Trump-Proofing Clean Energy: Lessons From Ørsted’s US Offshore Wind Battle

For corporate energy leaders, political risk has become one of the hardest variables to price into clean energy strategy, with long-dated power contracts and fixed decarbonization timelines colliding with short electoral cycles and subsequent policy reversals. The question many firms now face isn’t whether the energy transition will continue, but how resilient their plans will be when the politics turn hostile.

There are few areas that have become more of a political flashpoint than offshore wind under the Trump administration in the US, as part of the President’s long-standing distaste for wind power. Upon re-entering office in January 2025, President Trump issued a memorandum withdrawing large swathes of the outer continental shelf from wind leasing and pausing key permitting processes, triggering uncertainty for developers and project financiers alike. Following this, in December 2025, the Department of the Interior took the extraordinary step of pausing the leases for five major offshore wind projects under construction – Vineyard Wind, Empire Wind, Sunrise Wind, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind and Revolution Wind – citing “national security risks” related to radar and defence system interference.

One deeply impacted developer was Danish multinational Ørsted. Together with Skyborn Renewables, Ørsted had nearly completed Revolution Wind, a 704MW project off the coasts of Rhode Island and Connecticut, expected to provide clean power to roughly 350,000 homes each year. When the Department of the Interior ordered construction to stop and leases to be suspended, the project came to a grinding halt. Ørsted’s share price dropped by 12%, and critics warned the pause could endanger financing and broader market confidence.

Rather than fold, Ørsted and its partners took the battle to the courts. In early January 2026, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction allowing work to resume on Revolution Wind despite the federal suspension, ruling that the government had failed to justify its actions and that the project faced “irreparable harm” from indefinite delay. Following this victory, Ørsted’s shares climbed by 6%, reflecting renewed investor confidence.

While Trump’s first year in office has created disruption for US clean energy – through tariffs, the rollback of the Inflation Reduction Act, and the passage of the OBBBA – Ørsted’s experience points to a more specific reality. Political opposition has not made large-scale clean energy development impossible, but it has changed where and how risk shows up.

In practice, this has several implications:

• Delays are becoming a central risk. Federal opposition is more likely to slow projects down than stop them outright, with knock-on effects for costs, financing and delivery timelines.
• Contracts matter when timelines slip. How PPAs and offtake agreements handle timing, flexibility and delay can materially shape outcomes when projects encounter political or legal hurdles.
• State backing can still make a difference. Even when federal signals turn negative, state-level targets, grid needs and local economic interests can help projects retain momentum.
• Concentration increases exposure. Strategies anchored to single assets, jurisdictions or delivery dates are more vulnerable to political disruption than more distributed approaches.

In Trump’s US, the energy transition is neither assured nor abandoned – but it is more complex and contested. Ørsted’s court victory does not guarantee smooth delivery, nor does it shield the wider sector from disruption. What it does show is that projects with strong contractual foundations, advanced construction status and alignment with state-level objectives can continue to move forward, even under federal pressure.

Offshore wind may sit at the sharpest edge of this tension, but the lesson extends across clean energy infrastructure. For corporate decarbonization leaders, ‘Trump-proofing’ US clean energy is less about eliminating risk and more about planning for friction rather than failure. Strategies that account for uncertainty, allow for delay and retain flexibility across procurement pathways are likely to prove more durable than those built on best-case policy assumptions.

For further insights into the energy transition in the US, read Market Insight: US Energy Transition Investment Trends and Strategic Focus: The Impact Of The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) On Clean Energy Investment In The US.