Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Energy

Scoop: How Trump Is Paying Off TotalEnergies

New documents add to doubt over President Trump’s deal to buy back the multinational energy company’s U.S. offshore wind leases.

•
Sinking an offshore turbine.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum's announcement last month that the administration was cancelling two offshore wind leases and reimbursing the lessee, TotalEnergies, nearly $1 billion, raised a host of questions. What authority was he using to do this? Where would the money come from? Was this legal? Could the Trump administration kill the offshore wind industry by paying it exorbitant sums to go away?

A newly unearthed copy of one of the agency’s official lease cancellation decisions begins to fill in the picture. It confirms what the Department of the Interior has thus far refused to acknowledge: The agency intends to pay TotalEnergies using the Judgment Fund, a cache of public money overseen by the Department of Justice intended for agency settlements.

Tony Irish, a former solicitor in the Department of the Interior, was digging around in a public Bureau of Ocean Energy Management database on Tuesday when he stumbled upon the document, which is dated April 9, 2026 — more than two weeks after Burgum’s lease cancellation announcement.

The document is a letter to Jen Banks, the permitting and development director for TotalEnergies’ Carolina Long Bay project, which is the smaller of the two leases that were cancelled. It says the agency reached a settlement agreement with Carolina Long Bay on March 23, in which the Interior Department “determined that cancelling Lease OCS-A 0545 is in the public interest,” and established that Carolina Long Bay “would have asserted claims in litigation against the United States related to the lease.”

It ends by saying that, pursuant to the settlement agreement, “DOI will, through the Department of Justice, request payment in the amount of $133,333,333 to Carolina Long Bay from the Judgment Fund Branch at the United States Department of Treasury.”

The letter does not include a copy of the settlement agreement or reference the stipulation that TotalEnergies reinvest the money into U.S. oil and gas development, as described in Burgum’s announcement.

While the Judgment Fund is essentially bottomless, there are strict rules about when it can be used. Agencies can draw on it to settle litigation that cannot be remedied by injunctive relief and requires monetary compensation. They can also request a payment from the Judgment Fund to settle “imminent litigation” — claims that have not yet been filed in court.

As there’s no record of claims filed in court, the TotalEnergies settlement likely falls into the latter category. But Irish, the former solicitor, told me it's hard to see how litigation could have been credibly imminent. TotalEnergies’ lease terms, which the Biden administration updated and the company agreed to in January 2025, explicitly state that the lease cannot be canceled “unless and until” the Interior Secretary has suspended operations for at least five years and extended the company’s lease for an equal amount of time. Given that TotalEnergies’ lease is less than five years old — it was purchased in 2022 — and there’s no evidence that it had been under suspension for any period of time, there appears to be little basis for any claim of imminent litigation.

It’s also unclear what claim TotalEnergies could have brought to warrant monetary payment. “It looks like the result of any viable claim TotalEnergies would have brought forth is not monetary damages, but enforcement of this lease provision that requires suspension and extension first,” Irish told me.

There is not yet any decision document in the database for TotalEnergies’ second lease, called Attentive Energy, for which the company stands to receive $795 million in reimbursements. Secretary Burgum will appear before the House Appropriations Committee on Monday morning, where Representative Chellie Pingree of Maine has vowed to question him on the deal. “The appropriations process for Fiscal Year 2027 will be getting underway soon with budget hearings, and I intend to press for answers,” she said in a statement shared with me by email in March. “Secretary Burgum should be prepared to provide them.”

🔒

You’ve reached your free article limit

Subscribe to Heatmap News for unlimited access to daily energy and climate coverage.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
AM Briefing

‘Starting to Fray’

On Greenland’s deepsea mining ban, Indonesia floating nuclear, and a solar boom

Data center construction.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: Hurricane Trudy has weakened from its peak as a Category 2 storm but still threatens up to 8 inches of rain as it swirls off Baja California • A nor’easter is howling through the Mid-Atlantic this week, hammering the coast with winds of up to 70 miles per hour • A humid overcast has settled over Paris this week as French authorities struggle to regain control after protests over living costs gave way to anarchic riots.


