Some Things Beggar Belief - A Trump Administration Decision
One of the cornerstones of infrastructure investing has always been trust in agreements. Once approvals were secured and construction commenced, there was a reasonable expectation that a project would reach completion. The recent halting of the Revolution Wind project in the US has shaken that assumption to its core. If a project that is 80% complete can be stopped overnight, investors should ask — what next?
What Happened
Revolution Wind, spearheaded by Ørsted, was meant to power more than 350,000 homes across Rhode Island and Connecticut. The $1.5bn offshore wind project had already seen 45 of its 65 turbines installed when the Trump administration ordered work to stop in August 2025. (1)
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management justified the intervention on “national security” grounds, though no detailed explanation was provided. Later, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum suggested the turbines could interfere with radar and potentially enable drone attacks - that is not a joke (2) Defence experts dismissed the claim, pointing out that the Department of Defense (or War) had already signed off on the project in 2023 after a thorough review.
The consequences were immediate. Ørsted’s shares dropped 17% to an all-time low, local unions warned of more than 2,500 jobs at risk (3), and since Connecticut and Rhode Island filed lawsuits against the federal government, claiming the order lacked legal authority.
Agreements No Longer Mean Certainty
For decades, investors saw the US as a safe destination for infrastructure capital. Approvals were hard-won, but once in hand, they were binding. Revolution Wind shows that is no longer the case. If a project can be halted this late in development, investors must accept that regulatory risk persists right up to completion.
The implications are wider than one wind farm. The administration has signalled it is reconsidering approvals for other projects in Maryland, Massachusetts and Rhode Island that together could power 2.5m homes.
Investors are right to be concerned. If agreements and legal approvals no longer guarantee delivery, then the risk profile of US offshore wind has fundamentally changed.
The Cost of Uncertainty
This erosion of certainty brings material costs. Developers rely on bankable frameworks to secure financing. When those frameworks are undermined, capital dries up and fundraising falters. Ørsted, already under pressure, had planned to raise DKK 60bn through a share issue to fund its pipeline — plans now jeopardised by the intervention.
Consumers will also pay. Connecticut officials estimate that if Revolution Wind does not proceed, the state’s electricity ratepayers will face tens of millions in extra costs, alongside higher risks to grid reliability.
The Australian Contrast
The lesson for investors is that not all jurisdictions carry the same policy risk. In America, even a near-finished project can be derailed by politics. In Australia, the legal system offers greater stability: once approvals are secured and contracts are signed, they cannot be arbitrarily unwound.
This strength cannot be overstated. Long-term investors need certainty that their capital will not be stranded mid-construction. Australia’s system, underpinned by enforceable agreements, strong federal election mandate and a transparent regulatory framework, provides that assurance. Programs such as the Capacity Investment Scheme and state-led transmission upgrades aim to de-risk private capital further.
Australia is not without its debates over energy transition, but the trajectory has been consistent. Projects that reach financial close and construction move forward without sudden federal reversals. For wholesale and institutional investors, this predictability is a material advantage.
The Bottom Line
The halting of Revolution Wind is significant. In the US, government intervention has shattered the assumption that agreements guarantee delivery. Investors now face sovereign risk in a market once considered safe. The courts will ultimately decide on this, but it shouldn’t happen.
By contrast, Australia offers something the US currently does not: legal certainty. Here, an agreement is final. For investors in renewable infrastructure, that difference could be decisive. Capital flows to where risk is lowest, and today, that means Australia’s environmental sector is a safer bet.
References
L. Almeida, The Guardian, Ørsted shares at all-time low after Trump halts work on US windfarm, 25 August 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/25/rsted-shares-at-all-time-low-after-trump-halts-work-on-us-windfarm
J. McDermott, Associated Press, States and developer sue the Trump administration for halting work on New England offshore wind farm, 5 September 2025. https://apnews.com/article/trump-renewable-energy-offshore-wind-revolution-wind-356d6be1f0967302cd8414b2fb881308
G. Ebanks, CNN, Canceled wind project puts thousands of jobs at risk, 27 August 2025. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/08/26/business/wind-project-cancel-trump-jobs
Important Information
EnviroInvest Pty Ltd ACN 685 107 957 (“EnviroInvest”) is an Authorised Representative of Daylight Financial Group Pty Ltd ACN 633 984 773 (“DFGPL”) which is the holder of an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFS Licence No. 521404).
Information in this commentary is current as at date prepared unless otherwise stated. However, please bear in mind that investments can go up or down in value, and that past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. For more Important Information please refer to the Disclaimer section of this website.
This communication may contain general financial product advice. It has been prepared without taking into account your personal circumstances, and you should therefore consider its appropriateness in light of your objectives, financial circumstances and needs before acting on it.