As a keen legal observer in matters of environmental law, I write today in a tone of both reasoned clarity and cautious optimism: the recent Federal government decision rescinding offshore wind leasing areas delivers precisely the kind of regulatory finality that our legal system craves.

This is not intended as a value judgment assessing good or bad, but rather a report on the current state of law to assist readers in navigating changing environmental currents, including by deemphasizing climate and now articulating their bona fides in national security, artificial intelligence, and the like. 

A Clear – Eyed Resolution – and a Legal Win

In a four-sentence statement, on July 30, 2025, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management formally rescinded all designated Wind Energy Areas, totaling more than 3.5 million acres, across the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, Oregon, California, and the Central Atlantic

This action followed Secretary’s Order 3437, entitled “Ending Preferential Treatment for Unreliable, Foreign-Controlled Energy Sources in Department Decision‑Making,” and the Presidential Memorandum issued on January 20, 2025, “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the OCS from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects.” 

From a practitioner’s standpoint, this provides sharp legal clarity. Again, this writing is not a value judgment about offshore wind power generation. This pause is not nebulous; it is anchored in formal, appropriately promulgated authority. The federal review process now in motion ensures that longstanding concerns about environmental quality, navigational safety, marine life, foreign dependence in supply chains, and grid reliability will be thoroughly assessed before any future leasing decision is made.

Procedural Integrity, Not Abrupt Reversal

Wind Energy Areas were identified through a not usual, expedited internal agency review in the name of “responding to the urgency of climate change” that included as a stated aim creating union jobs. Take the example of “Central Atlantic 2”, originally proposed in 2023 as a roughly 40 mile wide swath offshore from New Jersey to South Carolina. According to pending challenges, NASA, DoD, NOAA, the commercial fishing industry, tourism operators, coastal communities, and other stakeholders were not listened to during what process there was.

Importantly, this federal action does not truly disturb any existing leases or permits already in place, but no new projects are expected beyond the five offshore wind farms that have already begun construction off the coasts of Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Those five projects, which are currently under construction, are the only projects that are going to qualify for the current government incentives (i.e., the federal tax credits for wind power that are now set to phase out under the recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act), among other issues.

By way of example, the remaining Maryland Offshore Wind Project (.. there were 3), being developed by Italy based US Wind, has some approvals, although as we have blogged the Maryland Offshore Wind Project Faces Legal Storm from Coastal Communities, and challenges by the US EPA, has been characterized as ‘walking dead’ where state officials, who committed more than $1.7 Billion of ratepayer money for offshore wind turbines, have not yet publicly acknowledged the project is really dead, nor have they spoken publicly as how that pot of Gold accumulating since 2013 could be redirected in the state that imports more than 40% of its electricity annually.

Why You Should View This as “Positive and Supportive”

Legal Predictability

When agencies act within authorized discretion, litigants know the stakes. BOEM’s decision rests on executive and departmental lawfulness, not capricious or retroactive policy shifts. That predictability helps clients assess risk rationally.

Respectful of Stakeholder Values

Interior Secretary Burgum’s order emphasizes enhanced consultation with tribes, coastal towns, and fishing communities, a foundational value in administrative law that lends credibility to future decisions.

A Time Value for Thoughtful Governance

Rather than perpetual limbo over speculative development zones in the oceans, the federal review process offers a structured pause that offers developers and states a moment to retool expectations, audit cost structures, and prepare for the next lawful phase.

This also allows for an “all of the above” approach to energy generation, that may be particularly important in states like Maryland that have been hard hit by Congress’ unfunding of the Solar for All Program that some had thought would fund thousands of rooftop solar installations in the state.

Executive Discipline, Not Apocalyptic Drama

To be clear, this is not the end of the offshore wind industry; it is a legal reset. The Memorandum is temporary and may be reversed by a future administration, even one with a principal aim of creating union jobs. As one BOEM employee anonymously noted, “the lease areas could hypothetically be re‑designated,” but only after more exhaustive review, local engagement, and legal justification.

Under attorney supervision, that discipline, which may feel burdensome, is the precise mechanism our legal system uses to reconcile public values, ensure administrative fairness, and safeguard long term legitimacy.

In Sum

It should be lost on no one that President Trump chastised the off shore wind while visiting Scotland in late July, saying his Administration would not allow a windmill to be built in the waters of the United States.

For clients and other stakeholders committed to energy development, BOEM’s action delivers structure, transparency, and predictable governance. While offshore wind leasing might appear “really dead” today, what has died is legal ambiguity, not the possibility of future, carefully reviewed development under a renewed and duly considered federal approach. If offshore wind or, for that matter, residential rooftop solar makes economic sense as a business absent huge federal subsidies, this is the time for the industry to chart a path through the review process and preserve optionality, not panic.