From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) just issued a comprehensive review of the Department of the Interior’s offshore wind energy program. Titled “Offshore Wind Energy: Actions Needed to Address Gaps in Interior’s Oversight of Development” (GAO-25-106998), the report provides a postmortem of sorts on a policy agenda that—until recently—was speeding ahead under the Biden administration with the vigor of a runaway freight train.

Today, under President Trump’s 2025 executive orders, the brakes have been applied. No new leasing. No new permits. A full federal review is underway. But this report serves as a sobering account of how rapidly U.S. federal agencies pursued offshore wind energy projects with insufficient oversight, unanswered environmental questions, and minimal accountability to affected communities.

From Acceleration to Suspension: What Changed

Until January 20, 2025, the Biden administration had aggressively pushed offshore wind as a climate panacea. Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) granted 39 commercial leases, with active construction and permitting underway across the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. By executive memorandum, however, President Trump halted further expansion. Federal agencies are now barred from issuing new leases, permits, or approvals pending a top-to-bottom review of wind leasing and permitting practices.

The Trump administration’s actions may have been prescient. The GAO’s findings paint a picture of regulatory agencies that were never ready for prime time.

Environmental Impacts: Uncertainty Was the Norm

Despite the scale of construction under Biden’s offshore wind policy, environmental impacts remained largely speculative:

“Because it is early in U.S. deployment of commercial offshore wind projects, the extent of some impacts is unknown. Moreover, uncertainty exists about long-term and cumulative effects…”​

This was no minor oversight. Projects proceeded without a robust understanding of how wind farms would affect marine life, sediment ecosystems, regional currents, or migratory species.

The GAO highlighted threats to marine mammals—especially from pile-driving noise, vessel traffic, and acoustic interference. Meanwhile, the potential for radar disruptions and impacts on national defense systems were flagged but not resolved.

Under Trump’s executive orders, these risks are now under renewed scrutiny, but the damage from rushed permitting remains in motion.

Communities and Cultures Marginalized

Perhaps the most damning section of the GAO report is its treatment of stakeholder engagement—or the lack thereof. BOEM’s tribal consultation was, in GAO’s words, largely symbolic. While Tribes were invited to comment on projects that impacted their cultural landscapes and fishing rights, few received follow-up, and even fewer saw their concerns reflected in final decisions:

“BOEM documents indicate that it received tribal officials’ concerns but do not consistently demonstrate efforts to consider or address these concerns.”​

This failure was systemic. GAO found that nearly all Tribes lacked the capacity to engage with BOEM due to funding limitations and technical hurdles. Congress was advised to amend Interior’s authorities to allow direct tribal support—but that never happened under Biden. It may happen under Trump, but it will take more than good intentions to rebuild trust.

The fishing industry was treated similarly. BOEM’s task forces excluded many commercial fisheries stakeholders, and proposed compensation frameworks remained in draft limbo as turbines rose out of the sea. As of the GAO’s writing, affected fishermen still had no clear pathway for redress.

Regulators Absent From the Field

Perhaps most absurdly, BOEM and its enforcement sibling, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), lacked even a physical presence in the North Atlantic—the epicenter of early construction. All oversight was managed remotely from Washington, D.C., or Sterling, Virginia:

“Neither agency has taken the necessary steps to establish a physical office for that region…”​

It is difficult to imagine a more emblematic example of bureaucratic detachment.

GAO’s Recommendations

GAO’s report ended with a slate of five recommendations for BOEM and BSEE, and a separate directive to Congress. These included:

• Improving tribal consultation transparency
• Documenting how fisheries concerns are incorporated
• Issuing enforceable standards for community engagement
• Establishing regional field offices
• Requiring data-sharing for environmental monitoring​

Interior agreed with all five recommendations—unsurprising, given that the wind had already shifted in Washington. What remains to be seen is whether any of these changes are implemented now that the Biden-era green push has been halted.

Wind’s Reckoning

The GAO report is both a technical analysis and a political indictment. Under the Biden administration, offshore wind energy development was fast-tracked based on aspirational benefits and unsupported assumptions. Environmental risks were minimized, communities were marginalized, and national defense concerns were inadequately addressed.

Now, with offshore wind on pause, the Trump administration has the opportunity—and the obligation—to assess what went wrong. GAO’s findings suggest that a full reset is not only justified but essential.

This was not just a mismanaged rollout. It was an ideologically driven industrial policy masquerading as science-based planning. That story is now written in steel towers in the sea—and in a GAO report that may finally force Washington to reckon with reality.