Published on: Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:41:53 GMT
Original Story: Another Trump Administration Payment to Stop Offshore Wind Farm – The New York Times

Trump’s War on Wind: Still Blows.

Alright, kids, gather ’round the digital water cooler. Another day, another head-scratching headline involving our favorite former — and potentially future — commander-in-chief and his utterly consistent, utterly baffling energy policy. The New York Times, bless their intrepid hearts, just dropped a gem detailing yet another instance of the Trump administration effectively paying to stop an offshore wind farm. Because, you know, progress is for suckers, and apparently, the planet can just deal.

Let’s be clear: we’re not talking about some fringe conspiracy theory here. This isn’t QAnon’s latest fever dream about wind turbines being secret alien communication devices. This is a documented, reported action that screams “anti-renewable agenda” louder than a thousand seagulls squawking at a landfill. And frankly, for those of us who thought we might get a break from this particular brand of energy policy whiplash, it’s just another reminder that some things, like the tides, just keep coming back, whether you want them to or not.

The Gust of Contention: What Happened (Again)?

The latest installment of “As the Turbine Turns” involves the Trump administration’s rather aggressive, shall we say, discouragement of offshore wind projects. The New York Times piece specifically highlights how the previous administration utilized various levers—from bureaucratic delays to outright financial disincentives—to effectively pump the brakes on what is, for many, a critical component of a sustainable energy future. It wasn’t always a direct “no”; sometimes it was a death by a thousand papercuts, a regulatory labyrinth so dense you’d need a Sherpa and a satellite phone to navigate it.

Think about it. We’re in an era where literally everyone with half a brain cell and access to a climate report is saying, “Hey, maybe burning all the dead dinosaurs isn’t the best long-term strategy.” And yet, here we are, watching a former administration actively undermine efforts to harness an energy source that is, by its very nature, abundant and relatively clean. It’s like being on the Titanic, seeing the iceberg, and deciding to full-steam ahead because the captain doesn’t like the color of ice.

The Art of the Deal… to Undermine Green Energy

The mechanics of stopping an offshore wind farm are, predictably, less about genuine concern for the local ecosystem (unless that ecosystem includes a golf course view) and more about political posturing and, dare I say, a rather antiquated view of energy independence. We’re talking about things like denying permits, imposing onerous environmental reviews that stretch for years, or simply withholding necessary federal support that would make these massive infrastructure projects financially viable. It’s a masterclass in bureaucratic obstruction, weaponized not for public safety, but for ideological purity. Or, perhaps, just for spite.

The cost of these delays isn’t just measured in missed kilowatt-hours. It’s measured in lost jobs, squandered investment, and a continued reliance on energy sources that, let’s face it, aren’t exactly doing wonders for our collective lung capacity or the polar bear population. It’s a short-sighted strategy that prioritizes immediate, often politically motivated, gratification over long-term economic and environmental stability. But hey, who needs a stable climate when you can own the libs, right?

The Hypocrisy Hurricane: A Blast from the Past

Now, for those of us who’ve been around the block a few times, perhaps even remember life before iPhones and avocado toast were cultural touchstones, this isn’t exactly new behavior. In fact, it’s a rather predictable encore to a classic performance. The main theme here isn’t just “Trump hates wind turbines”; it’s “Trump hates wind turbines when they’re not benefitting Trump directly, or when they’re in his view.”

When Aesthetics Trumped Energy (Literally)

Cast your minds back, if you can bear it, to 2015. Before the golden escalators and the “Make America Great Again” hats were ubiquitous, there was a little kerfuffle involving a golf course in Scotland. Donald Trump, then a mere real estate mogul with presidential ambitions, waged a protracted legal battle against an offshore wind farm being built near his Aberdeenshire golf course. His argument? Those pesky turbines would ruin the “beautiful vista” and negatively impact his lucrative property. He called them “ugly,” “monstrous,” and a “disaster.”

So, the man who now often frames his anti-wind stance as a concern for the national energy grid, for birds, or for some nebulous idea of “energy reliability,” was perfectly fine with derailing a significant renewable energy project simply because it might spoil his view while he was teeing off. It’s a classic case of NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard) taken to an international, litigious extreme. The irony, of course, is that the very same arguments he used then — aesthetics, impact on property value — are conveniently dusted off and repackaged for a national audience, now with a healthy dose of “critical energy infrastructure” rhetoric. It’s almost impressive how consistently inconsistent one can be.

It wasn’t about the birds then, was it? It wasn’t about the grid stability. It was about a rich guy’s view getting obstructed by clean energy technology. And now, that same playbook is being used on a national scale, only this time the “view” is a political ideology, and the “golf course” is the entire damn country’s energy future.

The Ripple Effect: What This Means for The Energy Grid

Make no mistake, these kinds of interventions have real-world consequences. The energy grid isn’t some abstract concept; it’s the pulsating heart of our modern society. When projects that would diversify our energy portfolio, reduce carbon emissions, and create new industries are actively suppressed, the entire system feels the pinch. It leaves us more reliant on volatile fossil fuel markets, makes us more vulnerable to price shocks, and frankly, makes us look like we’re still stuck in the 19th century while the rest of the developed world is trying to figure out how to power AI with sustainable sources.

This isn’t just about “green energy” versus “fossil fuels.” This is about intelligent infrastructure planning versus ideological obstruction. It’s about looking forward versus constantly looking in the rearview mirror. And for those of us tired of the same old song and dance, it’s just plain exhausting.

The ultimate goal, it seems, isn’t necessarily a better, more resilient energy grid, but one that aligns with a very specific, fossil-fuel-centric worldview. And if that means throwing perfectly viable, job-creating, future-proof projects under the bus, then so be it. The message is clear: if it harnesses the wind, it’s probably getting the bureaucratic cold shoulder. Unless, of course, it’s somehow benefiting a specific, well-known individual’s property value. Then, and only then, does the tune change.