President Trump’s Attack on Wind Energy is Misguided

Since retaking office in 2025, President Donald Trump has actively worked to halt progress in the US wind energy industry. On his first day, Trump signed a moratorium on the development of offshore wind projects on federally controlled coastal areas. Executive agencies followed suit in the subsequent months: on August 29, the Department of Transportation reversed $679 million in funding for 12 ongoing offshore wind projects. Additionally, the Department of the Interior has blocked multiple on-land wind projects and has announced the cessation of any “preferential treatment” for renewable energy sources.  

A consistent theme of expanding the use of traditional fuel sources as a means of bolstering the economy and protecting the nation’s people and natural landscape underlies the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine renewable energy development. For example, Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy cited the need to “[revitalize] America’s maritime industry” and to avoid wasting taxpayer dollars. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum framed the department’s actions as a preventative measure against unreliable and invasive wind projects. President Trump himself has blamed wind energy for being the cause behind rising electricity prices and the deaths of birds and whales. President Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” motto has been at the forefront of his push for the return of traditional fuel sources, having promised to slash oil and electricity prices in half within his first year and a half in office. 

However, the Trump administration’s onslaught on the wind energy industry seems to prioritize aesthetics rather than the country’s economic and geopolitical success. The hasty withdrawal of support for these wind projects has caused great harm to communities around the US. The now-canceled Humboldt Bay Offshore Wind project, located in northern California, was meant to receive the majority of the $679 million in funding. Rep. Jared Huffman, in whose district the project is located, called the act an attempt to “kill thousands of good-paying jobs and drive up electricity prices for American consumers.” Huffman also noted that, by terminating offshore wind projects, President Trump was preventing the US from leading the charge in paving the way for the future of green energy, allowing nations like China to pull ahead without competition. Connecticut’s Revolution Wind Project also saw its operations halted by the Trump Administration despite being nearly complete. The Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut protested, stating that this unpredictable cancellation not only jeopardizes jobs and energy availability but also dissuades foreign investors from financing similar projects. Ørsted, the Danish energy company behind Revolution Wind, thus put the project on standstill in Connecticut and other participating states, causing its shares to drop by 17%.

Furthermore, the White House’s approach to replacing renewable energy with coal and fossil fuels has, oddly, focused on visual and emotional appeals. President Trump has expressed his disdain for wind turbines and solar panels numerous times, having recently told Fox News, “I don’t want windmills destroying our place. I don’t want these solar things where they go for miles and they cover up a half a mountain that are ugly as hell.” During a rally in Scranton, Pennsylvania, Trump also called wind turbines “big, ugly suckers” that were “rusting and disgusting looking.” This opinion seemingly dates back to before Trump served his first term in office. In 2014, his Aberdeenshire golf resort sued the Scottish Government after it approved the development of 11 offshore wind turbines, worried the project would “spoil the view.” 

While wind turbines may occupy more space than fossil fuels and coal, I would argue against the idea that the latter energy sources are more visually attractive. I find the image of black fog billowing out of smokestacks far less appealing than a wind or solar farm—and I think many would agree with me. What’s more important, though, is not how our energy sources look, but how effective they are in terms of providing power to the country and avoiding negative environmental consequences. Wind energy is up to par in both of these regards: in addition to having a minimal carbon footprint, wind energy and other renewables no longer require subsidies to compete with traditional energy sources in a free market economy, making it the clear choice for the future, or, rather, the present. President Trump’s use of aesthetics instead of facts to back up arguments is extremely concerning—especially when the fate of the planet is on the line. The current administration’s cuts to wind energy funding are a step in the wrong direction, harming the nation’s economy and stance as a geopolitical player.