Posted on August 5, 2026
PORTLAND, Ore. (CN) — A federal judge on Tuesday indicated she was likely to find in favor of a coalition of renewable energy groups and order the Trump administration to resume reviewing wind projects.
Near the start of a two-hour hearing, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Donald Trump appointee, told the parties there was strong evidence the government had violated statutory and regulatory deadlines.
The Pentagon conducts reviews of all utility-scale wind energy projects to assess whether the turbines will impact military radars or military flight patterns. Only after a project clears Department of Defense review can the Federal Aviation Administration determine if the project will pose a hazard to air navigation.
The coalition of renewable energy groups sued the Department of Defense at the end of May, accusing it of stopping the assessment of wind projects as a tactic to block wind energy development and bring a “total halt of all wind development” in the United States.
The plaintiffs claim the Trump administration is waging an “unprecedented campaign against wind energy, treating wind development like an adversary rather than a regulated industry.”
The coalition cited the Trump administration’s efforts to block wind energy projects through executive orders, reversals of regulatory programs and permit freezes among other agency actions.
The plaintiffs said the challenge is a straightforward Administrative Procedure Act case with multiple real-world harms.
The Department of Defense stopped signing near-final mitigation agreements in August 2025. Normally, agreements waiting only on a countersignature from the department have 60 days to be signed.
In April, the department canceled all mitigation discussions with wind developers and instructed staff to stop working on reviews. In May, it issued guidance explaining such reviews were on hold while it conducted “further interagency coordination.”
The plaintiffs said the department neglected to justify its August decision.
“We have not seen anything,” Ella Gannon, attorney with Morgan Lewis & Bockius representing the plaintiffs, said.
But the federal government argued it had an adequate explanation: the Department of Defense stopped reviews to assess national security concerns.
“It never changed its tune; it always maintained the same justification,” Shawn Ren, Justice Department attorney, said.
Immergut questioned the government about whether it had complied with any of the statutory deadlines for pending projects. Ren said preliminary reviews were ongoing, but didn’t have any concrete examples. He also said he was not sure if any reviews had been completed, but had “no reason to believe” they were not going forward.
“I’m confused here,” Immergut said, noting that the case hinged on whether the government was completing those reviews and that the record contained no evidence that the reviews were ongoing. “You just didn’t think it was important to have that as part of the record?”
The government said the Department of Defense is faced with the complicated problem of assessing national security risks while balancing deadlines.
“It’s a problem that the government has not yet been able to devise a solution,” Ren said, comparing it to an escape room with a timer.
Immergut questioned if there was any political motivation behind the delay in reviews, but Ren said the record was absent any evidence of ulterior motives.
The plaintiffs argued that even if the government had national security concerns, its solution was far too broad and prevented even the most innocuous projects from moving forward.
“Why should those projects be caught up in a broad prohibition?” Gannon posited, comparing it to taking a sledgehammer to a walnut or like the TSA canceling flights at every airport based on encountering a single security concern.
Plus, the plaintiffs argued, they weren’t asking the court to interfere with national security decisions, but rather require the government to adhere to the statutory and regulatory deadlines.
“The facts clearly show a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act,” Gannon said.
But the government argued there was no evidence of unlawful withholding and urged Immergut to dismiss the complaint. Immergut questioned if the government had any idea of a timeline as to when the pause would end.
“It’s hard to know when we’ll be able to solve a technological problem,” Ren said.
Immergut said she would have an opinion out shortly.
