Just before Christmas, the administration of President Donald Trump halted work on all large-scale offshore wind projects under construction. The order shut down two fully permitted projects visible off the coast of the Island for at least three months. And some developers of the offshore wind projects plan to take the matter to court as the orders suggest possible suspension extensions and even lease termination.
The suspensions, issued Monday, Dec. 22, pause construction for at least 90 days on Vineyard Wind 1, which was near completion and already sent power to the grid, and Revolution Wind, another project that was close to completion.
The suspension order handed out to Vineyard Wind 1, however, still allows the project to produce power. “In addition, given that this project is partially generating power, you may continue any activities from those wind turbines that are necessary for the current level of power generation,” the order said. Vineyard Wind 1 is 15 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard and produces power for Massachusetts.
The pause, which went into effect at the end of December, is attributed to undisclosed national security concerns identified in classified reports by the Department of Defense, which the administration now refers to as the Department of War. Trump’s suspension not only potentially forces stakeholders to continue to battle the federal government in court, but also indefinitely delays benefits promised to the Island by the developer, including jobs and funds for onshore energy projects.
The orders said that the Department of the Interior received classified information from the Dept. of Defense that included “the rapid evolution of relevant adversary technologies and the resulting direct impacts to national security from offshore wind projects.”
Federal officials also indicate that within the 90-day suspension period, which is subject to subsequent extensions, developers can respond to emergency situations or incidents that could have impacts to health, safety, and the environment.
The orders also threatened cancellation of the projects. Given the construction status of the projects, with most well underway, the order said, officials “will consider all feasible mitigation measures before making a decision as to whether the project must be cancelled.”
Offshore wind projects aren’t new to suspensions from the Trump administration. In fact, several of the five projects now suspended were previously issued stop-work orders last year.
Revolution Wind, 12 miles off of Aquinnah and set to power homes in Rhode Island and Connecticut, was forced to halt construction in late August, and was only allowed to resume a month later when a federal judge granted a stay and injunction on the order.
Now, they plan to take this matter to court. A press release issued last Thursday by the owners of Revolution Wind, Global Infrastructure Partners’ Skyborn Renewables and the Danish energy company Ørsted, said the developers filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that challenges the suspension order. It is to be “followed by a motion for a preliminary injunction,” the press release said.
“While Revolution Wind continues to seek to work constructively with the administration and other stakeholders towards an expeditious and durable resolution of this matter, it believes that the lease suspension order violates applicable law,” the press release said. “As was the case with the August 2025 stop-work order, the Revolution Wind Project faces substantial harm from a continuation of the lease suspension order. As a result, litigation is a necessary step to protect the rights of the project.”
Empire Wind 1, a project off the coast of New York owned by the Norwegian energy company Equinor’s U.S.-based subsidiary, and Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, owned by U.S.-based Dominion Energy off the coast of Virginia, were also suspended and took the matter to court. Developers of Vineyard Wind 1 have yet to announce or take legal action.
Developers of Empire Wind 1 announced Dec. 2 that they filed a civil suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that asked for construction to be allowed to proceed while litigation continues.
“The preliminary injunction filing is necessary to allow the project to continue as planned during this critical period of execution and avoid additional commercial and financing impacts that are likely to occur should the order remain effective,” a statement from the company said.
What stands out in these suspension orders is not the prospect of litigation, but the logical inconsistency they expose. If offshore wind projects visible from the Island, such as Vineyard Wind 1 and Revolution Wind, pose a genuine, unresolved national security threat, it is difficult to understand why partially completed turbines are permitted to continue generating power. National security risks do not conveniently pause during construction and then vanish once electricity is flowing to the grid.
These projects were reviewed, permitted, and approved through established federal processes that explicitly involved defense and radar-impact assessments. Nothing material about their location south of Martha’s Vineyard or their operating characteristics has changed since those approvals were granted. What has changed is the political context.
For Island communities, halting construction midstream while allowing continued operation creates a confusing regulatory signal. Long-term planning — whether for regional energy reliability, workforce expectations, or promised local investments — depends on predictable, rule-based decision-making, not selective suspensions tied to undisclosed concerns.
If new classified information fundamentally alters earlier risk assessments, it should be addressed transparently through established interagency channels. Absent that clarity, these stop-work orders appear less about safeguarding national security and more about regulatory inconsistency, with tangible consequences for the Vineyard and the broader region.
Very well stated. Thank you for such common sense stating of what is obvious to many of us.
One additional point worth making: questioning how these suspension orders are being applied should not be read as support for offshore wind projects off the Vineyard. I remain opposed to these developments and believe they were a mistake to approve in the first place.
The regulatory inconsistency highlighted by the current pause only reinforces that opposition. If turbines visible from the Island are now cited as posing national security concerns, it makes little sense to allow them to continue operating while halting construction. National security risks do not neatly apply during one phase of a project and then disappear during another.
Offshore wind was presented to Island communities as carefully vetted, limited in impact, and accompanied by local benefits. Many Islanders questioned those assurances from the outset. The present situation — selective suspensions, undisclosed justifications, and midstream reversals — does little to inspire confidence that those early concerns were misplaced.
