The Department of Justice, now under the Trump administration, has filed a motion to vacate its prior approval of US Wind’s Construction and Operations Plan for a major offshore wind project in Maryland. The filing, submitted on August 22, cites concerns that the previous administration underestimated the project’s potential impacts on search and rescue operations and commercial fisheries.
The move has drawn swift and sharp criticism from industry leaders and state officials, who warn of significant economic and energy security repercussions. Liz Burdock, CEO of the Oceantic Network, called the action “one of the largest, economically devastating assaults on US workers, businesses, and energy in decades.” She argued that revoking a permit for an already-approved project—after years of rigorous review—would raise electricity prices, jeopardize private investment, delay economic growth, and weaken the power grid.
Burdock emphasized that offshore wind is already delivering benefits to Maryland, including skilled job creation, revitalization of steel manufacturing and port redevelopment, and billions in supply chain investment. She noted that nearly 70% of Marylanders support this American energy resource, framing it as a generational opportunity.
Maryland Governor Wes Moore also condemned the decision, calling it “utterly shortsighted.” He highlighted that the project was set to bring in $1 billion in investment, create thousands of good-paying manufacturing jobs, and generate more locally produced electricity. Moore warned that the move would lead to utility-rate hikes by removing one of the most promising solutions to Maryland’s energy generation challenges.
The filing raises questions about the future of offshore wind development in the U.S. and the broader implications for renewable energy projects that have already cleared regulatory hurdles. If successful, this legal challenge could set a precedent for similar actions, creating uncertainty for investors and developers in the sector. It also underscores the political and regulatory risks that renewable energy projects face, even after years of planning and approval.
For Maryland, the decision could delay progress toward its clean energy goals, potentially forcing reliance on more expensive or less sustainable energy sources. The state’s offshore wind ambitions have been a key part of its economic and environmental strategy, and this reversal could disrupt those plans, leaving both businesses and consumers to bear the costs.
The debate over this project reflects broader tensions between energy development, economic growth, and environmental protection. As the legal process unfolds, stakeholders will be watching closely to see how this case shapes the future of offshore wind—and renewable energy more broadly—in the U.S.