Trump Administration’s nearly $1 billion deal to kill offshore wind projects now under Congressional investigation
WASHINGTON D.C. (KEYT) – On Wednesday, Democratic members of Congress announced a formal investigation into an almost $1 billion deal struck by the Trump Administration with a French energy company to abandon two offshore wind projects.
Last month, the Trump Administration announced it was paying French energy company TotalEnergies $928,333,333 to not pursue two offshore wind energy projects in the Atlantic Ocean and instead invest in domestic fossil fuel projects.
"If TotalEnergies thinks they can get away with taking a billion dollars from American taxpayers, they're in for a rude awakening. The administration is flat out lying to the public and trying to stop anyone who stands in their way," said Congressman Huffman of California. "The Republican-led Congress might not have a spine or shred of respect for the American people, but we sure as hell do. We're going to get every document, every email, every last receipt on this deal, and every person who had a hand in this is going to answer for it. What I have to say to TotalEnergies is this: Consider yourself on notice, we're coming for you. You will have to answer to the American people. And any other company that wants to try and pull this kind of scam should be ready for the same fate."
That deal matches some conditions of deals announced with two other offshore wind energy companies this week, including one working on a project in the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area here in California.
Each deal requires the involved wind energy companies to abandon their respective wind energy projects and instead invest in oil and natural gas infrastructure.
None of the companies mentioned in this weeks deals indicate any prior oil nor natural gas projects on their respective websites and there is no public indication any company pursued the termination of the projects on their own.
According to Ranking Member Huffman of the House Natural Resources Committee and House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Raskin, the Trump Administration drew almost the almost $1 billion payment to TotalEnergies from the Judgement Fund, an account created by Congress in 1956 to pay court-ordered judgements and settlements against the government.
"When Secretary Burgum signed the settlement agreements in March 2026, the agreements' own recitals framed it a settlement agreement. After coming under fire, he abandoned that characterization entirely," noted a letter issued to TotalEnergies' CEO by Congressmembers Huffman and Raskin Wednesday. "He [Secretary of the Interior Burgum] now publicly describes the settlement agreement as a refund. Neither characterization is legally sufficient to gift TotalEnergies with nearly $1 billion taxpayer dollars. Nor can Secretary Burgum cure one defect by retreating to another."
The Ranking Members argue that using the Judgement Fund to settle, reimburse, or otherwise pay as part of any deal would violate the above appropriations clause as it was not approved by Congress.
"TotalEnergies' $928,333,333 bonus bid was deposited into the United States Treasury through DOI's [Department of Interior's] Office of Natural Resources Revenue," noted Wednesday's letter. "Any obligation to return those funds belongs to the account that received them. Routing the payment through the Judgment Fund instead would unlawfully augment appropriation."
Like other deals negotiated with offshore wind companies, the Trump Administration requires the companies to make investments into oil and natural gas infrastructure which means returning the bid cost after other payments are made would not qualify as a court-ordered settlement nor a refund.
"[T]he agreement does not actually refund the bonus bid," asserted the Ranking Members. "It conditions payment on TotalEnergies making nearly $1 billion in fossil fuel investments by a date certain. A genuine refund returns what was received, unconditionally, upon a determination that the government improperly received or retained the original funds. DOI structured a directed subsidy in which the executive branch unilaterally committed federal funds to subsidize investment in fossil fuel infrastructure. The administration has failed to request an authorization from Congress for such spending."
The Ranking Members went further, noting that this type of dealmaking would open up all private entities to similar actions and that the Judgement Fund has no annual cap and its disbursements are not subject to Congressional review.
"The constitutional stakes are greater than a single improper payment," stated Wednesday's letter. "The Judgment Fund has no annual cap, and individual disbursements receive no congressional review. Congress designed it that way because court judgments are involuntary; if a judge orders the government to pay, then it must pay. However, that logic does not extend to voluntary deals the executive branch chose to enter, on terms it negotiated, with counterparties it selected. Applied to those transactions, the Judgment Fund becomes the ultimate political slush fund."
