The U.S. Department of Transportation announced Aug. 29 that it was withdrawing or canceling $679 million in federal funding for offshore wind projects. 

The Trump administration continues to favor fossil fuels, nuclear, geothermal, hydropower, and biofuels. 

While many view the inclusion of select clean energy sources as a positive sign, its decision to spurn wind has sparked outcry as electricity demand surges and communities lose economic opportunities. 

What's happening?

As NPR detailed, 12 port projects on the East and West Coasts will be impacted by the withdrawal or cancellation of federal funds. 

In a media release, U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy referred to the projects as "wasteful" and said the funds would be redirected to increase maritime dominance. 

However, critics saw the move as illogical, including Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA), who serves an area that lost funding. Huffman pointed to how decimating the clean energy sector would eliminate thousands of well-paying jobs and increase electricity prices, per NPR.

"The federal [Trump] administration ran on rebuilding back America, building infrastructure, creating U.S. jobs, creating manufacturing — this project does all of that," added Port of Humboldt Bay executive director Chris Mikkelsen, whose port lost project funds. 

Why else is this important?

After nearly 20 years of basically flat electricity consumption in the U.S., demand is skyrocketing and is expected to reach new highs after setting a record in 2024. The Energy Information Administration attributes much of this to the commercial sector, including data centers — whose energy-hungry ways are straining grids and causing residential energy rates to rise.

However, wind produces cheaper electricity on average than dirty fuels, as NPR noted. Easy to scale quickly, wind projects can also be a crucial part of supporting data center-reliant technologies, such as artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency, whose emergence has sparked both widespread optimism and trepidation given their potential to either help or harm humanity.   

While wind turbines aren't 100% risk-free — President Trump, for instance, has pointed to bird deaths as a downside of wind power, per NPR — Our World in Data lists wind as the third-safest energy source behind solar and nuclear. Part of the reason for this is that generating wind power doesn't result in toxic pollution associated with millions of annual premature deaths.  

Do you think America does a good job of protecting its natural beauty? Definitely 👍 Only in some areas ☝️ No way 👎 I'm not sure 🤷 Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.

As for the bird-related deaths, wind turbines rank at the bottom of the list, with cats, building glass, cars, poison, and electrical line collisions by far the top bird killers, per Statista.

What does this mean for wind development?

As federal funding for wind projects dries up, Mikkelsen told NPR that states could continue to push for wind development — and that remains true whether they generally lean red or blue. 

California, for example, aims to get all of its energy from zero-carbon sources by 2045, and investing in wind would make sense given its goals. Meanwhile, Texas has led the country in wind electricity for nearly two decades, per the EIA and Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.   

"This hurts a little bit, but it doesn't change our focus and it certainly doesn't change our outcome," Mikkelsen said of the funding withdrawal. "An administration can't change the fact that the U.S. has incredible energy demands."

Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.