Since late last year, President Donald Trump’s administration has moved aggressively to curb offshore wind development, arguing that the growing industry poses risks to U.S. national security.
The administration has paused work on major offshore wind projects and has begun buying back leases, repeatedly pointing to security concerns as the reason. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has said a classified report from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth supports the administration’s claim that offshore wind farms represent a national security threat.
The push comes as Trump, a longtime critic of wind turbines, seeks to expand fossil fuel production as part of his “energy dominance” agenda in the global market. At the same time, estimates from national laboratories indicate that offshore wind turbines placed along U.S. coastlines could generate more than enough electricity to meet the country’s annual power demand.
Wind turbines can disrupt radar systems, but defense officials and energy experts have long known about the issue. The Pentagon already reviews proposed wind farm sites and has the authority to declare certain areas off limits. Radar upgrades and other mitigation measures are also available to reduce the effects of turbine interference.
Here’s what to understand about offshore wind development and the national security questions surrounding it:
Spinning turbine blades can appear as false targets on radar displays
Burgum has said one concern is that autonomous drones could pass through an offshore wind tower field without being detected because of radar interference. He has also suggested that vibrations from wind towers could potentially affect undersea sonar systems.
According to the Department of Energy, radar systems can be recalibrated to raise the threshold for what counts as a detection. However, doing so can create a trade-off: reducing false signals may also increase the risk that real targets go unnoticed.
Kirk Lippold, a national security expert and former commander of the USS Cole, said radar operators are trained to differentiate a live track — anything from a boat or a submarine periscope to an inbound drone or missile — from clutter. If drones aren’t detected before they reach a wind farm, “we have bigger national security issues,” he said.
Trump administration says there are new risks
According to the Department of Justice, defense officials gave the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management classified information in November 2025 detailing new national security risks from offshore wind projects.
BOEM halted construction on five big East Coast projects days before Christmas. Burgum said they had to address the rapid evolution of relevant adversary technologies and vulnerabilities created by these projects near East Coast cities. This came after courts blocked Trump’s efforts to halt development through executive action.
Like the United States, Sweden is raising security concerns with offshore wind energy. Officials said Thursday they’re approving two offshore wind farms while rejecting 11 others.
Green Power Sweden CEO Nils Grunditz said he questions why Sweden is scaling back its offshore wind plans when technological solutions for radar interference are used elsewhere in the region. Denmark has been a pioneer in wind energy since building the first offshore wind farm in 1991.
The UK government said in March it bought new air defense radars to mitigate against anomalies created by offshore wind farms, touting it as new technology that secures coexistence of air defense and offshore wind. The independent climate change think tank E3G said North Sea turbines can be a defense asset, for example by including surveillance and monitoring equipment.
Judges were not convinced by the Trump administration
Developers impacted by the construction freeze and states sued. The DOJ argued national security concerns are paramount and federal courts do not second-guess military officials’ assessment of these risks.
Federal judges reviewed the classified information and allowed all five wind farms to resume construction.
At the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Senior Judge Royce Lamberth expressed concern that the stated national security reasoning may have been “pretextual,” to mask the true motives for stopping offshore wind.
In putting a major wind farm for Rhode Island and Connecticut back on track in January, Lamberth said the government did not apply the newly discovered concerns specifically to that project, Revolution Wind, Burgum publicly criticized offshore wind around the time of the stop work order for reasons unrelated to national security, and BOEM waited to act until December on information it received in November.
The Pentagon is also holding up the development of onshore wind farms, and the administration has used emergency orders to keep fossil fuel plants online.
Meghan Greenfield, a partner at Jenner & Block LLP in Washington, said the administration is making a national security argument in so many different contexts, “it has caused increased skepticism by the courts.”
A retired Navy officer is suspicious of the administration’s motives
In buying back offshore wind leases, the Interior Department cited national security concerns with the projects, including those off California.
Retired U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Dennis McGinn knows the waters off California’s shore well. He commanded the fleet responsible for naval operations across the eastern and northern Pacific Ocean. He said there’s no “showstopping national security issue” that would invalidate years of analysis of the lease areas.
McGinn said he thinks the administration is maximizing the risks and costs of offshore wind while minimizing the benefits to justify pursuing more fossil fuels and “it doesn’t pass commonsense tests.” Offshore wind produces electricity cleanly. Oil, coal and natural gas emit carbon pollution when burned.
McGinn, who served as an assistant secretary of the Navy, said that radar interference is a problem recognized early on and adequately addressed and that thousands of turbines are operating across Europe and Asia.
“National security and offshore wind are compatible, if it is done right, in the right locations,” he said.
Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth disagrees. A distinguished fellow at the Energy Policy Research Foundation, Furchtgott-Roth said the defense issues have been known for decades, the military’s views should be taken very seriously, the nation shouldn’t be dependent on Chinese-made turbines, and gas, coal and nuclear provide affordable, reliable power. The administration is acting prudently, she said.
Members of Congress were briefed
Democratic U.S. Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island said he participated in a classified briefing months ago and didn’t find the reasoning compelling. Reed, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is trying to include a measure in the defense bill that sets military policy to force a 180-day deadline for a military office known as the siting clearinghouse to evaluate wind projects and explain its conclusion.
“They have to be able to produce a thoughtful and thorough analysis which justifies their decision,” Reed said Wednesday. “That’s the way to go.”
Even with that step, Reed said, this administration finds many ways to stop things it doesn’t like and he expects the campaign against wind energy to continue.
___
The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
