpoint in the broader debate. The project, intended to power up to 500,000 homes, has faced opposition from local politicians, farmers, and community groups. Critics of the project have raised concerns about its environmental and cultural impacts, including its proximity to a World War II-era relocation camp. While the moratorium on Lava Ridge aligns with local opposition, it has raised questions about the federal government's broader commitment to renewable energy.
The executive order targets both onshore and offshore wind projects, but the implications for each segment vary. Most onshore wind projects are located on private land, making them less susceptible to federal intervention. However, the order's focus on onshore development has surprised industry observers, as only 2 per cent of onshore wind power is generated on public lands.
Offshore wind, on the other hand, faces significant risks. The US offshore wind sector, still in its infancy compared to Europe and Asia, had been poised for rapid expansion. Trump's directive to review and potentially amend existing leases could deter investors and delay the sector's growth. Companies like Eversource Energy, Dominion Energy and Orsted A / S, which have invested heavily in offshore wind, now face a critical new risk that could impact their long-term plans.
The executive order has faced strong backlash from environmental groups and industry organisations. The American Clean Power Association (ACP) has denounced the move, with CEO Jason Grumet stating, "The possibility that the federal government could seek to actively oppose energy production by American companies on private land is at odds with our nation's character as well as our national interests."
Environmental groups have voiced strong opposition to President Trump's suspension of new offshore wind leases. In a January 20 statement, Sierra Club Deputy Legislative Director for Clean Energy and Electrification, Xavier Boatright, vowed that the organisation "will fight back against this callous decision that will raise prices for our communities, take away jobs, and worsen the state of our environment."
The executive order is likely to face legal challenges from environmental groups and renewable energy advocates, potentially delaying its implementation and offering a reprieve for wind energy developers. Critics view the policy as a setback for the US wind energy sector, creating uncertainty for developers, investors and state governments, while threatening progress in the clean energy transition.
Many argue the order is driven by flawed claims and ideological bias rather than practical energy solutions. The industry's future hinges on legal outcomes and the ability of states and companies to adapt, underscoring the need for stable, science-based policies to sustain renewable energy growth.