December 28, 2025 - In a series of sweeping moves that have reignited fierce debate over America’s energy future, President Donald Trump’s administration has halted five major offshore wind projects, ordered coal plants to keep running past their planned retirement, and rolled back environmental protections—actions that are drawing sharp criticism from energy experts, environmentalists, and a clear majority of the American public.

On December 26, 2025, the Trump administration abruptly cancelled all federal leases for five offshore wind farms, including the Empire Wind 1 project off New York and others in New England and Virginia. This decision threatens to upend years of planning and billions in investment, with the Empire Wind 1 project alone slated to deliver electricity to up to half a million homes in New York and create 1,500 jobs, according to reporting by New York Daily News. The total projected capacity of the five cancelled wind farms approaches six gigawatts—enough to power more than 2.5 million homes and businesses, as reported by The New York Times.

The White House cited unspecified national security concerns as the rationale for the cancellations. However, critics argue that these justifications are vague and unsubstantiated. As New York Daily News observed, the administration’s rationale has become “a tenuous catch-all for the administration simply doing whatever it wants without public explanation.” Many see the move as a boon to fossil fuel interests and a setback for renewable energy progress, especially as even legacy oil and gas producers have begun to embrace renewables as the future.

Governor Kathy Hochul of New York had previously intervened to revive the Empire Wind 1 project after an earlier Trump administration attempt to derail it in the spring of 2025. Hochul also signaled willingness to approve a major gas pipeline favored by Trump, later authorizing the Northeast Supply Enhancement pipeline. But with the latest round of cancellations, Trump appears determined to halt not just one, but all offshore wind projects on the eastern seaboard.

The administration’s actions have not gone unnoticed by the public. According to a December 2025 Yale University poll, about 65% of registered US voters believe global heating is affecting their cost of living. Rising home electricity costs and steep increases in home insurance premiums have been linked to the climate crisis and the administration’s decision to restrict solar and wind power—often the cheapest sources of energy. Nearly 80% of voters oppose restrictions on climate information and research, and 65% specifically disagree with Trump’s move to block new offshore wind farms, as detailed in The Guardian.

Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, expressed surprise that some in the climate community have suggested sidelining climate issues during a cost-of-living crisis. He told The Guardian, “It’s a fundamental error to treat these issues as mutually exclusive – climate solutions are also cost-of-living solutions. Most of the elite discourse is very bad at estimating or understanding levels of public concern, and this is a good example of this.”

The Trump administration, however, has doubled down on its support for fossil fuels, particularly coal. Just a day after halting the wind projects, the government ordered two coal-burning power plants in Indiana—the F.B. Culley Generating Station in Warrick County and the Schahfer Generating Station in Wheatfield—to continue operating past their scheduled closure dates until March 23, 2026. The utilities that own these plants had planned to shutter them by the end of 2025, citing cost savings and a shift toward natural gas and renewables. CenterPoint Energy, operator of the Culley plant, had estimated that retiring the units would save its customers $80 million over the next two decades.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright defended the decision, stating, “The Trump administration remains committed to swiftly deploying all available tools and authorities to safeguard the reliability, affordability and security of the nation’s energy system. Keeping these coal plants online has the potential to save lives and is just common sense.” Yet, experts like Sanya Carley, director of the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, have disputed the administration’s claims that closing coal plants would threaten winter power supply. Carley noted that the extra costs of keeping the plants running would be borne by Indiana homes and businesses. “It means that all Indiana ratepayers, those who are consuming energy, will pay significantly more for their energy than had the plants closed,” she told The New York Times.

Since returning to office in January 2025, the Trump administration has ordered several other coal plants in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Washington to stay open beyond their scheduled retirements. The administration has also given hundreds of coal plants an additional five years to prevent toxic chemical leakage into drinking water sources—a move that environmental advocates warn could increase health risks for millions of Americans. Thomas Cmar, an attorney with Earthjustice, cautioned, “It means that the 3 million people who still rely on drinking water that’s found to be contaminated by coal ash wastewater discharges will have rivers and lakes and streams not cleaned up.”

Meanwhile, the administration’s environmental policies remain deeply unpopular. The Yale poll found that nearly eight in ten registered voters oppose restrictions on climate research and information, and the same proportion reject Trump’s demand to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). “The majority of people think this doesn’t make sense. The last election clearly wasn’t a referendum on climate change – there was very little discussion on it – and yet the administration is treating it as though it was. There was no mandate to do all of this,” Leiserowitz remarked to The Guardian.

Despite broad public opposition, the White House has defended its energy agenda. A spokesperson claimed, “Once again, America is leading an era of energy abundance and countries are lining up to partner with the US for deals to import US energy. President Trump has set a strong example for the rest of the world by reversing course on Joe Biden’s green energy scam and is unleashing our natural resources to strengthen our grid stability and lower energy costs for American families and businesses.”

The US remains highly polarized on climate issues. While 59% of voters say they would prefer a candidate who supports action on climate, this is driven largely by Democratic voters. Only 21% of conservative Republicans support a climate-focused candidate, with 37% preferring the opposite, according to Yale’s findings.

Michelle Bloodworth, president of the coal industry trade group America’s Power, praised the administration’s decisions, arguing that “maintaining a diverse set of fuel resources, including coal, is critical to ensuring electric reliability, especially during winter storms and other extreme weather events.” However, environmental advocates and many economists warn that propping up coal is costly and ultimately unsustainable, especially as renewables become cheaper and more efficient.

As the administration presses ahead, the fate of offshore wind, coal, and America’s broader energy transition hangs in the balance. The coming months will likely see political, legal, and public pressure mount as communities, businesses, and policymakers grapple with the consequences of these high-stakes decisions.