For the Vineyard, the issue is not simply procedural tidiness. It is about living with large, highly visible infrastructure decisions made elsewhere, justified in shifting terms, and imposed with limited transparency. Whether one supports or opposes offshore wind, the Island bears the consequences. Clear, decisive policy would at least acknowledge that reality.
Good comment Murray– There is only one reason that trump is so opposed to off shore wind farms. This is that he thought they would “ruin” the view from his golf course in Scotland. He sued to stop them in 2015 and lost in court. It’s that simple– he is a thin skinned baby that never got over it. So now he makes up “excuses”. This one is particularly silly. Of course he holds a grudge against the entire industry regardless of it’s benefits. If the developers would only put giant “trump” signs on them, or maybe his mug shot that he is so proud of , he would be all for them and not give a rat’s behind even if they actually did pose some sort of national security “risk”.
Strong feelings about personalities aside, the substance of the issue deserves clearer focus. Whatever one believes about President Trump’s motives or past disputes, federal actions still need to stand on their own legal and policy footing.
The concern being raised here isn’t aesthetic or personal. It’s about how national security is being invoked, applied inconsistently, and explained incompletely — particularly for projects that are already operating or near completion. If national security is the justification, it should be applied coherently across all phases of a project. If it is not, that inconsistency warrants scrutiny regardless of who occupies the Oval Office.
Reducing a complex infrastructure and regulatory issue to psychology or grudges doesn’t help Islanders understand what standards are being used, how decisions are made, or what long-term consequences we are expected to live with. Those questions matter whether one supports offshore wind, opposes it, or simply wants clarity and accountability.
We can go back and forth about trump’s motives, and we can have differences of opinions about the merits of these machines. We, as a community have been debating those issues for years. it seems that it is impossible to change an opinion simply with the facts. For instance, no matter how many times , and how many studies I post here confirming that wind turbines “pay back” their entire carbon footprint in less than 2 years, people don’t believe it. I am a little encouraged though, that no one has mentioned the acres of non existent cement that are not used in construction in a while. We may have actually buried one tidbit of misinformation. But the reality about the current president is that he adores himself and he actually might view them favorably if his name were on them. That’s not a joke.
Citing “national security” at this stage is.
Wind turbines pay for themselves in about 6 to 8 months.
From that point onward it’s like the turbine inputs wind and exhales 100 dollar bills fluttering in the wind.
The biggest national security risk we have at the moment is a president who values his own income more than the safety of the American people. If China were to disrupt our electricity grid, it would stop our society cold. Put solar panels on your property.
“For the Vineyard, the issue is not simply procedural tidiness. It is about living with large, highly visible infrastructure decisions made elsewhere, ” is truly and incomplete statement.
Many Islanders pointed out the myriad dangers that these structures and this technology pose to (1) the environment; (2) national security; (3) a reliable supply of electric power; (4) the national grid; (5) energy costs. Another obvious negative factor is that foreign pension funds and shareholders are lubricated by US taxpayers in the form of both energy bills and subsidies. It’s time to terminate all of these offshore wind projects with extreme prejudice.
The wind turbines are good for the environment. Please check out the videos of how fishing dramatically improves around the turbine towers.
Creating nearly free electricity protects our national security.
Wind turbines can be part of a system of solar panels and batteries which creates an incredibly reliable source of electricity.
The national electricity grid is a weakness. Tiny neighborhood grids or single-family independent power is a superpower for our nation. Do your part and go independent of the grid. If every family stopped using an electric clothes dryer, that would greatly reduce our need for electricity.
As for future energy costs: if you haven’t investigated the proliferation of nuclear power, I encourage you to do so. When nuclear-created energy enters the grid it will financially cripple families all over the nation. Can you afford your bill to increase by 5x? Will we go without electricity? Use less electricity? All the while, the Silicon Valley billionaires and oil billionaires will be raking in trillions. Please see who has invested in nuclear and then you will understand why you’ve been lied to.
living with large, highly visible infrastructure….
That ugliness belongs in the Gulf Of Trump
Katherine- you hit right on the nose-anyone who knows the parent company of Vineyard 1 “iberdola-” look them up will understand how they operate and that they are really non a very honest company. They have put up in this rotton situation and unfortunately, we let then- I hope this is the end.
thank you Kate-on the mark-i was the only vote against this when i was on the MVC-interesting to note on another page in this paper-electric rates are going up-history repeating itself too bad the MVC backed “all electric houses'”at least some folks got the message to get a gas stove stay warm when the juice stops…and control your costs..enough said…….
Let me say IN ALL CAPS– IF YOU HAVE A GAS STOVE DO NOT — I REPEAT— DO NOT USE IT TO HEAT YOUR HOUSE IF THE ELECTRICITY GOES OUT. I ask that the fire department , EMS, hospital and any other officials that have anything to do with public safety to strongly advise the public to NOT use a gas stove to heat your house. It is an incredibly stupid thing to do and could result in death. it is utterly irresponsible for a former elected official to throw partisan politics into a conversation about wind power and to suggest that people to do such a dangerous thing. Shame on you Trip– you know better . Please put your partisan paranoia aside.
Comments are closed.