Energía eólica en alta mar en un punto de inflexión: riesgos geopolíticos y políticos en un entorno normativo en constante cambio

The U.S. offshore wind sector is navigating a volatile policy environment shaped by conflicting executive actions, judicial interventions, and geopolitical tensions. Recent developments-from President Trump's 2025 executive order halting offshore wind leasing to a federal court's subsequent invalidation of the policy-highlight the sector's exposure to political and legal uncertainty. For investors, these shifts underscore the need to assess not only technical and financial risks but also the broader geopolitical and political dynamics that could disrupt project timelines, supply chains, and long-term returns.

Executive Overreach and Legal Pushback: A Policy Pendulum

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order temporarily withdrawing all areas on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) from offshore wind leasing, effectively pausing new project approvals and challenging the Biden administration's aggressive renewable energy agenda. The order cited national security concerns, including radar interference from wind turbines and ecological risks, while also reflecting broader skepticism about wind energy's reliability. This move froze critical permitting processes overseen by the Department of the Interior and BOEM, which had previously fast-tracked projects like Vineyard Wind and Empire Wind.

However, the Trump administration's authority to impose such a sweeping pause was swiftly contested. On December 8, 2025, a federal district court ruled the executive order "arbitrary and capricious," violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to justify an indefinite moratorium. The court emphasized agencies' "nondiscretionary duty" to process permits within a reasonable timeframe, effectively restoring the legal pathway for offshore wind development. This judicial rebuke not only reversed the immediate policy but also signaled that future administrations may face heightened scrutiny when attempting to halt renewable energy projects.

Geopolitical Risks: Supply Chains and International Competition

The Trump administration's actions, though short-lived, exposed vulnerabilities in the U.S. offshore wind supply chain. By delaying domestic projects, the policy indirectly increased reliance on foreign manufacturers for turbines and components-a dependency that could exacerbate geopolitical risks. For instance, the U.S. currently imports over 80% of its wind turbine components, with China and Europe dominating production. A prolonged pause in domestic development could entrench these dependencies, making the U.S. susceptible to trade tensions or export restrictions, particularly amid ongoing U.S.-China tech and energy disputes.

Moreover, the U.S. lags behind the European Union and the United Kingdom in offshore wind capacity, which together account for over 90% of global installed capacity. While the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) incentives aim to boost domestic manufacturing, policy instability-such as the 2025 leasing pause-threatens to undermine these efforts. Investors must weigh how geopolitical competition for green technology dominance could influence future subsidies, tariffs, or export controls, all of which could impact project economics.

Political Risks: A Climate for Uncertainty

The 2025 episode underscores the sector's susceptibility to abrupt policy reversals. Trump's executive order, though invalidated, reflects a broader political divide between pro-renewable and fossil-fuel aligned factions. For investors, this means offshore wind projects face not only technical and environmental hurdles but also the risk of regulatory arbitrage between administrations. New York Governor Kathy Hochul's criticism of the leasing pause-calling it a "setback for American energy independence"-illustrates how regional and federal priorities often clash, further complicating project planning.

Additionally, the court's APA ruling sets a precedent that could limit future administrations' ability to halt renewable energy projects unilaterally. While this provides some stability, it also raises the stakes for legal challenges from industry groups or environmental advocates, prolonging permitting timelines and increasing litigation costs. Investors must factor in these "regulatory drag" risks when evaluating project returns.