Trump administration cites national security in stalling 165 wind farms
The Trump administration is stalling approvals for approximately 165 onshore wind projects on private lands, citing national security concerns. The Department of Defense has halted reviews and communications, affecting projects that were near completion or previously considered low-risk. The move marks a significant escalation in the administration's efforts to limit wind energy development, despite legal setbacks and criticism over property rights and economic impacts.
- ▪Approximately 165 onshore wind projects on private lands are being stalled by the Department of Defense.
- ▪The affected projects could generate 30 gigawatts of electricity, enough to power 15 million homes.
- ▪Thirty projects had completed negotiations and awaited final sign-off, while others were in various stages of approval or would have previously been deemed risk-free.
- ▪The Department of Defense has stopped processing applications and canceled meetings without rescheduling since August 2025.
- ▪The Trump administration has previously attempted to block offshore and federal renewable projects, with some actions overturned in court.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Windmills, not windbags Trump administration cites national security in stalling 165 wind farms Onshore wind development in the United States is being brought to a standstill. Martha Muir, Financial Times – May 4, 2026 9:23 am | 11 Wind turbines near Palm Springs, California. Credit: nate2b / Flickr Wind turbines near Palm Springs, California. Credit: nate2b / Flickr Text settings Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only Learn more Minimize to nav The Trump administration has brought US onshore wind development to a halt citing national security concerns, representing a major escalation in the president’s crusade against renewable energy.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Ars Technica - All content.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Ars Technica - All content
