{"id":25557,"date":"2025-12-18T15:40:00","date_gmt":"2025-12-18T20:40:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/?p=25557"},"modified":"2025-12-19T09:16:08","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T14:16:08","slug":"trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2025\/12\/18\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\/","title":{"rendered":"When agencies fail to show their work: Why the Trump administration’s wind ban was struck down"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Last week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts quashed<\/a> the Trump administration’s federal permitting ban on wind energy projects issued on Day One, striking it down entirely. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For nearly a year, the order recklessly held up the build-out of clean, affordable power for millions of Americans \u2013 and led to significant investment and job loss \u2013 just as the country\u2019s need for electric power reached new heights. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Attorneys General from 17 states and Washington, D.C., along with ACE NY (a nonprofit association of companies that develop wind and solar projects and supply technology for those projects) challenged the order<\/a> in May. Public interest groups, including Environmental Defense Fund, supported their challenge with an amicus brief<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In its final ruling, the Court concluded that \u201c…the Wind Order constitutes a final agency action that is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law<\/strong>.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what exactly does \u201carbitrary and capricious\u201d and \u201ccontrary to law\u201d mean in this context? And how may it apply to other Trump administration actions to limit energy projects moving forward? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, what does \u201cArbitrary and Capricious\u201d review mean?<\/strong> <\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Courts commonly review challenges to a final agency action \u2013 a government agency’s \u2018last word\u2019 on a decision \u2013 by applying the “arbitrary and capricious” standard. <\/strong>Bear with us a second on the legal background: This standard is from a federal law governing how agencies create and implement regulations, called the Administration Procedure Act (APA). <\/strong>The goal of the APA is to ensure a transparent and fair process of creating and reviewing regulations.<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under this framework, the court may invalidate final agency actions where an agency fails to “…examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for [the] action including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A court may find a final agency action is arbitrary and capricious for a number of reasons including: if the agency relied on factors that Congress did not intend for the agency to consider; entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or offered an explanation for its decision that conflicts with the evidence before the agency.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, how did \u201carbitrary and capricious\u201d apply to the Wind Order?<\/strong> The Federal District Court offered three key reasons: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Agency Defendants (i.e. the Trump administration) failed to offer a reasoned explanation for its decision to no longer issue wind permits, despite laws explaining how such permits should be issued and a decades-long practice of doing so. Their only justification was that the Wind Memo<\/strong><\/a> <\/strong>from the President told them to. (Following the Wind Memo, several federal agencies ordered an immediate pause to all wind energy authorizations, known as the Wind Order). <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
      \n
    1. The Wind Memo itself could not be a sufficient explanation because it fails to provide an adequate explanation of why permits should not be issued beyond a single sentence alluding to vague deficiencies in the permitting scheme. In other words, despite all the public claims<\/strong><\/a> from the administration about the so-called threats caused by wind energy, they ultimately offered no evidence to back them up.  <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
        \n
      1. Agency Defendants\u00a0failed to\u00a0account for\u00a0states\u2019 reliance on the opportunity for federal wind permits\u00a0in\u00a0designing their state energy policies with\u00a0wind energy\u00a0and\u00a0therefore,\u00a0depend\u00a0on the\u00a0electric\u00a0power, jobs,\u00a0investment\u00a0and\u00a0health benefits of\u00a0those\u00a0projects.\u00a0More on that below.<\/em>\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        Why did the Court find the Wind Order \u201cContrary to Law\u201d?<\/strong> <\/h4>\n\n\n\n

        Under the APA, a final agency action is \u201ccontrary to law\u201d when the action conflicts with regulations or if the administrative agency abdicates its duty to move forward on a matter presented to it \u201cwithin a reasonable time.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In this case, the Trump administration offered no timeline for when<\/em> they would actually review wind permits \u2013 projects were left in limbo with no end in sight. When asked how much longer it would take the government to finish the review of wind permits directed in the Wind Memo, the administration\u2019s lawyers had no answer, more than 10 months after the Memo had been issued.<\/strong> The Court explained that halting the permitting review of all wind-project permits with no set end date violates the law\u2019s requirement that agencies must make decisions \u201cwithin a reasonable time.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The bottom line: The agencies failed to show their work on why they were holding up wind permits, and they failed to give a timeline for reviewing them.<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The case from the states on the value of wind energy<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

