Judge allows offshore Revolution Wind project to resume as Trump administration appeals

A federal judge on Monday ruled that Denmark’s Ørsted may move forward with the Revolution Wind offshore wind project off Rhode Island, allowing construction to resume while the Trump administration continues its broader effort to block the project in court. The project sits about 15 miles off the Rhode Island coast and was roughly 80% complete, with 45 of 65 turbines installed, when the U.S. Bureau of Energy Management halted work on Aug. 22.

The ruling does not end the administration's legal challenge; the government is pursuing a separate case to permanently block the project. Orsted and joint venture partner Skyborn Renewables have spent or committed about $5 billion on Revolution Wind, and canceling would trigger more than $1 billion in breakaway costs, according to court filings. Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat, wrote on X that Revolution Wind is back on track and that the project would power about 350,000 homes, lower energy costs, support jobs, and pave the way for a clean energy future.

The ruling does not end the administration's broader effort to block the project permanently, and a White House spokesperson said it will not be the final say on the matter as the legal fight continues. The White House added that the administration would pursue its broader challenge in court.

From a policy perspective, the decision could influence offshore wind development across the Northeast. Supporters argue the project would add clean energy capacity, help stabilize regional power costs, and demonstrate the viability of large-scale offshore wind in a region that has set ambitious climate and energy goals. If completed as planned, Revolution Wind would power hundreds of thousands of homes and help drive investment in the region’s clean-energy supply chain.

Ongoing reviews and potential further rulings mean that construction may enjoy a reprieve in the near term, but the ultimate fate of Revolution Wind remains tied to the outcome of the government’s multi-front legal challenges. The case highlights the balance policymakers seek between expanding renewable energy and meeting environmental safeguards and permitting requirements in an era of climate-focused policy.