Judge likely to make Pentagon resume wind project reviews

• A federal judge indicated she would likely order the Trump administration to resume reviewing wind energy projects.
• The Department of Defense (DoD) had halted reviews, citing national security concerns regarding wind turbine impacts.
• Renewable energy groups sued the DoD, alleging the halt was a tactic to block wind development and violated statutory deadlines.
• Judge Immergut found strong evidence the government violated deadlines and questioned the lack of proof for ongoing reviews.
• The ruling is expected to unblock stalled wind projects and clarify regulatory pathways for the renewable energy sector.

This development signals a likely resumption of Department of Defense reviews for wind energy projects, unblocking stalled developments and clarifying regulatory pathways for renewable energy clients.

A federal judge in Oregon has indicated she is poised to rule in favor of a coalition of renewable energy groups, a decision that would compel the Trump administration to restart its assessment of wind energy projects. During a two-hour hearing held on a Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Donald Trump appointee, informed the involved parties that there was substantial evidence suggesting the government had failed to meet its statutory and regulatory deadlines regarding these reviews. This development signals a likely resumption of Department of Defense reviews for wind energy projects, unblocking stalled developments and clarifying regulatory pathways for renewable energy clients.

The Department of Defense (DoD) is responsible for conducting reviews of all utility-scale wind energy projects. The primary objective of these assessments is to determine whether the proposed wind turbines could interfere with military radars or disrupt military flight patterns. Only after a project successfully clears this crucial DoD wind energy project assessment can the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proceed with its own evaluation to ascertain if the project poses a hazard to air navigation.

The coalition of renewable energy groups initiated legal action against the Department of Defense at the close of May. Their lawsuit alleges that the DoD deliberately halted its evaluation of wind projects as a tactic to obstruct wind energy development, aiming for a “total halt of all wind development” across the United States. The plaintiffs contend that the Trump administration is engaged in an “unprecedented campaign against wind energy,” treating the sector as an adversary rather than a regulated industry. They cited various actions, including executive orders, reversals of regulatory programs, and permit freezes, as evidence of this campaign.

The plaintiffs framed their challenge as a straightforward Administrative Procedure Act (APA) case, asserting that the DoD's actions have caused multiple real-world harms. They highlighted specific instances of agency inaction: the Department of Defense stopped signing near-final mitigation agreements in August 2025, despite such agreements typically requiring a countersignature within 60 days. Furthermore, in April, the department canceled all mitigation discussions with wind developers and instructed its staff to cease work on reviews. By May, the DoD issued guidance stating that these reviews were on hold pending “further interagency coordination.” Ella Gannon, an attorney representing the plaintiffs from Morgan Lewis & Bockius, emphasized that the department had failed to justify its August decision, stating, “We have not seen anything.”

In response, the federal government maintained that its actions were justified by national security concerns. Shawn Ren, an attorney for the Justice Department, argued that the DoD had consistently cited this reason, asserting it “never changed its tune; it always maintained the same justification.” However, Judge Immergut questioned the government extensively on its compliance with Department of Defense statutory deadlines for pending projects. Ren conceded that preliminary reviews were ongoing but could not provide any concrete examples, nor was he certain if any reviews had been completed, though he stated he had “no reason to believe” they were not progressing.

Judge Immergut expressed her confusion, noting that the core of the case hinged on whether these reviews were actually being completed and that the official record contained no evidence to support the claim of ongoing assessments. She pointedly asked if the government considered it “important to have that as part of the record?” The government acknowledged the complexity of balancing national security risks with regulatory deadlines, with Ren likening the situation to an “escape room with a timer” and admitting it was a “problem that the government has not yet been able to devise a solution.” While Immergut inquired about potential political motivations behind the delays in wind turbine national security review, Ren stated that the record lacked any evidence of ulterior motives. The plaintiffs countered that even if national security concerns were valid, the DoD's solution was overly broad, halting even the most innocuous projects. Gannon questioned, “Why should those projects be caught up in a broad prohibition?”

The likely favorable ruling for the renewable energy groups in this Administrative Procedure Act wind projects case carries significant implications for the future of wind energy development in the United States. A judicial order compelling the Department of Defense to resume its reviews would unblock numerous projects that have been stalled due to the agency's inaction, providing much-needed clarity and a path forward for developers. This outcome underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring federal agencies adhere to their statutory obligations and deadlines, even when citing national security concerns.

For the renewable energy sector, the Judge Immergut Pentagon wind project reviews decision could restore a predictable regulatory environment, allowing for better planning and investment in utility-scale wind farms. The plaintiffs' success in challenging the DoD's broad prohibition highlights the importance of agency accountability and the potential for legal recourse when administrative processes are perceived as being used to obstruct legitimate industry development. This case sets a precedent for challenging agency inaction under the APA, which could empower other industries facing similar regulatory hurdles.

This development signals a likely resumption of Department of Defense reviews for wind energy projects, unblocking stalled developments and clarifying regulatory pathways for renewable energy clients. Lawyers should advise clients on preparing for renewed engagement with the DoD review process and potential acceleration of project timelines, while also noting the precedent for challenging agency inaction under the APA.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service