        In their challenge<\/a>, the state Attorneys General claimed that the halt on federal permitting approvals \u201c[creates] an existential threat to the wind industry.\u201d <\/strong>If left in place for the duration of the President\u2019s term, they explained, the ban could wipe out nearly $100 billion in investment and cost as many as 40,000 jobs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Those warnings weren\u2019t hypothetical. During a nearly year-long pause in approvals, the Center for American Progress estimated<\/a> that roughly 17,000 offshore wind jobs tied to about a dozen projects — along with nearly 2,000 onshore wind jobs — were left in limbo. For states counting on wind projects to deliver and sustain good-paying jobs and local investment, the economic stakes were high. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The uncertainty was so severe that economic analysts slashed projected offshore wind installations in the U.S. by more than half<\/a> over the next decade.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The states\u2019 case underscored that wind power isn\u2019t some unproven technology. It already supplies 10% of U.S. electricity<\/strong><\/a>,<\/strong> and many states see it as central to their energy future. Wind energy and battery storage are a proven way to meet rapidly growing electricity demand with power that is reliable, affordable and clean.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Offshore wind is particularly critical for the Northeast\u2019s energy supply because the region gets most of its electricity<\/a> from natural gas, which is subject to major price fluctuations. In fact, Vineyard Wind, located off the coast of Massachusetts, is already displacing the need for additional natural gas, saving ratepayers roughly $2 million a day<\/strong><\/a> <\/strong>during a recent cold snap. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        And, of course, there\u2019s the tremendous pollution impacts too. By displacing polluting fossil fuels like gas and coal, wind energy reduces health harms like asthma, bronchitis and heart attacks; not to mention, the greenhouse gas pollution that is altering the climate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        What\u2019s Next?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

        The Trump administration has\u00a060\u00a0days\u00a0to appeal the\u00a0U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts\u00a0decision to the First Circuit.\u00a0This decision, along with the September court ruling lifting the stop-work order that the administration had placed on the Revolution Wind project, sends a strong message that the Trump administration cannot selectively obstruct clean energy projects. <\/strong>However, EDF, along with the states and the clean energy industry, will closely\u00a0monitor\u00a0whether the federal\u00a0government starts\u00a0issuing permits and approvals for wind projects. If they do not, we will request court enforcement of this decision, or consider further legal challenges, as\u00a0appropriate.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Unfortunately, the\u00a0wind permitting ban was\u00a0not an isolated move \u2013\u00a0it’s one of many of the administration’s attacks on clean energy.\u00a0Others\u00a0include\u00a0the\u00a0recission of funding<\/a>\u00a0for clean energy\u00a0and grid resilience\u00a0projects in\u00a0states\u00a0that\u00a0voted for a different presidential candidate in the 2024 election,\u00a0and\u00a0the\u00a0Department of\u00a0the\u00a0Interior\u2019s\u00a0Secretarial Order<\/a>\u00a0blocking the buildout of clean energy on public lands.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Against that backdrop, the Court\u2019s ruling — that the wind permitting pause was \u201carbitrary and capricious\u201d and \u201ccontrary to law\u201d– reaffirms a basic principle: clean energy projects deserve fair, comprehensive review and must be allowed to move forward under the law.<\/strong> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        Last week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts quashed the Trump administration’s federal permitting ban on wind energy projects issued on Day One, striking it down entirely. For nearly a year, the order recklessly held up the build-out of clean, affordable power for millions of Americans \u2013 and led to significant investment and job loss …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":153245,"featured_media":25558,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[108241,108239,108240],"coauthors":[108209,107964],"class_list":["post-25557","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-clean-electricity","tag-renewable-energy","tag-wind-energy"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nWhen agencies fail to show their work: Why the Trump administration's wind ban was struck down - Climate 411<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"A court found the ban ignored states' energy policies and arbitrarily blocked wind permitting from moving ahead in accordance with the law.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2025\/12\/18\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"When agencies fail to show their work: Why the Trump administration's wind ban was struck down - Climate 411\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A court found the ban ignored states' energy policies and arbitrarily blocked wind permitting from moving ahead in accordance with the law.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2025\/12\/18\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate 411\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-12-18T20:40:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-12-19T14:16:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/7\/files\/Wind-ban-overturned-1024x576.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"576\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Veronica Ung-Kono, Ted Kelly\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Veronica Ung-Kono, Ted Kelly\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2025\\\/12\\\/18\\\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2025\\\/12\\\/18\\\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Veronica Ung-Kono\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/1d44b4ecac08049fe48aefbc5b7105ae\"},\"headline\":\"When agencies fail to show their work: Why the Trump administration’s wind ban was struck down\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-12-18T20:40:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-12-19T14:16:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2025\\\/12\\\/18\\\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1467,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2025\\\/12\\\/18\\\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/wp-content\\\/blogs.dir\\\/7\\\/files\\\/\\\/Wind-ban-overturned.png\",\"keywords\":[\"clean electricity\",\"renewable energy\",\"wind energy\"],\"articleSection\":[\"News\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2025\\\/12\\\/18\\\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2025\\\/12\\\/18\\\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\\\/\",\"name\":\"When agencies fail to show their work: Why the Trump administration's wind ban was struck down - Climate 411\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2025\\\/12\\\/18\\\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2025\\\/12\\\/18\\\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/wp-content\\\/blogs.dir\\\/7\\\/files\\\/\\\/Wind-ban-overturned.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-12-18T20:40:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-12-19T14:16:08+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/1d44b4ecac08049fe48aefbc5b7105ae\"},\"description\":\"A court found the ban ignored states' energy policies and arbitrarily blocked wind permitting from moving ahead in accordance with the law.