The U.S. Department of the Interior announced on December 23, 2025, that it is imposing a 90-day suspension on five of the largest offshore wind energy projects currently under construction along the East Coast. Citing unspecified national security concerns raised by the Department of Defense, the decision has sparked immediate backlash from energy companies, Democratic governors, and clean energy advocates who fear the freeze could derail crucial progress toward climate and energy goals.
The suspension affects projects that had already passed through years of environmental and technical reviews and were either under construction or close to becoming operational. The impacted developments include Vineyard Wind 1 off the coast of Massachusetts, Revolution Wind serving both Rhode Island and Connecticut, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, and two major New York-based projects: Sunrise Wind and Empire Wind. These projects were seen as cornerstones of the Biden-era federal strategy to expand offshore wind capacity and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a strategy that has now been upended by a new round of national security reviews under the current administration.
According to the Interior Department, the suspension is necessary to allow a multi-agency review of potential national security risks posed by the location, scale, or infrastructure of the wind farms. While the specific threats have not been made public, a brief statement noted that the Department of Defense had submitted recent assessments recommending a pause to evaluate possible risks to defense operations and critical infrastructure. The Interior Department emphasized that it remains committed to developing renewable energy but must first ensure such projects do not compromise national safety.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum defended the decision as prudent and precautionary, stating that protecting the country’s national security is a top priority that must be weighed alongside energy development. He described the pause as temporary and insisted that the administration supports “an all-of-the-above energy strategy,” but also noted that federal agencies need time to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment in light of evolving threats.
Despite those assurances, the reaction from affected states and developers was swift and critical. Democratic governors from New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island issued a joint letter to the Department of the Interior demanding that the suspension be lifted immediately. In the letter, they argued that these offshore wind projects had already undergone rigorous federal permitting processes, including consultations with military agencies, and were deemed compatible with national security at the time. They questioned the timing and validity of the new concerns, suggesting that the move could be politically motivated rather than based on genuine security risks.
Dominion Energy Virginia, which is leading the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, responded with a lawsuit filed in federal court. The company contends that the suspension is both “arbitrary and capricious,” violating principles of administrative law and threatening billions of dollars in investment. In its legal filings, Dominion warned that the delay could jeopardize energy supply reliability and result in higher costs for Virginia ratepayers. The company had already begun installing turbines and expected to deliver significant renewable energy to the regional grid in early 2026.
The offshore wind industry at large expressed concern that the pause could erode investor confidence and stall a growing sector that has been heralded as essential for reducing carbon emissions and diversifying America’s energy portfolio. Developers and industry groups argue that they have consistently worked with federal agencies, including the military, to mitigate concerns such as radar interference, shipping lane access, and undersea cabling. Many of these projects had cleared multiple hurdles, including environmental impact assessments, public comment periods, and economic reviews, before receiving green lights for construction.
For many, the timing of the decision is particularly disruptive. Vineyard Wind 1, off the coast of Massachusetts, had already begun limited power generation, marking a historic milestone as the first commercial-scale offshore wind farm in the United States to feed electricity into the grid. Similarly, the Revolution Wind project had nearly completed turbine installations and was preparing to begin supplying clean power to customers in Rhode Island and Connecticut. These developments were viewed as tangible signs of progress in a sector that has faced years of delays and regulatory challenges.
Clean energy experts warn that the 90-day suspension, even if temporary, risks slowing momentum in a field that is already racing against time to meet climate goals. Offshore wind is a critical component of many states’ clean energy plans, especially in the Northeast, where space for large-scale solar and onshore wind is limited. State governments have invested heavily in infrastructure and workforce training in anticipation of a long-term offshore wind boom, and a prolonged delay could undermine these efforts.
The decision also highlights the growing tension between federal oversight and state-led clean energy initiatives. While the federal government controls the leasing and permitting of offshore waters, states are responsible for integrating these energy sources into their grids. This dynamic has created friction in the past, but the current suspension represents one of the most significant federal interventions in state-aligned energy projects in recent years.
Political analysts note that the move aligns with a broader pattern of skepticism toward renewable energy under the current administration, which has previously signaled concerns about the cost, reliability, and aesthetics of wind projects. The pause may also reflect internal divisions within federal agencies over how to balance national security and energy innovation.
As the 90-day review begins, many in the industry fear that it could lead to longer delays or stricter regulations that make offshore wind less viable. Legal battles, public pressure from states, and continued media scrutiny are expected to intensify in the coming weeks as stakeholders push for transparency and demand a clear rationale for halting projects that were previously cleared to proceed.
Ultimately, the future of East Coast offshore wind now hangs in the balance, with billions of dollars and decades of planning potentially at risk. Whether the federal government reaffirms its commitment to the sector or doubles down on the suspension will have lasting implications not only for energy policy but for how the United States approaches the intersection of national security and climate action.