Additionally, the Ranking Members noted that the details of the agreement, which came out later, that limited judicial oversight.
"The text of the settlement agreements suggests that DOI and you [TotalEnergies] both knew this deal was indefensible. Paragraph 18 of each agreement states that it is not judicially reviewable, a provision
with no precedent in any federal settlement not expressly authorized by Congress, and one that is
not only legally ineffective but almost certainly unconstitutional as applied beyond the parties themselves."
"No settlement signed by TotalEnergies and Secretary Burgum can strip a court of the power to examine, in a properly presented case, whether this cancellation was lawful," argued Wednesday's letter. "[Paragraph 18 of the agreements] indicates the parties' perception of the agreement: this deal could not survive scrutiny. An administration confident in the legality of its actions does not bury a self-declared immunity clause at the end of a settlement agreement. The decision to include Paragraph 18 is itself evidence of consciousness of wrongdoing."
TotalEnergies agreed last month to suspend any future offshore wind projects, "in light of the national security concerns" at the cost of almost a billion dollars shared the Department of the Interior.
The deals announced this week with offshore wind companies included similar language to abandon any future wind projects in press releases from the Trump Administration.
In December of last year, the Trump Administration suspended five large-scale offshore wind projects, including one project that was already generating electricity, "due to national security risks" detailed in classified reports the Interior Department shared in a press release.
Developers for all five projects impacted by the stop-work order sued and federal courts agreed with the harms inherent in the action before issuing a preliminary injunction against the Department of the Interior's actions for all five projects while the lawsuits play out in court.
Simultaneously, the Trump Administration argued that an energy emergency it declared last year required it to use a Cold War-era defense law to forcibly restart oil production at the Santa Ynez Unit locally due to national security concerns.
The same Administration is also responsible for cutting billions in Congressionally-approved energy investments, potentially outside of its legal authority, rescinding over 3.5 million acres of offshore waters already leased for energy generation, and adding $40 billion in subsidies exclusively for the oil and natural gas industry through the One Big Beautiful Bill.
"I've got to tell you, it's pretty damn frustrating when I hear and read about this Administration’s approach to offshore wind, particularly off the coast of California," stated California Senator Alex Padilla to Secretary of the Interior Burgum during a hearing Wednesday on Capitol Hill. "It makes no sense for an Administration that wants to be energy dominant — as electricity prices are skyrocketing and demand growth is increasing — to pay developers to stop building energy projects that can add more electrons to the grid. Now, off the coast of California, it's not just offshore wind opportunities. You're seeking to now promote offshore drilling off the coast of California and elsewhere."
Ocean Winds, a company involved in both offshore wind projects killed this week, may have agreed to abandon two of its major wind projects in the United States, but continues forward with its Southcoast Wind project off the shores of Massachusetts which obtained its leasing and initial approval during President Trump's first term.
This interplay of certain energy projects being considered national security issues is something the Ranking Members noted in their letter Wednesday.
"The assertion that the offshore wind projects would impair national security appears to have been
a fabricated justification for canceling the leases," detailed Ranking Members Raksin and Huffman. "If DOI had committed to the essential terms of this deal before it was briefed on the national security assessment it now cites publicly, that assessment is legally pretextual, the cancellation cannot survive legal scrutiny for being arbitrary and capricious, and Congress and the American people were lied to about why their government paid nearly $1 billion to a foreign energy company."
The Ranking Members ended their letter to TotalEnergies by tasking the French energy giant with preserving all documents and communications related to the deal, place all funds received, including the $928,333,333 from the Judgement Fund, into an escrow account, and turn over all documents and communications to Congress.
TotalEnergies has already ignored a request for the same materials made earlier this month noted the letter from Congressmembers Raskin and Huffman and that decision was cited as the reason for the formal inquiry.
"The contract you [TotalEnergies] made with Trump’s administration bypasses the system Congress created to prevent corruption, created a payment arrangement that is likely illegal, and snuck in a provision that wrongfully claims federal courts have no right to review your deal," concluded Wednesday's letter. "In defense of the American people and Congressional authority, we will hold you accountable for this billion-dollar ripoff."
