In a high-stakes legal confrontation unfolding this week, Danish renewable energy titan Ørsted—jointly with Skyborn Renewables—has filed suit against the Trump administration over a sudden stop-work order issued for the nearly completed Revolution Wind project. This landmark lawsuit, lodged in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., challenges the legality of the federal pause of the $5 billion offshore wind installation off the coasts of Rhode Island and Connecticut, which authorities halted despite the project being 80 percent complete.
The project—designed to host 65 turbines capable of powering approximately 350,000 homes—had already secured federal and state approvals in 2023 and received prior clearance from the Department of Defense. Yet in late August, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management issued a stop-work order citing unspecified national security threats, including concerns that the turbines might interfere with radar and provide cover for drone attacks—a rationale that defense and security officials have publicly dismissed.
Ørsted’s court filing asserts that the stop-work order was issued without statutory authority, lacks evidentiary support, violates agency regulations and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and is both “arbitrary and capricious”. The company and its partners are seeking a preliminary injunction to resume construction and have described the order as a threat to U.S. clean energy investments and regional job stability.
What’s at Stake for Ørsted if It Wins… or Loses
Had Ørsted succeed in court, the project could restart—saving more than 1,000 local union jobs, restoring investor confidence in offshore wind, and ensuring that the Revolution Wind turbines come online as planned in 2026. It would also affirm the authority of federal permitting processes and signal that clean energy projects with proper approvals cannot be derailed by politically motivated edicts.
Beyond that, a victory could bolster Ørsted’s ambitions in the U.S. market at a critical juncture: the company recently cut its earnings guidance due to seasonal wind-speed declines and global construction delays, and it is in the midst of a major capital raise—seeking upwards of $9 billion to stabilize its finances.
On the flip side, if Ørsted loses—or if delays stretch far longer—the financial consequences could be devastating. The company warns of an additional $1 billion in breakaway costs should the project remain stalled, alongside risks of outright cancellation due to limited availability of specialized offshore vessels. Such setbacks could supplant the $5 billion already sunk into Revolution Wind and further crack investor confidence at a time when Ørsted—backed by major financing partners like Equinor and the Danish government—is urgently seeking capital.
Moreover, from the perspective of the broader clean energy sector, failure could resonate well beyond one company. Observers—including labor unions, state leaders, and grid operators—warn that halting such a large-scale project risks both energy reliability and the momentum of the nascent offshore wind industry in the U.S. If permitted actions like this go unchallenged, it may chill future investments in renewable infrastructure nationally.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the eyes of the energy sector, investors, and state officials are trained on the courtroom’s next steps. The outcome will not only shape Ørsted’s destiny, but potentially influence how—and whether—America’s offshore wind ambitions bear fruit.
