The Empire Wind offshore project off Long Island is back on track after a federal judge struck down a Trump administration freeze that had abruptly halted construction. The ruling not only revives a marquee New York clean‑energy investment, it also signals that courts are increasingly skeptical of national security claims used to stall offshore wind.
As work restarts at the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal and in the waters off Long Island, the decision reshapes the balance of power between the White House and the judiciary over how far a president can go in slowing the energy transition. I see it as a pivotal test case for how climate policy, local jobs and security concerns will be weighed in the next phase of the offshore wind build‑out.
The judge who thawed Trump’s offshore freeze
The legal turning point came when U.S. District Judge Patti Saris concluded that President Donald Trump’s “Day One” executive order targeting offshore wind was “arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law,” clearing the way for Empire Wind to resume work. By invalidating the order that had forced a stop‑work across multiple projects, District Judge Patti Saris effectively told the administration it could not sideline a fully permitted New York project without a defensible record, a sharp rebuke that framed the freeze as an overreach rather than a measured security step, according to the Day One ruling.
The decision fits a broader pattern in which a Judge has handed the offshore wind industry “another victory” against Trump, underscoring that courts are now a central arena for climate and energy fights. In this case, the judge’s order did more than free a single project, it chipped away at the legal foundation of the administration’s broader blockade, which had been justified on vague radar and national security grounds that agencies have yet to fully explain, as highlighted in Judge focused reporting.
Empire Wind’s restart and what is at stake for New York
Empire Wind is not an abstract climate project, it is a bricks‑and‑steel build that runs through the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal and out to turbines off Long Island, with developer Equinor counting on a predictable federal process to keep investors on board. The court’s ruling means construction at The South Brooklyn Marine Terminal can ramp back up and that the Empire Wind lease area off Long Island could resume installation work, a lifeline for the port jobs and supply‑chain contracts that had been frozen when the Trump order hit, as detailed in coverage of the South Brooklyn Marine.
State officials have framed Empire as central to New York’s climate law targets and to a new industrial base stretching from the city’s waterfront to upstate manufacturers. Local reporting notes that Empire 1 can resume construction off the coast of Long Island after Trump’s stop‑work order, with the company stressing its commitment to the “responsible execution” of its operations, a reminder that the project’s credibility with communities and unions is on the line as much as its power output, according to accounts of Empire and Long Island.
Inside Trump’s stop‑work order and the security fight
Trump’s freeze on offshore wind construction arrived with little public warning, framed as a response to unspecified national security concerns about how turbine movement can interfere with radars. The administration has yet to spell out those newfound security concerns in detail, even as it used them to halt work on multiple projects, a gap that has fueled skepticism among state officials and developers who see the pause as part of a broader political backlash to clean energy, as described in coverage of the federal government’s stance in federal pause communications.
In court filings and public statements, the administration leaned on the idea that turbine arrays could compromise defense systems, a concern that has surfaced before in negotiations between the Pentagon and wind developers. Yet the lack of a transparent technical record in this case made it easier for judges to conclude that the stop‑work order was not backed by the kind of rigorous analysis that federal law demands, a point that energy reporter Rachel Frazin underscored when noting that officials cited how turbine movement can interfere with radars in the dispute over the New York project, as reflected in her Rachel Frazin reporting.
A wave of court wins from New York to Virginia
Empire Wind is part of a larger cluster of projects that were swept up in Trump’s offshore freeze and are now being revived in rapid succession by the courts. Besides Empire, the halt included Sunrise Wind, Vineyard Wind 1, Revolution Wind off the New England coast and Coastal Virginia Of, a portfolio that shows how a single executive order can ripple from New York to New England and down to the Mid‑Atlantic grid, as summarized in accounts that list Besides Empire and its peers.
In parallel with the New York ruling, a US federal court granted a preliminary injunction allowing Revolution Wind construction to resume, a case that turned on whether the 2025 BOEM Director’s orders could stand while litigation progresses and that was formally announced from PROVIDENCE with the project’s backers emphasizing that the case number includes the figure 202 in its caption, as laid out in the Revolution Wind announcement.
Virginia’s project and the third blow to the blockade
The legal momentum did not stop in New York or New England, it extended to Virginia, where a federal judge on Friday allowed construction on Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind to proceed. That ruling, described as the third legal blow to Trump’s offshore wind blockade, followed two similar court orders issued earlier in the week and underscored that judges were increasingly willing to let projects restart while litigation remains ongoing, a sequence captured in detailed coverage of Coastal Virginia Offshore.
In a related case, a federal judge in NORFOLK, Virginia, on a Friday cleared U.S. power company Dominion Energy to restart its own offshore wind project after the administration had halted it on similar radar interference grounds, with the court weighing whether the claimed threat to national security from radar interference justified a prolonged shutdown, as described in litigation reports that noted the judge would Show more companies how such disputes might be resolved.
More from Morning Overview