By Anders Lorenzen

Ørsted, the Danish offshore wind developer behind the Revolution Wind project, has taken the Trump Administration to court for a second time within less than half a year, escalating a legal dispute that is increasingly emblematic of the administration’s approach to offshore wind in the US.

Halting all US offshore wind projects

The offshore wind project filed the lawsuit after the government halted the Revolution Wind project alongside four other offshore wind projects, which amounts to all the offshore wind projects under construction in the country. 

This is despite the Revolution Wind project having already secured approvals, passed environmental reviews and reached an advanced stage of construction.

This latest intervention backs up the view that Donald Trump is asserting his personal views on wind power and making it government policy that offshore wind should not be produced in the US. The US president is undoubtedly flexing his muscle in the hope of dealing a devastating blow to the industry in the US.

The broader offshore wind halt — five projects frozen

After the government’s Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) halted the offshore wind project in August, the subsequent lawsuit vetoed that decision, and the project could resume in September.

The latest move by the administration has shown the government’s and Trump’s disregard for the rule of law, given that even though these projects were in different stages of development, the government illegally stopped these projects.

Critics argue that the interventions amount to a de facto moratorium on offshore wind, enacted without new legislation and outside established regulatory processes. Supporters of offshore wind warn that the approach undermines legal certainty and exposes developers — and states — to political risk long after investment decisions have been made.

Against that backdrop, Revolution Wind has emerged as the most advanced — and legally consequential — of the halted projects.

Why Revolution Wind is back in court

Revolution Wind’s project is located offshore of Rhode Island and Connecticut, and was almost complete, and was in fact already delivering clean electricity to the grid.

Explaining the lawsuit, Ørsted has again argued that the federal government acted without statutory authority, failed to provide evidence to justify the halt, and unlawfully reversed decisions that had already cleared all regulatory hurdles.

By returning to court, the company is signalling that the dispute is no longer simply about project delay, but about whether federally approved clean energy projects can be undone by executive decision alone.

From extraordinary intervention to systemic risk

The concern when Revolution Wind was first halted in August has only intensified with the latest developments.

It has become a test of regulatory reliability in the US clean energy market around how far Trump is willing to go to dismantle the wind industry. He is reaching for offshore wind as onshore wind is controlled and approved by individual states, though offshore wind is approved by the federal government. 

Whether you’re a fan of offshore wind or not, the other concern is the signal it sends to foreign investors and the US’s reputation in the world and its soft power, that the president halt projects he has a personal vendetta against that have already been vetted and approved by the previous government, regulators and the courts.  

“There are serious legal questions for abruptly cancelling an offshore wind project after it’s received federal approvals,” said Gilbert Michaud, Assistant Professor of Environmental Policy at Loyola University Chicago, when we spoke to him in the wake of the lawsuit filed in September.

If the courts ultimately side with the federal government, it could establish a precedent allowing future administrations to revoke approvals after construction has begun and capital has been committed.

States step in as federal credibility falters

As with the initial lawsuit, Revolution Wind and Ørsted are not acting alone.

The states of Rhode Island and Connecticut — both set to receive electricity from the project — have filed their own legal challenge, arguing that the federal government’s actions undermine state clean energy targets, local employment and grid reliability.

“This kind of erratic and reckless governing is blatantly illegal, and we’re suing to stop it,” said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong when the first lawsuit was announced.

The continued involvement of US states underscores a growing reality: subnational governments are increasingly acting as the stabilising force for climate and energy policy as federal direction becomes more unpredictable.

What is Revolution Wind?

Revolution Wind is located approximately 28km off the coast of Rhode Island and 60km off the coast of Connecticut.

The project consists of 65 Siemens Gamesa offshore wind turbines, each with a capacity of 11 megawatts, giving the wind farm a total installed capacity of 704MW. Once completed, it is expected to generate enough electricity to power around 350,000 homes across the two states.

The project is a joint venture between Ørsted, Global Infrastructure Partners and Skyborn Renewables, and has been positioned as a cornerstone of New England’s clean energy transition.

The other offshore wind projects halted

In addition to Revolution Wind, the other halted projects are:

• Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) – The largest US offshore wind project is being developed by Dominion Energy and is located off Virginia Beach 
• Sunrise Wind –  Also developed by Ørsted, is under construction and located  off New York
• Empire Wind 1 – Developed by Equinor and located off New York, has also filed a legal challenge
• Vineyard Wind 1 – Developed by Iberdrola and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, partly operational and under construction, is located off Massachusetts 

The cost of delay — and the risk of cancellation

Ørsted has repeatedly warned that time is critical.

Every month the project remains stalled increases costs, disrupts supply chains and raises the risk that Revolution Wind could be delayed by more than a year — or cancelled altogether.

Such an outcome would not only jeopardise thousands of construction and maintenance jobs, but also remove a major source of zero-carbon electricity from the regional grid at a time of rising demand and intensifying climate impacts.

Ørsted’s wider offshore wind headwinds

The US headwinds faced by Ørsted could not come at a worse time for the Danish energy giant. 

Years of poor performance and poor management have meant mass layoffs and the company being forced to sell off some of its assets.

For a company that is 50% owned by the Danish state, the episode also raises questions about how the US treats long-term clean energy partnerships with allied nations.

More than one wind farm at stake

The Revolution Wind lawsuit is no longer only about a single offshore wind farm off the New England coast.

It is about whether approved clean energy projects can rely on the permanence of regulatory decisions, whether states can plan their energy futures without federal disruption, and whether the US remains a credible destination for large-scale climate investment.

As Ørsted returns to court within months of its first legal challenge, the outcome is likely to reverberate far beyond Revolution Wind — and far beyond offshore wind itself.

Anders Lorenzen is the founding Editor of A greener life, a greener world.