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2025\\\/12\\\/18\\\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2025\\\/12\\\/18\\\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2025\\\/12\\\/18\\\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/wp-content\\\/blogs.dir\\\/7\\\/files\\\/\\\/Wind-ban-overturned.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/wp-content\\\/blogs.dir\\\/7\\\/files\\\/\\\/Wind-ban-overturned.png\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1080},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2025\\\/12\\\/18\\\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"When agencies fail to show their work: Why the Trump administration’s wind ban was struck down\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/\",\"name\":\"Climate 411\",\"description\":\"Blogging the science and policy of global warming\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/1d44b4ecac08049fe48aefbc5b7105ae\",\"name\":\"Veronica Ung-Kono\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d84601c1344fd83afce59c4724306a93ddb4afe609897ab639f0c36881d0658a?s=96&d=mm&r=g6a6769a0c2b46a982faee2d6f419cabe\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d84601c1344fd83afce59c4724306a93ddb4afe609897ab639f0c36881d0658a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d84601c1344fd83afce59c4724306a93ddb4afe609897ab639f0c36881d0658a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Veronica Ung-Kono\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.edf.org\\\/people\\\/veronica-ung-kono\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/author\\\/vungkono\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"When agencies fail to show their work: Why the Trump administration's wind ban was struck down - Climate 411","description":"A court found the ban ignored states' energy policies and arbitrarily blocked wind permitting from moving ahead in accordance with the law.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2025\/12\/18\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"When agencies fail to show their work: Why the Trump administration's wind ban was struck down - Climate 411","og_description":"A court found the ban ignored states' energy policies and arbitrarily blocked wind permitting from moving ahead in accordance with the law.","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2025\/12\/18\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\/","og_site_name":"Climate 411","article_published_time":"2025-12-18T20:40:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-12-19T14:16:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1024,"height":576,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/7\/files\/Wind-ban-overturned-1024x576.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Veronica Ung-Kono, Ted Kelly","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Veronica Ung-Kono, Ted Kelly","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2025\/12\/18\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2025\/12\/18\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\/"},"author":{"name":"Veronica Ung-Kono","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/#\/schema\/person\/1d44b4ecac08049fe48aefbc5b7105ae"},"headline":"When agencies fail to show their work: Why the Trump administration’s wind ban was struck down","datePublished":"2025-12-18T20:40:00+00:00","dateModified":"2025-12-19T14:16:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2025\/12\/18\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\/"},"wordCount":1467,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2025\/12\/18\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/7\/files\/\/Wind-ban-overturned.png","keywords":["clean electricity","renewable energy","wind energy"],"articleSection":["News"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2025\/12\/18\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2025\/12\/18\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\/","name":"When agencies fail to show their work: Why the Trump administration's wind ban was struck down - Climate 411","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2025\/12\/18\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2025\/12\/18\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/7\/files\/\/Wind-ban-overturned.png","datePublished":"2025-12-18T20:40:00+00:00","dateModified":"2025-12-19T14:16:08+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/#\/schema\/person\/1d44b4ecac08049fe48aefbc5b7105ae"},"description":"A court found the ban ignored states' energy policies and arbitrarily blocked wind permitting from moving ahead in accordance with the law.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2025\/12\/18\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2025\/12\/18\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2025\/12\/18\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/7\/files\/\/Wind-ban-overturned.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/7\/files\/\/Wind-ban-overturned.png","width":1920,"height":1080},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2025\/12\/18\/trump-admin-wind-ban-struck-down\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"When agencies fail to show their work: Why the Trump administration’s wind ban was struck down"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/","name":"Climate 411","description":"Blogging the science and policy of global warming","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/#\/schema\/person\/1d44b4ecac08049fe48aefbc5b7105ae","name":"Veronica Ung-Kono","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d84601c1344fd83afce59c4724306a93ddb4afe609897ab639f0c36881d0658a?s=96&d=mm&r=g6a6769a0c2b46a982faee2d6f419cabe","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d84601c1344fd83afce59c4724306a93ddb4afe609897ab639f0c36881d0658a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d84601c1344fd83afce59c4724306a93ddb4afe609897ab639f0c36881d0658a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Veronica Ung-Kono"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.edf.org\/people\/veronica-ung-kono"],"url":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/author\/vungkono\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25557","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/153245"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25557"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25557\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25602,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25557\/revisions\/25602"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/25558"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25557"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25557"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25557"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=25557"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}