In the coming weeks, Congress is expected to vote on major legislation that would reform the nation’s sclerotic permitting processes. Backed by the Trump administration, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) would streamline approvals for everything from pipelines and power plants to transmission lines. It would also limit a president’s ability to revoke permits for projects approved by a predecessor—a provision that has taken on new importance amid fights over several offshore wind projects approved under President Joe Biden.
The bill has broad support, but a new dispute over offshore wind threatens to complicate its path forward. As part of the negotiations, the Trump administration has begun allowing some wind-energy projects it had stalled to move forward. Several Democrats, though, are raising concerns over new Justice Department filings that they claim represent a renewed attack on offshore wind. In several pending lawsuits, the administration has asked judges to let it reevaluate permits for offshore-wind projects approved under Biden. “This is how you blow up a permitting deal,” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, one of the bill’s Democratic sponsors, warned last week.
Finally, a reason to check your email.
Sign up for our free newsletter today.
But the latest court filings are not evidence that the Trump administration has “revived its war on offshore wind,” as one outlet put it. Rather, they arise from lawsuits brought by local opponents of offshore wind projects. They were submitted in October under existing court-briefing schedules and are consistent with legal positions the administration has long held. More importantly, Democrats citing the filings as a reason to abandon permitting reform are drawing exactly the wrong lesson: if anything, the dispute strengthens the case for the bill.
At issue are three federal lawsuits filed by local opponents challenging several offshore wind projects on the East Coast. Green Oceans, a Rhode Island anti-wind group, sued in 2024 over the Revolution Wind project. The town of Ocean City sued that same year over a project off Maryland, and a Nantucket group called ACK for Whales is challenging New England Wind off Massachusetts.
The Justice Department’s position in these cases aligns with a legal opinion the administration issued in May 2025. That opinion adopted a stricter reading of the law governing offshore-wind development. The latest filings request that the Interior Department be allowed to reevaluate the projects under that interpretation. An Interior spokesperson described the latest filing in the Revolution Wind case as “complying with a briefing schedule, not announcing a policy change.”
The filings themselves are relatively restrained. They don’t identify new flaws in the projects, and the Justice Department requested that the approvals for two of the cases remain in place while Interior reevaluates them. That doesn’t mean the filings are harmless; they create real uncertainty for the developers involved. But the requests are far more limited than the Trump administration’s earlier attempts to cancel offshore-wind projects outright.
In any case, the controversy illustrates exactly why permitting reform is needed. Under the bill, an approved project’s permits could not be arbitrarily canceled or endlessly reevaluated by a new administration. The bill would prohibit agencies from revoking valid permits except in narrow circumstances, such as fraud, and allow developers to recover damages if permits are revoked unlawfully. Those protections would apply to renewable energy as well as pipelines and other fossil-fuel infrastructure.
Such reversals have frustrated energy development under administrations of both parties. Biden revoked the Keystone XL pipeline’s permit and canceled oil and gas leases in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Trump, meantime, halted several previously approved offshore wind projects last year, citing national security concerns.
Some Democrats argue that the latest offshore-wind filings are a reason to walk away from the permitting deal. But if they’re concerned about Trump—or any future president—using federal permitting powers to target projects he dislikes, keeping those powers in place does nothing to address the problem. By limiting the ability to interfere with already-approved projects, the bill would constrain the very powers that Democrats worry about Trump abusing.
At a time of rising electricity demand, aging infrastructure, and growing concerns about affordability, America needs to build more energy infrastructure. That requires greater certainty that federal approvals will survive changes in administrations. The point of permitting reform is not to turn Trump into a champion of offshore wind, but to ensure that fully approved projects can proceed regardless of who occupies the White House.