The Department of the Interior (DOI), long known in Washington as the catch-all “department of everything else,” has become the unlikely epicenter of a fierce battle over the future of American energy. In a whirlwind of policy moves over the past several weeks, the DOI—under Secretary Doug Burgum and President Donald Trump—has fundamentally shifted the landscape for renewable energy projects, particularly wind and solar, on federal lands and offshore.
On July 17, 2025, the DOI announced that all wind and solar projects would now require an “elevated review” from Secretary Burgum’s office, a move that immediately raised eyebrows among environmental advocates and industry insiders alike. Just twelve days later, on July 29, Burgum issued a directive ending what he called “preferential treatment” for “unreliable, foreign controlled energy sources,” specifically targeting wind and solar. The next day, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management rescinded all previously designated Wind Energy Areas along the continental shelf, further signaling a dramatic policy pivot.
By August 1, the DOI had released a secretarial order mandating that every energy project on federal land be evaluated on its “capacity density”—that is, the amount of energy it can produce per square acre. This new metric, critics argue, is a thinly veiled attempt to disqualify renewable projects, which tend to use more land than fossil fuel operations but have far less environmental impact. According to Erik Schlenker-Goodrich of the Western Environmental Law Center, “They are effectively trying to co-opt arguments that we have used for years to push back on fossil fuels. But I think it should go without saying that they are abusing those laws.”
The following week, the department took the extraordinary step of canceling the already-approved Lava Ridge Wind Project in Idaho, citing supposed harm to rural communities and the land. Then, on August 4, Burgum invoked the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act to demand data on eagle deaths from wind developers—another move seen by many as an attempt to mire renewables in regulatory red tape.
President Trump, never one to shy away from bold pronouncements, took to Truth Social to declare, “We will not approve wind or farmer destroying Solar. The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!” He followed up with an even more sweeping condemnation: “Any State that has built and relied on WINDMILLS and SOLAR for power are seeing RECORD BREAKING INCREASES IN ELECTRICITY AND ENERGY COSTS. THE SCAM OF THE CENTURY!”
These actions, according to experts cited by Grist and the Washington Reporter, amount to a strategic repurposing of environmental laws—originally designed to protect wildlife and public lands from the ravages of mining and drilling—now being wielded as cudgels against renewable energy. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act, for example, prohibits “unnecessary or undue degradation” of public lands, a clause long used by environmentalists to challenge fossil fuel projects. Now, the Trump administration is flipping the script, using such provisions to erect new barriers for wind and solar developers.
“The DOI is fixating on this one metric, capacity density, to the exclusion of a holistic understanding of costs and benefits of a particular energy technology,” Schlenker-Goodrich explained. In practice, wind turbines occupy only a small footprint, allowing the surrounding land to remain in use for farming. Solar panels can be placed on brownfields or even integrated with agriculture, and when these installations are decommissioned, the land can be restored within a year or two. Fossil fuel plants, by contrast, often leave behind poisoned soil saturated with carcinogens like benzene, sometimes rendering land unusable for decades.
Josh Axelrod of the Natural Resources Defense Council pointed out the apples-to-oranges nature of the DOI’s comparisons: “Everything it compares wind and solar to—none of those types of facilities are built on federal land … There’s no comparison.” The new requirement that all wind and solar projects undergo elevated review—requiring the Secretary’s personal sign-off—has the potential to create an insurmountable backlog, effectively stalling renewable energy development nationwide.
Indeed, a recent analysis by the American Clean Power Association found that 27 new procedures now require Burgum’s direct approval, including consultations around wildlife and endangered species impacts. The result? A process so cumbersome that projects may wither on the vine for lack of funding or momentum.
While the administration claims these steps are necessary to protect migratory birds and rural communities, its actions tell a different story. On August 19, the DOI announced plans to hold 30 offshore oil and gas lease auctions over the next 15 years—despite having just canceled offshore wind areas over supposed bird concerns. Offshore drilling, as history has shown, carries far greater risks for marine life. The 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster remains the worst environmental catastrophe in U.S. history, and seismic blasting from drilling operations can have devastating effects on whales and other sea creatures.
Nevertheless, President Trump has argued—without evidence—that offshore wind turbines are responsible for “whales dying in numbers never seen before.” Meanwhile, the administration has moved to fire NOAA scientists whose research focused on ensuring offshore wind was safe for whales, and has rolled back environmental regulations on mining and public land protections.
Alex Klass, an environmental law professor at the University of Michigan, sees the administration’s moves as little more than an effort to prop up declining industries like coal. “Before there was always an argument [that] you shouldn’t try to prop up an industry that can’t make it on its own. That’s basically what they’re doing,” she told Grist. “They just also tried to prioritize wind and solar. Here they’re saying, ‘Not only are we not going to prioritize [wind and solar], we’re going to try to shut it down entirely.’”
At the heart of the administration’s rationale is a broader political battle over energy costs—a hot-button issue as the 2026 midterms approach. According to a report from Power The Future (PTF), decades of energy policy have contributed to rising costs, a trend that, if unchecked, could threaten Trump and the GOP. PTF attributes much of the blame to Democratic policies that expanded renewable portfolio standards and enforced carbon regulations, leading to the premature retirement of fossil fuel plants. In 2025, 73 percent of Americans reported concern over rising electric and gas bills, a sentiment that’s being leveraged on both sides of the aisle.
PTF’s recommendations to the Trump administration are unapologetically fossil-fuel-centric: use the Defense Production Act to support dispatchable generation, build new fossil fuel plants, halt premature closures, and expand coal capacity. The group argues that every percentage point drop in fossil generation results in higher costs for ratepayers, impacting everything from small businesses to inflation. “President Trump inherited an energy disaster,” PTF’s executive director Daniel Turner told the Washington Reporter. “Decades of terrible policy decisions made by energy ignoramuses, appeasing the climate left, wasting trillions.”
Yet, as experts and environmental advocates point out, the administration’s approach seems less about practical solutions and more about political theater. As Alex Klass noted, “It’s not like the Biden administration stopped permitting oil and gas development. There’s lots of oil and gas development. They just also tried to prioritize wind and solar.”
With the DOI’s recent actions, the future of renewable energy on federal lands hangs in the balance, caught between competing visions of American energy dominance and environmental stewardship. For now, the only certainty is that the debate is far from over—and the stakes, for the climate and for communities across the country, could not be higher.
