Wind power is one of the largest sources of electricity in the United States, a key part of the shift away from over-reliance on fossil fuels. And yet, industry groups say it keeps colliding with the priorities of the current federal administration. The legal fight over how the Pentagon handles onshore wind‑project reviews has been building, raising questions about whether “national security” has become a pretext to slow the industry down. And recently, the dispute landed in court, with the Pentagon in the crosshairs.
The Review System
One issue is that wind turbines are huge and can interfere with radar or low‑level flight paths. Federal aviation rules require developers to file notices for these tall structures so regulators can study whether they pose a hazard.
In 2011 and 2018, Congress tightened that system by requiring the Defense Department’s Clearinghouse to review wind projects for impacts on “military operations and readiness” while also directing it to “ensure that the robust development of renewable energy sources and the increased resiliency of the commercial electrical grid may move forward.” DoD’s 2013 regulations echo that mandate and set specific deadlines for completing those reviews.
Industry groups claim that for roughly the next decade, that framework functioned as intended: developers filed with the FAA, the Clearinghouse reviewed projects, and when issues arose, DoD worked out mitigation and cleared projects so the FAA could issue a determination of no hazard.
A ‘Review Freeze’
In early 2025, things got more heated. The Trump administration told federal agencies to put new wind approvals on hold for an open‑ended “comprehensive assessment,” effectively pausing permits until a federal court later shut that down as an improper indefinite halt. That same year, Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Army Corps adopted policies that steered permitting away from wind and solar and toward more compact fossil‑fuel projects, only to have those policies blocked as back‑door moratoriums.
Around the same time, the Pentagon’s Clearinghouse started changing how it handled wind‑project reviews, described in the later lawsuit as a “review freeze.” According to the complaint, in August 2025, DoD stopped countersigning mitigation agreements that developers had already negotiated and signed — agreements that previously took about two months to clear and were the last step before the FAA issued its safety sign‑off. Those projects had resolved all substantive issues and were waiting only for a final signature.
By December 2025, DoD had also stopped sending new draft mitigation agreements, even for projects where the Mitigation Response Team had already agreed on the fixes. Projects that once were “nearly done” became stuck with no paperwork to sign. Around the same time, mitigation meetings became harder to schedule and then were canceled, leaving some projects in the discussion phase far beyond the usual 90‑day window, with no written extensions or clear explanations.
The Freeze Becomes Official Policy
In April 2026, the alleged freeze became explicit. The complaint notes that on April 13, the Office of the Secretary of Defense told Clearinghouse staff to halt all work on wind‑project reviews “indefinitely.” Existing meetings were canceled, new ones were not scheduled, and developers received form letters stating that DoD needed “further interagency coordination” to address “evolving risks,” without identifying specific technical concerns or any timeline for action. A major trade group wrote to DoD in March asking what was going on; in April, DoD replied with another vague reference to “modern military risks” and even mentioned a past government shutdown, without explaining how that justified continuing delays.
Then, on May 7, DoD issued an “interim guidance” memo. The memo said certain energy projects would face extra “interagency coordination” to ensure a “comprehensive national security review,” while most other projects would continue to be reviewed promptly. In practice, the dividing line was whether a project created an “impactful Doppler effect” tied to spinning blades, and the memo explicitly exempted oil and gas. It set no deadlines for the new steps and did not mention the existing review timelines in DoD’s own rules, which, according to the plaintiffs, effectively created an open‑ended slowdown applied almost exclusively to wind.
The freeze had been in place in some form for about nine months when the fight finally moved into a federal courtroom.
From Slowdown to Showdown
On May 31, a coalition of nine renewable‑energy groups filed suit in federal court in Oregon, naming Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Defense Department, and the Clearinghouse as defendants.
The complaint describes four groups of stalled projects: those with fully signed mitigation agreements waiting only for DoD’s countersignature; those that finished mitigation talks but never received a draft agreement; those stuck in mitigation talks that were postponed or canceled; and newer projects still awaiting an initial DoD response long past the usual review windows. Because the FAA cannot complete its hazard determinations without DoD’s input, each bottleneck means no determination of no hazard. Without that green light, developers generally cannot secure financing, meet power‑purchase agreements, or, in some states, finish local permitting.
The lawsuit also stresses timing pressures from federal tax credits and other project deadlines. Under 2025 tax‑law changes, many projects must begin construction by set dates and reach commercial operation within a certain number of years to claim key credits. The groups say the freeze threatens to push some projects past those “begin construction” and “placed in service” windows, and to blow other time‑sensitive commitments like grid‑connection milestones, turbine delivery schedules, and construction seasons. The longer DoD holds up reviews, they argue, the more these deadlines and contracts start to fall apart.
What’s at Stake in Court
Legally, they ask the court to treat the freeze as an unlawful policy under the Administrative Procedure Act and to see the months‑long inaction as agency duties “unlawfully withheld” or “unreasonably delayed.” In practical terms, they want the judge to strike down the wind‑only slowdown and order the Pentagon to restart reviews, finish mitigation talks, sign agreements, and send its findings to the FAA on a clear timetable, so wind projects can either move forward or get a timely, on‑the‑record decision.
If the court agrees, the Clearinghouse would have to start moving wind projects through its review process again, on a schedule the law will tolerate. If it doesn’t, the Pentagon’s freeze could stand as a powerful example of how far an agency can stretch “national security review” before courts step in—and developers may have to plan around that uncertainty for years.
