When Offshore Wind Becomes a Weapon

The Trump administration’s halt of the Revolution Wind project is being framed as a matter of national security. The facts tell a different story. This was an act of economic coercion that raises energy costs for Rhode Island families, strikes at Denmark’s sovereign interests, and undermines U.S. credibility in the Arctic.

Households and workers pay first

Revolution Wind was almost finished when the stop-work order came down. Forty-five of sixty-five turbines were already standing. The project was set to power more than 350,000 homes in Rhode Island and Connecticut.

The shutdown froze 1,200 direct jobs and up to 12,000 supply-chain jobs. Union crews have already logged four million labor hours. Hundreds of workers were told to stop mid-shift. Local investments in New London’s State Pier and Providence’s port facilities, totaling more than $100 million, now sit stranded.

For ratepayers, the impact is clear. Revolution Wind’s contracts secured electricity at roughly $99 per megawatt-hour, higher than today’s wholesale prices but designed to suppress market volatility over the next twenty years. Independent analysis shows that offshore wind development in New England would save households $630 million each year. That translates into $2.79 to $4.61 per month in lower bills. Halting the Revolution Wind removes those savings. Connecticut’s attorney general has already warned of “hundreds of millions” in higher costs for consumers.

The short-term winners are gas pipeline developers. The losers are Rhode Island households who will pay more each month.

Denmark is the second target

The project was not stopped in a vacuum. Ørsted, the developer, is majority-owned by the Danish state. Its shares collapsed by nearly 17 percent after the announcement, deepening an 87 percent decline since 2021. The company was preparing a nine-billion-dollar rights offering to stabilize its U.S. portfolio. With half the company publicly owned, Danish taxpayers absorbed the shock directly.

By striking Ørsted in the U.S. market, Washington struck Copenhagen itself. The message is blunt. Even a close ally’s state-owned enterprise can be targeted when convenient. The effect is to chill foreign investment, not only from Denmark but from any country that might question whether its national firms are safe in the U.S.

Greenland and the Arctic are the endgame

The real stakes sit to the north. Greenland, still part of the Kingdom of Denmark, has become central to U.S. strategy. The island controls key naval choke points between the Arctic and Atlantic, holds major rare earth reserves, and is opening new shipping routes as the ice retreats.

President Trump has made no secret of his desire to bring Greenland under U.S. control. In January, he threatened tariffs on Danish exports unless Copenhagen agreed. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen refused, but the warning stood. Seen in this context, the Revolution Wind shutdown is leverage. Pressure Denmark in its commercial sphere to soften its resistance in the Arctic.

The tactic mirrors what happened earlier this year in New York. The administration halted the Empire Wind project, only to restart it after securing state approval for new natural gas pipeline capacity. Offshore wind has become a bargaining chip. Fossil fuel expansion and territorial ambition are the real goals.

Allies harden, not bend

The result has not been a Danish submission. It has been defiance. Greenland’s leaders have restated their independence ambitions and their rejection of U.S. control. Danish defense spending in the Arctic is rising. The European Union has warned that tariffs on Denmark will trigger a collective response. On the very day Revolution Wind was halted, Denmark signed a climate cooperation deal with California, a deliberate signal that other U.S. partners are ready to work around Washington.

The outcome is a strategic loss. Instead of isolating Denmark, the U.S. has pushed it closer to Greenland and Europe. Instead of strengthening energy security, households in Rhode Island face higher costs. Instead of attracting investment, the U.S. is signaling that renewable projects can be weaponized in unrelated disputes.

The cost of coercion

The governing thought is simple. By halting Revolution Wind, the U.S. government chose short-term leverage over long-term trust. Thousands of workers are idle, households face higher bills, Danish taxpayers took a direct hit, and U.S. credibility in the Arctic has been weakened.

Economic pressure against allies may produce tactical gains. Strategically, it erodes the alliances and investor confidence that underpin American power.

Greenland’s importance will only grow. Denmark has drawn its line. The United States must decide if alienating friends is worth the price.