As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office in January, the future of offshore wind energy projects in the United States faces significant uncertainty. Throughout his campaign, Trump consistently voiced opposition to offshore wind, pledging to halt the industry on “Day 1” through an executive order. He cited environmental and economic concerns, calling wind power “the most expensive energy there is” and claiming it harms wildlife, including birds and whales.
For Trump’s supporters, many of whom have vocally opposed offshore wind projects along the East Coast, this election victory represents a potential turning point. However, industry experts, environmental advocates, and offshore wind companies argue that dismantling an industry with substantial momentum may be more challenging than the President-elect suggests.
During his campaign, Trump repeatedly promised to stop offshore wind development. His objections centered on what he described as environmental damage and negative impacts on local communities. Speaking at a rally in May, he criticized offshore wind farms, saying, “We are going to make sure that that ends on Day 1. I’m going to write it out in an executive order. It’s going to end on Day 1.”
Trump has been outspoken on offshore wind for years, particularly concerning wind farms visible from his golf course in Scotland. For many environmental groups, however, Trump’s opposition is seen as part of a broader commitment to the fossil fuel industry rather than a genuine environmental concern. They argue that fossil fuels, which Trump has supported, are a more significant threat to the environment and are skeptical of his claims to environmental advocacy.
Despite Trump’s rhetoric, offshore wind industry leaders have expressed cautious optimism. With nearly 65 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity under development in the U.S. — enough to power over 26 million homes — they believe that their economic and environmental value will continue to justify their growth. Projects such as Rhode Island’s Block Island Wind Farm, the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind pilot project, and New York’s South Fork Wind Farm have already set the stage, making offshore wind a visible and growing contributor to the U.S. power grid.
Jason Grumet, CEO of the American Clean Power Association, emphasized the economic potential of offshore wind as a means to create jobs, strengthen national security, and support economic development — aspects of interest to both sides of the political spectrum. “By combining the strengths of all domestic energy resources, the Trump administration can advance an economy that is dynamic, secure, and clean,” Grumet said. “We are committed to working with the Trump administration and the new Congress to continue this great American success story.”
Several major offshore wind companies, including Atlantic Shores and Orsted, have reiterated their commitment to the U.S. market and are focused on framing offshore wind as a source of American jobs and economic growth. They hope that positioning offshore wind as part of a balanced domestic energy strategy will appeal to Trump’s administration.
While Trump’s ability to outright cancel offshore wind projects may be limited, he can leverage other tools to impact the industry. Bob Stern, former U.S. Energy Department official and leader of the New Jersey-based anti-wind group Save LBI, highlighted Trump’s potential influence over federal tax credits, leasing policies, and regulatory appointments. The Inflation Reduction Act under the Biden administration provided substantial tax credits for renewable energy projects, including offshore wind. By persuading Congress to limit or eliminate these credits, Trump could hinder the financial viability of many future projects.
In addition to tax incentives, Trump has the power to appoint leaders in federal agencies, including the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), who oversee offshore wind leasing and permitting processes. By appointing individuals who oppose offshore wind or are more favorable to fossil fuels, Trump could slow down or even freeze new project approvals. Furthermore, executive orders rescinding existing lease approvals or prohibiting new leases could shift the federal stance on offshore wind, particularly for projects still in the early planning stages.
Among Trump’s supporters, the election victory has sparked hope for a rollback of offshore wind policies. Robin Shaffer, president of Protect Our Coast NJ, a group opposed to East Coast offshore wind development, described the election as a “tipping point” for offshore wind in America. According to Shaffer, previous Democrat-led administrations had given the industry an open path, but Trump’s administration could signal new challenges for offshore wind projects, especially those near sensitive coastal environments.
New Jersey Assemblyman Paul Kanitra echoed these sentiments, directing offshore wind companies to “pack your bags and get the hell away from the Jersey Shore, our marine life, fishing industry and beautiful beaches.” He expressed anticipation for potential economic fallout for the industry, a sentiment seemingly supported by a drop in stock prices of major European offshore wind companies such as Orsted and turbine manufacturer Vestas Wind Systems. Both companies faced double-digit percentage declines in stock value following the election results, with fears of increased regulatory barriers for East Coast projects.
Environmental groups and scientists have pushed back against claims that offshore wind harms marine wildlife. Federal and state agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), have studied whale deaths along the East Coast and have not found conclusive evidence linking them to offshore wind activities. They argue that while turbines have been known to affect some bird species, strict regulatory policies are in place to minimize these impacts, including guidelines for turbine siting and operational adjustments.
Proponents of offshore wind further argue that offshore wind could bolster energy independence, a goal that aligns with Trump’s commitment to reducing reliance on foreign energy. Tina Zappile, director of the Hughes Center for Public Policy at New Jersey’s Stockton University, sees a potential pathway for offshore wind if it aligns with Trump’s economic priorities. “Offshore wind might appear to be on the chopping block,” she noted. “But when the economics of offshore wind are in alignment with his strategies of returning manufacturing to America and becoming energy-independent, his administration is likely to back away slowly from this claim.”
Commercial fishermen along the East Coast, particularly in New England, have mixed reactions to offshore wind. Jerry Leeman, CEO of the New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association, voiced concerns over the impact of offshore wind infrastructure on fishing grounds. Leeman called on the Trump administration to reverse commitments to offshore wind, stating that previous regulations aimed to shield the industry from political shifts, but he hoped Trump could change that.
For fishermen, offshore wind projects raise concerns about navigation, fish habitats, and economic impacts on commercial fishing communities. Leeman and others hope that Trump will prioritize their industry’s interests over offshore wind, which they argue disrupts traditional fishing zones and creates additional challenges for an industry already facing regulatory pressures.
As the transition to the Trump administration begins, the offshore wind industry will closely watch how policies unfold. There may be a gradual slowing of new projects, with developers focusing on finding common ground with the administration to avoid total project cancellations. By emphasizing job creation and U.S.-based manufacturing, the industry hopes to find political advantages that resonate with Trump’s America-first economic agenda.
The outcome will likely also impact global offshore wind companies looking to expand into the U.S. market. Companies like Orsted and Vestas have significant investments in U.S. projects and may need to rethink their strategies if regulatory challenges persist. This scenario could lead to reduced foreign investment in offshore wind and shift the landscape of renewable energy in the U.S.
Ultimately, the future of offshore wind in the U.S. under Trump’s administration will hinge on the intersection of economic, environmental, and political factors. Trump’s ability to fully halt the industry may be limited, as offshore wind’s rapid growth has created both economic and environmental benefits that resonate with many Americans, particularly in coastal states where the projects promise significant job creation.
Opponents of offshore wind view Trump’s election as a victory, seeing it as a chance to protect local industries and natural views, while supporters remain hopeful that offshore wind can be a part of a balanced energy strategy under the new administration. As Trump’s inauguration approaches, the offshore wind industry faces a unique challenge: adapting to a political environment that may not favor them, while emphasizing their alignment with broader goals of job creation and energy independence.
Whether offshore wind projects can withstand the regulatory hurdles and political headwinds that may arise remains to be seen. However, the industry’s commitment to finding common ground signals a determined effort to continue growing, albeit with strategic adjustments to appeal to a more conservative administration.
