A growing number of House Republicans are openly questioning the Trump administration’s assertion that offshore wind projects pose a risk to national security.
Nine Republicans, led by House Homeland Security Chair Andrew Garbarino of New York, last month called on top Trump officials to brief lawmakers about their decision in December to halt construction of five nearly complete projects off the Atlantic coast.
Judges have ruled against the administration’s pause in all five cases, but many lawmakers see the stop-work orders as part of a concerted and ongoing attack on offshore wind and other renewable energy ventures.
“America’s energy policy should be grounded in facts, fiscal responsibility, and the national interest — not ideology or politics,” the Republicans wrote to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
As of Wednesday, they had not heard back. Both the Interior and Defense departments declined to comment on congressional correspondence.
Other signatories included Reps. Nick LaLota and Mike Lawler of New York, and Rob Wittman of Virginia and Jen Kiggans of Virginia.
Kiggans — who has been relentlessly urging Trump officials not to block a massive offshore wind project off her Virginia Beach district — did get a classified briefing with Armed Services Committee members this week from Dale Marks, assistant secretary of Defense for energy, installations and environment.
“Kiggans was grateful for the time but found the information repetitive and unhelpful and will be following up with the Navy for an additional briefing,” said an aide, granted anonymity to speak candidly.
Even though many Republicans have turned their back on offshore wind as President Donald Trump describes projects as “losers,” the letter shows that a core group of GOP members is concerned about the White House’s animosity toward the industry.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on Wednesday defended the department’s recent actions in an interview with Bloomberg television.
“People are saying this is some ideological attack on offshore wind,” Burgum said. “No, this is like a real, genuine concern, and as Americans we should be concerned.”
He said national security risks include “above-water radar interference” and “below-water sonar interference,” and that the administration would fight the court losses.
In their letter, the Republicans said risks should be evaluated, especially near “regions with dense civilian air traffic and significant national defense activity.” In an interview this week, Garbarino said he wants to see the evidence.
“If there are national security concerns, and they want to show us them, I’m more than happy to listen. If it’s classified, great, it’s classified. I’ll take the classified briefing,” said Garbarino, co-chair of the bipartisan House Climate Solutions Caucus.
The letter underscores that “many of the projects implicated by the recent decision are near completion, with billions of dollars already invested, and some are already delivering power to local communities.”
LaLota stressed his support for all energy sources and bashed his home state for its “draconian approach to natural gas.”
“So when the government says that it won’t be able to facilitate one of the means of energy production because of a national security reason, I’d like to know a little bit more about why,” he said.
But offshore wind antagonists — who have fought to cut federal incentives for offshore wind and exempt the industry from legislation meant to protect permits — are not ready to stand down.
“As far as safety, these things are over 1,000 feet high. They do interfere with radar. The Coast Guard is concerned … it also has to do with the fishing industry,” said Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.).
Van Drew used to be a Democrat and once helped lead the Offshore Wind Caucus. He says he soured on the projects when they grew in size.
“Talk to the people in the tourism industry, and they will tell you how very concerned they are about them. There’s a coalition of these folks. … They are a bad deal.”
