Trump’s Policy Flip on Empire Wind
Why I’m Skeptical of Offshore Wind
As someone who’s never bought into the hype surrounding renewable energy, I’ve been closely watching the drama unfold around the offshore wind program in the Northeast, particularly the Empire Wind project off New York and New Jersey. When President Trump halted this and other wind projects on his first day back in office in January 2025, I was cautiously optimistic. Finally, I thought, a move to prioritize proven, reliable energy sources like oil, gas, and nuclear over costly windmills that might never deliver on their promises. But then came the news in May 2025 that Trump reauthorized Empire Wind, and I’m left scratching my head, frustrated by what feels like a step backward. Here’s why I think the government should stick to supporting energy that works—and why this windmill saga has me concerned.
My Take on Wind Energy
I’ve always been skeptical of wind energy, especially offshore projects like Empire Wind. The idea of giant turbines spinning in the ocean, powering hundreds of thousands of homes, sounds great in theory. But when you dig into the numbers, it’s hard to justify. Building and maintaining these turbines is insanely expensive—offshore wind can cost up to seven times more per unit of electricity than natural gas. Add in the fact that wind only generates power about a third of the time (compared to nuclear’s 93% or gas’s 60%), and you’re stuck with a system that needs constant backup from the very fossil fuels it’s supposed to replace. To me, that’s not progress; it’s a money pit.
Then there’s the environmental cost. I’m no tree-hugger, but I can’t ignore that wind farms require massive amounts of critical minerals, heavy industrial processes, and land use that disrupt ecosystems. They’re linked to killing about a million birds a year, and while the jury’s out on whale deaths (NOAA says no direct link), the noise and construction can’t be great for marine life. If we’re going to spend billions, why not invest in energy sources we know work—like nuclear, which is clean, reliable, and doesn’t need a backup plan?
Trump’s Initial Move: A Win for Common Sense
When Trump signed an executive order in January 2025 to pause all new offshore wind lease sales and halt approvals for projects like Empire Wind, I felt like someone in Washington was finally listening. The order called for a “comprehensive review” of wind leasing and permitting, which made sense to me. The Biden administration had been throwing money at wind—$400 billion in tax credits projected through 2034—without enough scrutiny. Trump’s reasoning resonated: wind turbines are expensive, unreliable, and, in his words, “big, ugly windmills” that don’t deliver the bang for their buck. He’s also pointed out their impact on property values (though studies say it’s minimal) and raised concerns about environmental damage. To me, this was a signal that the government might refocus on energy dominance through proven sources like oil, gas, and coal—resources that have powered our economy for decades without needing constant subsidies.
The halt threw the wind industry into chaos. Companies like RWE started looking elsewhere for investments, and 17 states plus D.C. pushed back with lawsuits, claiming the pause hurt their renewable energy goals. I wasn’t surprised—states like New York have bet big on wind to hit targets like a 70% renewable grid by 2030. But I saw Trump’s move as a chance to rethink throwing taxpayer money at projects that might cost more to build and maintain than all the energy they’ll ever produce.
The Reversal: Why Now?
So, you can imagine my disappointment when I read that Trump’s team, led by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, greenlit Empire Wind to resume construction in May 2025. This project, run by Equinor, plans to plop 54 turbines in the ocean to power 500,000 homes, creating over 1,500 jobs. Sounds nice, but I’m not sold. Reports say New York Governor Kathy Hochul negotiated with the administration, promising collaboration on “new energy projects.” What does that mean? More windmills? A compromise to keep fossil fuel projects alive? The details are murky, but it feels like political pressure or backroom deals won out over sticking to a clear energy strategy.
This flip-flop is frustrating because it undermines the case for prioritizing reliable energy. Empire Wind might be moving forward, but the broader pause on new wind leases is still in place, which gives me some hope. Still, I can’t help but wonder why the administration didn’t hold firm. If the goal is energy dominance, why let a costly, unproven project like this one creep back in? It’s not like the Northeast is short on power—natural gas and nuclear plants are already doing the heavy lifting.
Where I Stand: Government Should Back Winners
As someone who believes the government should support proven energy sources, this whole ordeal has me worried. Wind energy, especially offshore, feels like a gamble with taxpayer dollars. The Inflation Reduction Act’s subsidies are ballooning costs—hundreds of billions over the next decade—and I’m not convinced the payoff is worth it. Jobs are great, but the 131,000 wind-related jobs nationwide pale compared to the millions supported by oil and gas. And while renewables are sold as “green,” the environmental trade-offs, from mining to wildlife impacts, make me question the label.
I’d rather see the government double down on what works: natural gas, which is cheap and abundant, or nuclear, which is reliable and emissions-free. Even coal, with modern tech, can be cleaner than people think. These sources don’t need constant subsidies or backups, and they’ve powered our country for generations. If Trump’s team is serious about energy dominance, they should be cutting red tape for drilling, building pipelines, and modernizing nuclear plants—not caving to pressure from states chasing renewable dreams.
What’s Next?
The Empire Wind reauthorization is a done deal, but the fight over energy policy isn’t. Trump’s pause on new wind leases is still holding, and his budget proposals hint at slashing renewable funding. That’s a start, but I’m watching closely to see if this reversal is a one-off or a sign of more compromises to come. States like New York and New Jersey are all-in on wind, and even fossil fuel giants like Shell are hedging their bets with renewable investments. It’s a reminder that politics and money can muddy the waters, even when the case for reliable energy seems clear.
