## Donald Trump's "Madcap Crusade Against Wind" Threatens Renewable Energy Projects This report from **The American Prospect**, authored by **Ryan Cooper**, details former President Donald Trump's alleged efforts to halt renewable energy projects, particularly offshore wind farms, with a focus on the **Revolution Wind project** off the coast of Rhode Island. The article, published on **August 26, 2025**, argues that these actions are driven by Trump's personal animus towards wind turbines and could lead to increased electricity bills and future blackouts. ### Key Findings and Conclusions: * **Trump Administration's Actions:** The Trump administration has issued a stop-work order on the Revolution Wind project, citing concerns about environmental protection, national security, and the prevention of interference with the exclusive economic zone. Another wind project off the coast of Maryland is also reportedly being blocked. * **Impact on Revolution Wind:** The Revolution Wind project, located approximately 12 miles south of the eastern edge of Rhode Island, is reportedly **more than 80 percent finished**, with **45 out of 65 turbines installed**. Construction began in **2023**, and power was projected to start flowing in **2026**. * **Economic and Environmental Consequences:** * Canceling or delaying Revolution Wind is described as "pointlessly, self-harmingly stupid." * The project would provide approximately **704 megawatts** of clean power, enough for **350,000 homes**, and reduce carbon emissions by over **one million tons per year**. * Significant infrastructure upgrades, including a major port upgrade in New London to handle turbine blades, have already been completed by the developer, Ørsted. * Connecticut and Rhode Island, states with high electricity costs, were relying on this project, which was financed by a power purchase agreement with state utilities for **less than ten cents per kilowatt-hour**. * Without this project, these states will likely depend more on fossil gas-generated power, whose prices are increasing due to data center buildout. * The article estimates that canceling the project could mean "flushing potentially billions in investment down the toilet for no reason." * **Critique of Justifications:** The author dismisses the administration's stated justifications as "preposterous," arguing that the Trump administration is not genuinely concerned about the environment or national security, especially given its support for coal subsidies. The military has already consulted on the project and found no significant interference. * **Personal Motivation:** The article posits that Trump's opposition is personal, stemming from a past legal battle against a wind farm proposed near his golf course in Scotland. Trump reportedly views wind turbines as "ugly." * **Offshore Wind Potential:** America has substantial offshore wind potential, estimated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at **4,249 gigawatts** of turbines producing **13,567 terawatt-hours** of electricity annually – roughly three times the nation's total electricity production in **2023**. The area off Long Island to Cape Cod is highlighted as particularly promising due to strong winds and shallow waters. * **Legal Action:** Rhode Island, Connecticut, and the developer Ørsted are considering legal action against the stop-work order. ### Key Statistics and Metrics: * **Renewable Energy Growth:** Renewable energy accounted for **more than 95 percent** of new generating capacity in the first half of the current year. * **Revolution Wind Project Status:** * **80 percent finished** * **45 out of 65 turbines installed** * Power projected to flow in **2026** * Located **12 miles south** of the eastern edge of Rhode Island * **Revolution Wind Power Output:** * **704 megawatts** of clean power * Enough for **350,000 homes** * Reduces carbon emissions by over **one million tons per year** * **Cost of Power:** Less than **ten cents per kilowatt-hour** * **Offshore Wind Potential:** * **4,249 gigawatts** of turbines * **13,567 terawatt-hours** of electricity * Approximately **three times** America's entire production in **2023** ### Notable Risks and Concerns: * **Future Blackouts:** The article warns that future blackouts are "practically guaranteed" due to the obstruction of renewable energy projects. * **Increased Electricity Bills:** The author suggests Trump's actions are designed to make electricity bills go up. * **Wasted Investment:** Billions of dollars in investment could be lost. * **Continued Reliance on Fossil Fuels:** The halt in renewable projects will necessitate greater reliance on volatile fossil gas prices. ### Recommendations: While no explicit recommendations are made, the article implicitly advocates for the continuation and expansion of offshore wind projects, highlighting their economic and environmental benefits. The consideration of legal action by Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Ørsted suggests a path forward to challenge the stop-work order. ### Trends or Changes: The report indicates an escalation of Trump's opposition to renewable energy, moving from general criticism to direct intervention in large-scale, near-completion projects. ### Material Financial Data: * The cost of power from Revolution Wind is **less than ten cents per kilowatt-hour**. * Billions of dollars in investment are at risk. * The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates the offshore wind potential in terms of gigawatts and terawatt-hours, indicating significant economic opportunity. ### Critical Statements: * "Donald Trump is doing everything in his power to make your electricity bills go up." * "Future blackouts are practically guaranteed." * "Canceling—or even delaying—the Rhode Island project in particular is so pointlessly, self-harmingly stupid that it would not have even occurred to any previous administration..." * "If it’s good for America, Donald Trump is against it."
Donald Trump’s Madcap Crusade Against Wind
Read original at The American Prospect →Donald Trump is doing everything in his power to make your electricity bills go up. As my colleague David Dayen outlined recently, he is moving heaven and earth to stop renewable-energy projects—which made up more than 95 percent of new generating capacity in the first half of this year—most especially, wind.
