The Trump Administration's Move To Halt Wind and Solar Development on Federal Lands Reverses a Biden Priority
Reducing the government’s ownership of federal lands is the best way to protect against this energy policy whiplash.

On Friday, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum issued a secretarial order that could effectively prohibit his agency from issuing permits for wind and solar on federal lands unless they produce as much energy per acre as fossil fuels or nuclear power, reports Heatmap News. Specifically, the order directs the Interior Department to consider "a reasonable range of alternatives that includes projects with capacity densities meeting or exceeding that of the proposed project," when conducting a review under the National Environmental Policy Act.
"Based on common sense, arithmetic, and physics, wind and solar projects are highly inefficient uses of Federal lands," the order reads. "On a technology-neutral basis, wind and solar projects use disproportionate Federal lands relative to their energy generation when compared to other energy sources, like nuclear, gas, and coal."
On one hand, the announcement could signal a return to sound energy policy. Under former President Joe Biden, the federal government paused new oil and gas leasing (eventually lifting the ban) and supercharged renewable energy development on federal lands. Political favoritism of green energy sources, which run at full power less than 40 percent of the time and need more land to produce a megawatt of electricity than other conventional sources, coupled with the retirement of baseload energy sources, has undermined the outlook of the U.S. electricity grid, according to the Energy Department.
However, the Trump administration is trading Biden-era energy favoritism for its own. The order says in no uncertain terms that laws governing federal land management call into question "whether the use of Federal lands for any wind and solar projects is consistent with the law, given these projects' encumbrance on other land uses, as well as their disproportionate land use when reasonable project alternatives with higher capacity densities are technically and economically feasible."
The order is not surprising given President Donald Trump's animosity toward renewable energy sources since being reelected. In January, the Interior Department issued a 60-day pause on all renewable energy leasing on federal lands, and last week, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management closed off 3.5 million acres of offshore waters that had been designated as suitable for wind energy development. In July, Burgum directed his agency to review its policies and end those that give preferential treatment to wind and solar. This order was given in response to an executive order signed by Trump to end "market distorting subsidies for unreliable, foreign controlled energy sources."
At the same time, the Trump administration has moved to streamline the deployment of other energy sources, including coal, which developers and markets are moving away from. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law in July, mandates at least 4 million additional acres of federal land to be opened up for coal mining, explains the Institute for Energy Research. The president has also called coal "beautiful," as his administration has fast-tracked permits for coal mines.
A president using the federal government's management of lands to influence national energy policy is not uncommon, but it does highlight a larger issue of the government owning too much land. The federal government is the nation's largest landowner, controlling roughly one-third of all the land in the United States. Public lands are also responsible for a significant share of oil and gas production—a share that has increased in recent years as more companies have increased drilling activities and operations, according to the Energy Information Administration. This large swath of ownership has allowed presidents from Barack Obama to Donald Trump to use the far-reaching power of the government to reward and punish energy sources as they see fit.
In June, Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah) attempted to decouple the government from land management by authoring an amendment to the Big Beautiful Bill Act, requiring the federal government to sell 0.42 percent to 0.63 percent of all the public land it manages. While the amendment was shot down by the Senate parliamentarian, "the problem with [the] public lands proposal," wrote Reason's Christian Britschgi, was "that it [didn't] sell off enough land."
At the end of the day, Burgum's order may not have a significant effect on renewable energy development. Federal lands are only responsible for about 4 percent of the nation's renewable energy generation and, as of January 17, only 48 renewable energy projects comprising a little over 500,000 acres are undergoing review by the Bureau of Land Management. (Compare this to the 32,000 acres of oil and gas leases across over 22 million acres awarded by the agency in FY 2024.)
Still, the announcement does further solidify the Trump administration's position on renewable energy sources and its willingness to use the federal government's management of lands to accomplish its goals—which hurts consumers and America's energy competitiveness.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
unless they produce as much energy per acre as fossil fuels or nuclear power, reports Heatmap News.
Man... #TiredofWinning
The criteria should be cost per kwh. That drives value of energy produced to a customer
The government doesn't own the kilowatt-hours, the government owns the land. The cost-effectiveness of land usage must be based on the units of land used.
However, the Trump administration is trading Biden-era energy favoritism for its own.
I play favorites with science and thermodynamics.
"its willingness to use the federal government's management of lands to accomplish its goals—which hurts consumers and America's energy competitiveness."
Projecting the actions and harm caused by the Biden energy policies and green agenda now onto Trump is disinformation and misleading.
Who is America competing against with it's energy policies? How does reducing the cost of energy harm consumers?
Perhaps you should refrain from hanging out with Molly on the weekends. Coming down seems to be difficult for you.
I was mostly onboard here until the last paragraph. How does supporting efficient energy production hurt consumers and energy competitiveness? Wind and solar, as the author almost admits, are little more than virtue signalling sold to global warming hysterics. If people want to freak out about the latest hobgoblin I'm cool with that. But I can't think of a logical reason why I should pay more for energy and live through brownouts and the collapse of the grid. Sure, sell off federal land and let the solar companies do what they want with it until the first hail storm wipes them out. But without taxpayer welfare that obviously won't happen. Trump is an asshole but he's doing exactly what needs to be done. Another libertarian win as far as I can see.
“Projecting the actions and harm caused by the Biden energy policies and green agenda now onto Trump is disinformation and misleading”
Welcome to Reason 2025.
Otto Penn the First PWNED
Meh, when the gov is finally forced to sell off their land holdings, great I'm in. Until then, fine with a cost benefit analysis over Mandates from Gaia.
At least Luse is acknowledging the Biden-era problems and the core issue
Until the final paragraph anyway.
"the Trump administration has moved to streamline the deployment of other energy sources, including coal, which developers and markets are moving away from."
Corporate welfare for his donors. Just as bad as the Biden subsidies.
Less Lester, not Mo Lester. Heaven forbid people use electricity at night when the air is calm.
Coal is great. Mine it, sell it to China, and let them poison their air and water with it. I saw a picture of a lot full of their BYD electric vehicles. Every one was covered in soot from industrial pollution. In a libertarian system, your neighbors would have to keep their toxic waste on their own side of the fence.
Sadly China does not care about it's people and thus have not added any filtration or emissions controls. Unlike the west where the filtering and systems have essentially scrubbed coal emissions clean. You can eat the fish in Lake Erie again! Couldn't say that in the 70's.
Outside of charities, Big Government and fake religious leaders, I can't think of bigger scams than wind and solar power energy policies.
Can we add Harvard to the list? But either way your analysis is bulletproof.
Energy policy needs to be determined by physics and economics, not the whim of an idiot man-child whose grave will become the world's most popular urinal.
That's a terrible thing to say about Bill Clinton.
Or were you talking about Joe Biden's energy policy? Because I don't think "man-child" applies to him.
So not a bunch of connected green energy scam companies? Agreed.