In a political effort to prevent new wind projects from being built, the Trump Administration has gone to increasingly great lengths. Recently, the administration has spent several billion taxpayer dollars to buy out offshore wind leases.

The cancellation of offshore wind leases earlier this year led several Northeast states to sue the administration, and a group of eight states has filed a notice of intent to sue over the settlement the Trump Administration made to buy out wind leases belonging to Invenergy and Bluepoint Wind.

For about a year, the Trump Administration has also utilized formerly routine national security reviews to stall the approval of new wind projects.

For years, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Department of Defense (DoD) worked with wind energy builders to balance the development of wind energy with concerns about national security and radar interference , mitigating any issues. In the DoD’s own words, this review is supposed to be a “timely, transparent, and repeatable process.” 

But in August 2025, the DoD stopped signing off on any national security mitigation plans to allow proposed wind energy projects over 200 feet tall to move forward.

More than 150 wind projects across the country are impacted by this so-called “wind freeze.” The indefinite pause on DoD approvals creates a cloud of uncertainty that leaves projects without the necessary insurance and financing, threatening the development and deployment of renewable energy and putting immense financial strain on wind project developers.

Some developers missed the construction window to qualify for federal tax credits, which were phased out by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 4.

Faced with endless delay, a coalition of renewable energy trade groups and wind energy development companies sued the DoD back in late May, alleging violations of administrative law and seeking to undo the freeze. That case is known as Renewable Northwest v. Hegseth.

Earlier this year, efforts by the Interior Department to hold up five offshore wind energy projects on the East Coast were stopped by federal courts, with judges allowing the projects to proceed, overriding the agency’s security concerns.

The Benefits of Wind Energy

Unfortunately, the impacts of this purposeful administrative delay will negatively impact all Americans. Stalling or canceling wind energy projects robs communities of tax revenue and jobs, and cuts off a critical source of clean energy as data centers and the AI boom demand more and more power.

In 2025, wind energy produced about 11 percent of America’s utility-generated power. Once installed, wind turbines provide reliable, fixed-cost power at a competitive price, even without subsidies.

Compare that to alternatives like natural gas, where prices can vary substantially with the ebbs and flows of international energy markets and lead to unexpected and unwelcome increases in consumers’ energy bills.

Once turbines have been built, wind energy is not vulnerable to international political crises or other supply shocks. Paired with solar energy, transmission networks, and battery storage, wind power is a key building block of a clean energy future.

States Seek To Intervene in the Lawsuit

This past week, the attorneys general of 18 states and Washington, D.C., filed a motion to intervene in Renewable Northwest v. Hegseth, seeking to represent the interests of their respective states.

The states argue that this agency decision is illegal and causes them serious harm, taking away their authority over energy policy and thwarting their plans to develop clean energy and meet state-level emissions reduction targets.

Those targets are meant to protect human health and the environment, but are jeopardized by a significant delay in wind energy development at a critical moment in the renewable energy transition.

The states that have had wind energy projects stalled by the Trump Administration may face energy insecurity, rising power costs, and dirtier air as a result of DoD actions constraining the development of wind power.

According to the states’ motion, public and private investments in these wind energy projects and the underlying infrastructure, such as job training and research and development, total billions of dollars. Those investments were intended to facilitate the buildout of wind energy, but are now stranded assets until the pending projects can gain the DoD approval needed to move forward.

Finally, the states hoping to intervene in the case argue that they have suffered economic harm, as the halt in wind project approval means that projected jobs and valuable tax revenue go unrealized.

In Colorado alone, more than 7,000 jobs are in jeopardy on proposed projects that involve $2.6 billion in private investment. In 2022, Colorado-based wind projects contributed $10 million in state and local tax receipts and $18 million in lease payments to Colorado residents.

The Bottom Line

The Trump Administration’s anti-wind policies are not just bad for community health and efforts to address the ongoing climate crisis — these policies stand in the way of economic development that investors, companies, and consumers all benefit from.

Trump’s administration has touted an “energy dominance” strategy, but refusing to greenlight wind energy — a clean, proven, and cost-effective form of energy — is deeply shortsighted.

Should the freeze be allowed to continue, Americans will feel the pain in their pocketbooks.

We must continue to push our political leaders to facilitate the clean energy transition that our society needs: creating jobs and investment, lowering energy costs, and ditching fossil fuels for clean power.

Brian Wagenaar, a Twin Cities native, is one of RENEW’s 2026 summer law clerks. He is currently a student at the University of Wisconsin Law School and starts his second year in the program this fall. Prior to his time at UW’s Law School, Brian earned his bachelor’s in environmental policy from UW-Green Bay.

Across the country, youth impacted by climate change have sued state governments on the theory that inaction in the face of the climate crisis violates their fundamental constitutional rights.

In one highly publicized case, Held v. State, 16 kids sued the State of Montana over environmental laws that shielded companies developing fossil fuel projects, forbidding the state from reviewing the full impacts of the projects’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The youth litigants won a decisive court victory, striking down that provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act and securing a declaration of their constitutional right to a “stable climate system.”

More recently, the Montana plaintiffs are back in court in 2026 seeking to reinforce their win and ensure Montana’s energy and environmental policy actually complies with the established right to a stable climate.

Wisconsin’s Youth Climate Case

Here in Wisconsin, the nonprofit legal advocacy group Our Children’s Trust teamed up with Midwest Environmental Advocates (MEA) to sue the state’s Public Service Commission (PSC) and the state legislature in 2025 in Dunn v. Wisconsin Public Service Commission.

In their complaint, the young plaintiffs — ranging from age 8 to 17 at the time the case was filed — challenged aspects of Wisconsin energy law that allow utilities to continue building fossil-fuel infrastructure despite the climate crisis.

The youth plaintiffs hail from a wide range of backgrounds, but they all share one tragic bond: climate change is making their lives measurably worse.

The climate crisis has forced some of their families to move, rendered many Wisconsin rivers and lakes degraded and unfit for swimming, fishing, and boating, robbed them of opportunities to engage in cultural activities like tapping maple trees for maple syrup, exposed them to a heightened risk of Lyme disease, exacerbated health issues like asthma, and led to a decline in their mental health.

Driven by these cultural, health, and economic impacts, many of these kids and young adults have dedicated themselves to climate education and activism.

But they can’t do it alone — they will need help from engaged Wisconsinites to push our legislators and courts to consider the true costs of continuing to develop more fossil fuel infrastructure when renewable energy alternatives are readily available.

The Youths’ Argument

In court, plaintiffs argued that the law prohibiting the PSC from considering the impacts of air pollution in issuing Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCNs) to large energy projects is unconstitutional, allowing the continued development of fossil fuel projects without considering their full costs to society.

Second, the youth argued that Wisconsin’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) is unconstitutional, effectively putting a ceiling on the PSC’s ability to push utilities to supply more renewable energy.

In 2005, Wisconsin amended Act 9, setting an initial goal of 10 percent renewable energy by 2015. That goal was first met back in 2013, two years ahead of schedule. Since then, the PSC has been unable to require more renewable energy to support our statewide climate goal, or even accurately track the renewable energy portfolio of Wisconsin’s utilities. This shortcoming has led Wisconsin to fall behind in the adoption of renewable energy.

Without the ability to mandate that utilities develop more renewable energy, Wisconsin will struggle to meet the long-range 2050 goal of 100% carbon-free energy set by Governor Evers.

The plaintiffs argue that these maladies in Wisconsin law are violating their foundational rights to life and liberty, which rest on a stable climate system.

They also argue that the defendant’s inadequate response to climate change was violating Wisconsin’s Public Trust Doctrine and depriving plaintiffs of the ability to use and enjoy Wisconsin’s bountiful water resources: our many public rivers and lakes. Sadly, Wisconsin’s public waterways are increasingly degraded by extreme heat and algal blooms closely linked to climate change.

The Lower Court’s Ruling

Despite a load of evidence, the plaintiffs’ case was dismissed by the court. While the judge sympathized with the youth, acknowledging that the plaintiffs showed clear harm from climate change, they decided that this case is not fit for resolution in a courtroom.

Instead, the court said the plaintiffs’ cause is an energy policy issue that would be better addressed in the state legislature.

However, the plaintiffs are appealing that decision and fighting to bring awareness to the human impacts of the climate crisis, and to push Wisconsin to take meaningful action to mitigate climate change and protect the future of all Wisconsinites.

The High Cost of Fossil Fuels

The natural gas plants that Wisconsin utilities and power producers are currently building and proposing will operate for 30 or more years, producing a wide range of serious, negative environmental health impacts for Wisconsinites.

Natural gas and coal plants struggle to compete with solar and wind power on costs, and that’s not including the often-ignored economic and health costs of fossil fuel projects, which include dirtier air, a slew of health risks, and early death.

In 2025, WE Energies received PSC approval for two massive natural gas plants, Oak Creek and the Paris Generation Project.

While some have touted natural gas as a cleaner “bridge” fuel, analysis conducted by Healthy Climate Wisconsin and the Union of Concerned Scientists predicts that the plants will cost more than $5 billion in health impacts from particulate, sulfur, and other forms of toxic pollution over their three-decade lifespan, with impacts in Wisconsin and neighboring states like Michigan.

These new plants will particularly harm people with existing heart or respiratory issues, as well as communities that have already borne the hefty costs of fossil fuel development.

Overall, Wisconsinites will be less healthy as a result of these natural gas projects, in addition to the broader impact on climate change from burning methane — a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide.

The roughly $2 billion WE Energies is spending developing the Oak Creek and Paris projects could have been used to build large-scale solar or wind farms that would have provided clean, reliable energy.

Wisconsin’s Clean Energy Future

With the technology we have available, there is no need for more outdated, dirty fossil fuel infrastructure in Wisconsin.

RENEW Wisconsin is fighting to put solar and wind on level ground with fossil fuels — because solar and wind power prevail when they are given a fair chance to compete in the energy market.

A brighter and attainable Wisconsin energy future powered by renewable energy would produce reliable power, create jobs, and lessen air pollution, leading to a healthier and wealthier Badger State.

A combination of rooftop, community solar, large-scale solar, energy conservation, smart demand reduction programs, and battery storage can meet all of Wisconsin’s energy needs, even with the projected increase in energy demand from data centers.

That is the future RENEW Wisconsin is fighting for.

Brian Wagenaar, a Twin Cities native, is one of RENEW’s 2026 summer law clerks. He is currently a student at the University of Wisconsin Law School and starts his second year in the program this fall. Prior to his time at UW’s Law School, Brian earned his bachelor’s in environmental policy from UW-Green Bay.