Future blackouts are practically guaranteed.Now Trump’s war on wind has escalated to possibly canceling a huge project that is almost finished: the Revolution Wind project, about 12 miles south of the eastern edge of Rhode Island. Construction started in 2023, and is reportedly more than 80 percent finished, with 45 out of 65 turbines installed, and power projected to start flowing next year.
But the Trump administration has issued a stop-work order on the project, with a letter from acting Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Matthew Giacona. He is supposedly worried that that construction is “carried out in a manner that provides for protection of the environment” and is “seeking to address concerns related to the protection of national security interests … and prevention of interference with reasonable uses of the exclusive economic zone.
” The administration is also attempting to block another wind project off the coast of Maryland, the details of which were first reported by Heatmap News and now confirmed by Bloomberg, though that one is still in its early stages.More from Ryan CooperIt’s anybody’s guess as to whether Trump intends to stop these projects permanently, or is just angling to dip his beak in their funding as he recently did with Nvidia and Intel.
But given his relentless anti-renewable animus, I’d guess it’s the former. Regarding Revolution Wind, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and the developer Ørsted are considering legal action.Canceling—or even delaying—the Rhode Island project in particular is so pointlessly, self-harmingly stupid that it would not have even occurred to any previous administration, including Trump’s first one.
Revolution Wind would provide about 704 megawatts of reliable clean power, or enough for 350,000 homes, as well as reduce carbon emissions by more than a million tons per year. Ørsted carried out numerous infrastructure projects to move the project along, including a major upgrade of the New London port to handle the gigantic turbine blades.
Connecticut and Rhode Island, which have some of the highest electricity costs in the country, were banking on this project. It was financed by a power purchase agreement with state utilities for less than ten cents per kilowatt-hour, and without it they will have to rely even more on fossil gas–generated power, whose price is spiking across the country thanks to the data center buildout.
In short, we are talking about flushing potentially billions in investment down the toilet for no reason.The purported justifications here are preposterous. As to the environment, this is the most anti-environment administration in American history. Nobody bending over backwards to expand coal subsidies cares about whether a wind farm harms Rhode Island fisheries or whatever.
As to the exclusive economic zone, it’d be hard to imagine a better use of it than a relatively low-impact, badly needed electricity project.As to national security, the project underwent the typical grueling regulatory review, including consultation with dozens of local governments, federal agencies, and the military.
A bunch of turbines more than ten miles offshore is just not going to meaningfully interfere with the Navy or national security—except by increasing and diversifying our domestic energy supply, which is to say strengthening it.Unusually for the Trump administration, whose decisions often turn on which toadying half-wit had the president’s ear most recently, the war on wind is personal.
Trump simply loathes wind turbines (or “windmills,” as he calls them). His hatred apparently stems from an incident across the pond, when the Scottish government proposed to put a smallish wind farm off the coast of his golf course near Aberdeen. Trump hated the idea, fought the project in court for years, eventually lost, and had to pay Scotland’s legal fees to boot.
The turbines are “some of the ugliest you’ve ever seen,” he said during a recent visit.I have always found this view baffling. Of all the forms of power generation, wind turbines are surely the most aesthetically appealing. What’s not to like about a forest of big turbines, their sinuously curved blades slowly and quietly spinning as they harvest electricity from the air—especially far out to sea where they don’t even take up land?
It sure looks a lot better than a smoke-belching coal power plant, or even a solar farm. I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that Trump—who every day adds additional hideously gaudy gilded ornaments to the White House, making it look steadily more like a C-tier Las Vegas brothel—has appalling taste.
In any case, Trump often complains that offshore wind is unreliable, but this is the opposite of true. Half the point of putting wind turbines offshore, which adds a lot of cost and complexity, is because the wind blows a lot harder and more steadily out in the ocean. America has stupendous offshore wind potential, estimated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at 4,249 gigawatts of turbines producing 13,567 terawatt-hours of electricity—or about three times as much as America’s entire production in 2023.
And the best place of all is a chunk of the Atlantic continental shelf stretching from the tip of Long Island to about 100 miles east of Cape Cod, where the wind is strong and the sea is shallow enough that turbines can be fixed rather than floating—which is why Revolution Wind is there in the first place, and partly why Ørsted did so many infrastructure upgrades.
It could have been the first of a literal sea of turbine projects producing clean, affordable electricity for the whole region.But not if Trump has anything to say about it. This project might get completed eventually—he tried repeatedly to stop a similar wind project off Long Island, and eventually backed down—but so long as he is president, that vast potential will remain untapped.
If it’s good for America, Donald Trump is against it.Ryan CooperRyan Cooper is a senior editor at the Prospect, and author of ‘How Are You Going to Pay for That?: Smart Answers to the Dumbest Question in Politics.’ He was previously a national correspondent for The Week.Read more by Ryan CooperAugust 26, 20255:00 AM
