Courts Said No. So Trump Bought His Way Around Them

Dear Representative, I am writing to demand accountability for the Trump administration’s use of taxpayer funds to systematically dismantle offshore wind and solar energy development — projects that federal courts repeatedly ruled could not be stopped through executive action. The facts are straightforward and disturbing: The Department of Interior has paid TotalEnergies approximately $1 billion, Bluepoint Wind $765 million, and Golden State Wind $120 million — nearly $2 billion in total — to voluntarily surrender their offshore wind leases. Each of these projects was capable of powering more than one million American homes. These are not routine contract settlements. These are deliberate, taxpayer-funded payments structured to circumvent judicial rulings that blocked the administration’s executive orders targeting wind and solar energy. In exchange for these reimbursements, companies are required to invest equivalent amounts in oil, gas, or LNG infrastructure — a condition that amounts to using public funds to redirect private capital away from clean energy and into fossil fuels. This is industrial policy by checkbook, paid for by American taxpayers. Meanwhile, residential electricity rates are on pace to hit a 10-year high in 2026. Energy analysts — not political advocates — attribute rising costs to surging demand from AI and data centers, aging infrastructure, and extreme weather. Blocking the lowest-cost energy sources available, wind and solar, does not lower bills. It raises them. I am asking you directly: 1. What oversight has Congress conducted or will conduct on the legality of these lease termination agreements? 2. Will you demand a full accounting of how much taxpayer money has been or will be spent on these payoffs? 3. Will you support restoring clean energy tax credits eliminated under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to allow the market — not ideology — to determine our energy future? The administration lost in court. It then spent nearly $2 billion of public money to achieve the same outcome through private deals. That deserves scrutiny regardless of one’s position on energy policy. Respectfully,