Trump Administration Spends $3.8 Billion to Kill Wind and Prop Up Coal
Updated
Updated · The Guardian · Jul 10
Trump Administration Spends $3.8 Billion to Kill Wind and Prop Up Coal
1 articles · Updated · The Guardian · Jul 10
Summary
$2.7 billion has gone to four deals since March that paid companies to cancel eight offshore wind projects and redirect investment toward fossil-fuel power, according to the report.
$1.125 billion more was committed to coal through plant upgrades, rural projects, a Defense Production Act program covering 13 plants and a coal export terminal, plus $3.6 million for nine additional plants.
White House officials say they are merely returning offshore-wind bid money tied to projects blocked by national security concerns and backing affordable, reliable power; critics call that an unprecedented use of public funds to suppress a legal energy source.
Critics say consumers will pay twice—through federal spending and higher electricity bills—because coal is typically costlier than renewables; one analysis put the cost of keeping planned fossil-plant retirements online at at least $3.12 billion by end-2028.
As billions cancel wind and boost coal, what is the real cost to taxpayers?
With policy backing coal and markets choosing renewables, what will power America's future?
Can a depleted Energy Department effectively manage billions in new energy investments?
Offshore Wind Rollback: Trump Administration Cancels $90 Billion in Clean Energy Projects, Boosts Fossil Fuels
Overview
The Trump administration has reversed course on U.S. energy policy by canceling major offshore wind projects and instead investing heavily in fossil fuels. In June 2026, the administration paid Invenergy $765 million to terminate four wind leases, with Invenergy then redirecting funds to natural gas and geothermal projects. Earlier, $1 billion was paid to TotalEnergies to cancel additional wind farms off New York and North Carolina. These actions mark a clear shift away from renewables, as federal support is now focused on traditional energy sources, reshaping the nation’s energy priorities and sparking legal and economic debates.