On Monday, December 8, 2025, a federal judge delivered a major blow to former President Donald Trump’s energy agenda by striking down his executive order that had blocked wind energy projects on federal lands and waters. Judge Patti Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts declared the order “arbitrary and capricious,” ruling that it violated U.S. law and the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The decision, which vacated Trump’s January 20, 2021 order, marks a significant victory for a coalition of 17 states and Washington, D.C., led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who had challenged the executive action from the moment it was announced.
Judge Saris’s ruling comes after years of sharp policy swings in Washington over the future of renewable energy, especially wind power. Trump, a vocal skeptic of wind energy, had prioritized fossil fuel development during his time in office, often criticizing offshore wind projects and touting the benefits of oil and gas. The order in question had paused all leasing and permitting for new wind farms, both onshore and offshore, pending a review of federal leasing and permitting practices.
The coalition of states challenging the order included Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington state, and Washington, D.C. These states argued that the Trump administration’s halt on wind project permitting jeopardized not only their economies and energy mixes but also public health and climate goals. According to Reuters, the states had collectively invested hundreds of millions of dollars to develop wind energy and upgrade transmission lines to bring that energy to the grid. They claimed the administration’s abrupt policy shift threatened to undermine years of progress and billions in economic activity.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell celebrated the court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of wind energy for her state’s economy and climate ambitions. “Massachusetts has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into offshore wind, and today, we successfully protected those important investments from the Trump administration’s unlawful order,” Campbell said in a statement reported by the Associated Press. She added, “This critical victory also preserves well-paying green jobs and access to reliable, affordable energy that will help Massachusetts meet our clean energy and climate goals.”
Letitia James, New York’s attorney general and leader of the coalition, echoed these sentiments, describing the ruling as “a big victory in our fight to keep tackling the climate crisis.” She further noted, “As New Yorkers face rising energy costs, we need more energy sources, not fewer. Wind energy is good for our environment, our economy, and our communities.”
The Trump administration, however, stood by its approach. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers stated, “President Trump has ended Joe Biden’s war on American energy and unleashed America’s energy dominance to protect our economic and national security.” Rogers criticized the Biden administration for giving offshore wind projects what she described as unfair, preferential treatment, while imposing burdensome regulations on the rest of the energy industry.
During court proceedings, the government, represented by Justice Department lawyer Michael Robertson, argued that the states’ claims amounted to nothing more than a policy disagreement over energy preferences—wind versus fossil fuels—that should fall outside the federal court’s jurisdiction. Robertson maintained that the executive order merely paused permitting while Interior Secretary Doug Burgum reviewed the environmental impacts of wind projects, rather than halting the process altogether. Nonetheless, Judge Saris found that the agencies involved had failed to provide a reasoned explanation for their actions, as required by law. “They could not lawfully under the Administrative Procedure Act indefinitely decline to review applications for permits,” Saris wrote in her decision, as reported by Reuters.
The court’s ruling was welcomed by advocates for renewable energy and climate action. Marguerite Wells, executive director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, highlighted the importance of wind in powering the nation’s electric grid. “Wind is currently one of the most cost-effective ways to generate power and is being used successfully not only in the United States, but across the world,” she said. “With this ruling behind us, projects can now be judged on their merits. We thank the attorneys general who helped us get this case over the finish line.”
Kit Kennedy of the Natural Resources Defense Council called the decision a win for consumers, union workers, U.S. businesses, clean air, and the climate. “From the beginning of its time in office, the Trump administration put a halt to the wind energy projects that are needed to keep utility bills in check and the grid reliable,” Kennedy said. The wind order “has been a devastating blow to workers, electricity customers, and the reliability of the power grid,” she added, urging the Trump administration to “use this as a wake-up call, stop its illegal actions and get out of the way of the expansion of renewable energy.”
Industry groups also voiced their support. Liz Burdock, CEO of the Oceantic Network, an offshore wind energy trade group, said, “Overturning the unlawful blanket halt to offshore wind permitting activities is needed to achieve our nation’s energy and economic priorities of bringing more power online quickly, improving grid reliability, and driving billions of new American steel manufacturing and shipbuilding investments.”
Wind energy is the United States’ largest source of renewable electricity, accounting for about 10% of the nation’s total electricity generation, according to the American Clean Power Association. The sector has grown rapidly over the past decade, with both onshore and offshore projects contributing to a cleaner energy mix and supporting thousands of jobs across the country. Offshore wind, in particular, has been a focus for many coastal states seeking to reduce emissions and meet ambitious climate targets.
The legal battle over Trump’s wind energy order is part of a broader tug-of-war in U.S. energy policy, with states and the federal government often at odds over how to balance economic development, environmental protection, and energy security. The ruling by Judge Saris underscores the limits of executive authority and the importance of following established administrative procedures when making sweeping changes to federal policy.
For now, the decision clears the way for stalled wind projects to move forward, allowing them to be judged on their individual merits rather than held up by blanket federal bans. As the U.S. continues its transition toward cleaner energy sources, the outcome of this case may serve as a precedent for future disputes over the role of executive orders in shaping the nation’s energy future.
With the legal roadblocks removed, states and developers alike are poised to ramp up renewable energy projects, potentially reshaping the American power grid for decades to come.