THE TOP FIVE

1. America’s AI infrastructure boom ‘is starting to fray’

At least 47 major data center projects have been delayed, withdrawn, or blocked so far this year, according to data the regulatory intelligence service RegLayer shared with the Financial Times — and that may be a “conservative estimate.” Just 35% of planned data centers are “credible,” analysts told the newspaper, as more than 1,000 communities across the United States now have restrictions on artificial intelligence infrastructure. The data comes as investors look increasingly jittery about AI following ChatGPT-maker OpenAI’s missing a key revenue metric this year.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Spotlight

A Giant Data Center Offers a Permitting Reform Test Case

What would happen to Project Jupiter if the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act is passed?

Project Jupiter.
Heatmap Illustration/Project Jupiter, Library of Congress

One of the nation’s largest data centers is struggling under permitting woes. So let’s play a game: would the bipartisan permitting bill in Congress make the path easier, or might the federal legislation be irrelevant to large hyperscalers under development today?

Meet Project Jupiter, a mega project in southern New Mexico in Dona Ana County under development by Oracle and OpenAI, with financial backing from SoftBank and political support from the Trump administration for being a part of Stargate, a major Trump administration public-private initiative boosting AI development. Project Jupiter would be one of the largest data centers in the country if completed and currently is expected to run on a microgrid powered by fuel cells converting gas to electricity, which the developers claim will burn much cleaner than a typical off-grid gas turbine power plant.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

The Trump Administration Is Still Messing with Offshore Wind Farms

And more of the week’s top news around project fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. New England (and Maryland) – The Trump administration is still messing with offshore wind farms, even while trying to pass a permitting reform deal. Examining the court filings reveals why they may feel empowered to do it — and I’m not sure how this ends.

  • Last Friday, in a legal case brought by anti-wind activists, the Justice Department submitted a motion in federal court to send the construction and operations plan for Orsted’s Revolution Wind project in New England back to the Interior Department for more analysis. On Wednesday, the DOJ entered a similar motion in another case challenging the construction and operations plan for U.S. Wind’s MarWin project off the coast of Maryland in a lawsuit brought by the state’s coastal community of Ocean City.
  • Trump’s actions led some to question whether the president was sabotaging the deal, and others to claim the media coverage itself was an attempt to kill it. Going further, supporters of the bipartisan bill claimed the DOJ's motions were precisely why the bill should become law, implying it would guard offshore wind farms against this sort of maneuver.
  • However, for the bill’s backers, it’s worth considering why the Trump administration believes it has the legal authority to do this. It’s also time to ask whether the bill would actually protect these wind farms against this tactic.
  • To answer those questions, you have to rewind. On May 1, 2025, the Interior Department withdrew a Biden solicitor’s opinion instructing the agency to “strike a rational balance” between wind power and fishing interests. This revocation document is technically not in effect at the moment; one year later, a federal court ruled the opinion was potentially illegal as a part of a preliminary injunction on five anti-renewables actions requested by solar and wind trade groups. The Trump administration is contesting that ruling, and the administration has filed a notice of appeal.
  • In August, despite that opinion being in doubt, a federal judge granted Trump permission under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to remand the construction and operations plan for the now-defunct Atlantic Shores offshore wind farm in the waters of New Jersey. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb specifically wrote that Atlantic Shores failed to demonstrate the federal government had limitations under OSCLA on revisiting these plans and that the injunction from the litigation on appeal “did not prohibit all reevaluation of agency action.”
  • In the recent Revolution and MarWin filings, Trump’s Justice Department argues the construction and operations plans should be remanded under OSCLA without being vacated. The DOJ motions include claims that previous decision documents did not adequately explain impacts to commercial fishing and other industries that use OSCLA waters. It’s not clear if the administration will win these motions.
  • The bipartisan permitting bill would bar the Interior Department and other federal agencies from taking “any new action that would revoke, rescind, withdraw, terminate, suspend, amend, or alter a federal authorization or permit in effect on or after September 16, 2026,” or “any other action to interfere with or prevent the construction or operation at full capacity of a project that has secured all necessary federal authorizations and permits.” The restriction exempts cases where “the agency is required to take such action by order of a court.” As I wrote in our lengthy piece explaining the bill, this provision has a damages component that allows companies impacted by violations to pursue financial compensation.
  • Here’s the billion-dollar question I expect we won’t have answered unless the bill language is enacted and then litigated: Would the court order exception apply to rulings that grant these motions? Or would the developers be able to sue for damages?

2. Columbia County, N.Y. – New York’s renewable energy permitting office has rejected an upstate solar farm on farmland as a House Democrat representing the area joined hands with the Trump administration in publicly railing against the project.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow