On August 25, 2025, the bustling State Pier in New London, Connecticut, was alive with activity as workers moved past towering wind turbine blades. The scene, a testament to American engineering and ambition, stood in stark contrast to the political storm brewing in Washington. Just days earlier, the Trump Administration had issued a stop work order on the Revolution Wind offshore wind project—a massive initiative designed to supply clean power to 350,000 homes across Connecticut and Rhode Island. With 80% of the project already completed, the sudden halt sent shockwaves through the region’s energy sector and ignited a fierce legal and political battle with implications reaching far beyond New England.
The Revolution Wind project, spearheaded by Danish energy giant Orsted, was on the verge of transforming the region’s energy landscape. Construction began in 2024, about 15 miles south of the Rhode Island coast. By August 2025, all underwater foundations and 45 out of 65 turbines had been installed. The project promised not only to deliver 2.5% of the region’s electricity needs by 2026, but also to lock in electricity at 9.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for 20 years—a rate cheaper than the average projected cost in New England, according to Associated Press.
But on August 22, 2025, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, under the Department of the Interior, abruptly ordered all work to cease. The stated reason? "Concerns related to the protection of the national security interests of the United States." Yet, as reported by The Hartford Courant and Associated Press, the administration offered no specifics. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum later told CNN that offshore wind turbines could distort radar systems and potentially enable "swarm drone attacks"—a scenario he described as a threat to U.S. security.
That explanation drew immediate skepticism and outright criticism from many quarters. Retired U.S. Navy Commander Kirk Lippold, who commanded the USS Cole during the infamous 2000 al Qaeda attack, dismissed the administration’s justification as a "specious and false narrative" and accused officials of having "an overactive imagination in search of a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist." Lippold argued in The Hartford Courant that if drones could approach U.S. shores undetected, "we have had a massive intelligence—a national security—failure." He added, "Our national security interests would be best served by completing this project, and others like it, whether offshore wind, natural gas, or other large-scale sources of energy."
Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat and recognized national security expert, also challenged the administration’s rationale. Reed pointed out that the Department of Defense had thoroughly reviewed the Revolution Wind project during its nine-year approval process. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, in its 2023 record of decision, confirmed that the Defense Department concluded any impacts to its training and activities in the wind energy area would be "negligible and avoidable" with certain site-specific stipulations.
Connecticut and Rhode Island, along with Orsted, responded swiftly to the federal order, filing lawsuits in U.S. District Court on September 4, 2025. The states’ suit, lodged in Rhode Island, described Revolution Wind as a "cornerstone" of their clean energy future, abruptly halted without "statutory authority, regulatory justification or factual basis." Orsted’s separate filing in Washington, D.C., sought a preliminary injunction to resume construction, arguing that the administration lacked the legal authority to block the project. Interior Department spokesperson Elizabeth Peace declined to comment on the pending litigation, as reported by Associated Press.
The stakes are high, both economically and environmentally. Orsted reported that about $5 billion had already been spent or committed to the project, with potential additional costs exceeding $1 billion if the venture is canceled. Connecticut alone invested over $200 million to redevelop State Pier in New London to support offshore wind initiatives. More than 1,000 workers have been involved in the project, and state officials warn that halting it could harm residents, investments, and the broader offshore wind industry.
Rhode Island and Connecticut have emphasized their reliance on the electricity Revolution Wind would provide, especially during harsh New England winters when demand spikes and natural gas is prioritized for heating. Katie Dykes, head of Connecticut’s top environmental and energy agency, warned that failing to bring the project online could cost the state’s ratepayers tens of millions of dollars and jeopardize electricity reliability, a risk also flagged by the region’s independent system operator.
The Trump Administration’s move is part of a broader pattern of skepticism toward renewable energy. President Trump has repeatedly criticized wind power as "ugly and expensive," and has prioritized fossil fuels in his energy agenda. During a recent Cabinet meeting, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. referenced a major blade failure at the Vineyard Wind project off Nantucket—an incident that led to a $10.5 million settlement by manufacturer GE Vernova. Trump himself declared, "We’re not allowing any windmills to go up unless there’s a legal situation where somebody committed to it a long time ago." This marks the second time since his return to office that a major offshore wind project has been halted; the first, in New York, was later allowed to resume after legal wrangling.
The administration is now reconsidering approvals for three additional wind farms: the Maryland Offshore Wind Project, SouthCoast Wind, and New England Wind. Together, these projects could power nearly 2.5 million homes across Maryland, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Democratic Senators Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren have accused the administration of waging a "war on American energy and jobs," urging an end to what they see as politically motivated obstruction.
Globally, offshore wind has become a linchpin of energy strategy for many U.S. allies and competitors. According to The Hartford Courant, offshore wind powers 15 million homes in Europe and the UK, while China reportedly has 247 gigawatts in the pipeline—an enormous bet on the potential of its Pacific coastline. America’s first active large-scale offshore wind farm, operated by the Long Island Power Authority, boasts a capacity factor of 53%, comparable to reliable baseload sources like natural gas.
Commander Lippold and other experts advocate for a technology-neutral energy policy that leverages all available resources, arguing that true energy security comes from diversity, not exclusion. Lippold wrote, "Creating more options makes us stronger, which is why true energy dominance encompasses a broad mix of sources." He contended that clear regulations and adherence to the rule of law have long been the bedrock of U.S. economic strength, and that "thinly explained government directives halting billion-dollar energy projects in their tracks... stretch the credibility of our rules-based economy."
As the lawsuits proceed and the turbines remain idle, the future of Revolution Wind—and the direction of American energy policy—hangs in the balance. The outcome will shape not only the fate of a single wind farm, but also the nation’s approach to clean power, economic growth, and the ever-evolving definition of national security.
