Europe’s largest offshore wind developer, Ørsted, has taken legal action against the US government after a sudden decision to suspend work on one of America’s biggest offshore wind projects. The case centers on a $5 billion wind farm off the north-east coast of the United States, a project that was already close to completion when the suspension order arrived.
The dispute has drawn attention because of its scale, its timing, and its impact on clean energy development in the US. It also highlights growing tensions between renewable energy companies and federal authorities over offshore wind projects.
A major offshore wind project put on hold
Ørsted’s offshore wind project, known as Revolution Wind, sits in federal waters off the north-east US coast. The project aims to generate electricity using large wind turbines placed in the ocean, where winds are stronger and more consistent than on land. Once completed, the wind farm is expected to supply power to hundreds of thousands of homes.
Work on the project had been progressing for years. Planning and environmental reviews began almost a decade ago. Federal and state authorities reviewed the project in detail, covering areas such as marine life, shipping routes, fishing activity, and local communities. After these long reviews, the project received all required permits in 2023.
By late 2025, construction was nearly finished. Ørsted had already installed all offshore foundations and most of the turbines. Only a small portion of the work remained. The project was scheduled to begin delivering electricity in 2026.
Despite this advanced stage, the US government issued an order in late December to suspend the project’s lease. The decision was part of a wider move that paused construction on several offshore wind projects across US waters. Officials linked the suspensions to national security concerns, but they did not explain what those concerns were or how the wind farms posed a risk.
The sudden halt created confusion and concern within the renewable energy sector. Companies had invested billions of dollars based on permits and approvals already granted. For Ørsted, the freeze threatened to delay power delivery, raise costs, and damage confidence in long-term clean energy planning.
Why Ørsted turned to the courts
In response to the lease suspension, Ørsted filed a legal challenge against the US government. The company argues that the decision violates existing law and ignores the permits and approvals already in place. According to Ørsted, the project followed every required legal step and passed extensive government reviews.
The company says that stopping work at such a late stage causes serious harm. Construction delays can increase costs, disrupt supply chains, and create uncertainty for workers and contractors. Equipment already installed offshore also requires regular maintenance, even if the project is paused.
Ørsted has stated that legal action is necessary to protect the project and prevent further damage. The company maintains that the lease suspension lacks clear justification and does not explain how the wind farm threatens national security.
This is not the first time the project has faced a halt. Months earlier, construction was paused after a stop-work order from federal authorities. That order also cited national security concerns without providing details. After legal review, a federal judge allowed work to resume, and construction continued until the December lease freeze.
The repeated pauses have shaken investor confidence. Ørsted’s share price fell sharply after the latest suspension announcement, reflecting market concern about political and regulatory risks. News of the legal challenge later helped the shares recover some of those losses.
Wider impact on US offshore wind development
The legal dispute comes during a tense period for offshore wind in the United States. Policymakers and energy planners view offshore wind as a key part of efforts to expand clean energy, reduce emissions, and strengthen domestic power supply. Coastal states have invested heavily in ports, vessels, and grid upgrades to support the industry.
At the same time, offshore wind projects have faced criticism over costs, visual impact, and potential effects on marine ecosystems. Federal authorities have increased scrutiny, leading to delays and policy uncertainty.
Scientists back life search as top goal for first human Mars missions in 2030s
The suspension of multiple offshore wind leases at once sent shockwaves through the industry. The decision left developers, suppliers, and local governments unsure which projects would move forward and which authorities might block. For projects already under construction, the uncertainty was especially damaging.
In Ørsted’s case, the Revolution Wind project is almost complete. Most turbines are already standing in the water, and the core infrastructure is in place. Pausing a project at this stage is unusual and costly. It also raises questions about whether future infrastructure projects can rely on permits when authorities reverse approvals late in the process.
The dispute also affects local economies. Offshore wind projects create jobs in manufacturing, construction, shipping, and maintenance. Delays can disrupt employment and slow regional investment tied to clean energy growth.
Ørsted’s legal challenge does not change the broader policy debate, but it brings the conflict into the courtroom. The case will focus on whether the government acted within its legal authority and whether the lease suspension can stand without clear evidence or explanation.
For now, construction remains halted under the lease freeze. The wind farm was expected to deliver electricity to US homes within a year, but it now sits between completed infrastructure and an unresolved legal battle. The outcome of the challenge may shape not only the future of this project but also how federal law governs offshore wind in the United States.
