I had an alarming thought during my morning search for new developments in the Ørsted windfarm saga. It was sparked by a quote in an Axios briefer under this headline:
Why Trump's war on offshore wind spooks noncombatants
https://www.axios.com/2025/09/05/trump-offshore-wind-orsted-project-permits
Their topline takeaway is :
The Trump team's move to halt a nearly complete offshore wind project and yank permits for others is worrying interests beyond just that sector.
Their main hook is a citation from a US Chamber Of Commerce post bemoaning the “uncertainty” facing “all types of energy projects in the future.”
They follow it up with a quote from Dan Brouillette. He served as Trump’s Energy Secretary from 2019-2021. During an appearance on Fox Business, Brouillette said “he's no fan of wind but fears an ‘unfortunate precedent’.”
Here’s the kicker:
"Future administrations may use this very same tactic against LNG exporters here in the United States or even other fossil energy producers."
Yeah, I know … what’s “alarming” about that? “If we do it to them now, they will do it to us later” is a harmless political cliché. It’s rolled out whenever one or the other party threatens to jettison the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold in the Senate. Like the oft-heard “sets a dangerous precedent,” these warnings of future consequences in exchange for short-term gain are mantras chanted by pundits and politicians alike.
Like most clichés, they keep on saying it because it’s true.
That’s why the 60-vote margin remains in place.
But what if there were no future consequences? What if you didn’t have to worry about the other party exacting revenge or turning your unprecedented move back onto you or your party somewhere down the road? And what if tit-for-tat blowback was a thing of the past?
More to Brouillette’s point, what if the Trump regime isn’t worried at all about “future administrations” using “the very same tactic” they just used to upend Ørsted’s windfarm?
What if they’re not planning on giving their opponents the opportunity to do to LNG what they are currently doing to windpower?
Now that’s an alarming thought. And there is a track record. January 6th did happen. He does say the Democrats cheat in every election. He also says mail-in voting is fraudulent. He’s reshaping Congress with gerrymandering. And he seems to be enamored with the idea of not voting all. When Zelenskyy told a reporter elections are on hold because of a national security, Trump quipped:
"So you say during the war, you can't have elections.
So let me just say, three and a half years from now, so you mean if we happen to be in a war with somebody, no more elections.
Oh, that's good. I wonder what the fake news is going to say."
Sure, he was just joking. There’s no way he’d use his emerging war against “narcoterrorism” as a pretext to declare a national emergency because, for example, Tren de Aragua has infiltrated Blue states. Not the guy who declared eight national emergencies in his first hundred days. Not the guy who used street-level crime to transform the National Guard into militarized police force that serves at the pleasure of the President. Not the guy who announced the creation a specialized force that will transform a cadre of the National Guard into the modern equivalent of the Praetorian Guard. Not the guy who asserts the right to execute alleged smugglers traveling in international waters without offering a shred of evidence. Not the guy to declared all mail-in voting illegitimate and punished Colorado for using it. And certainly not the guy who recently declared the windpower industry a national security threat.
Yes, we’re talking about windmills and Trump hates windmills and maybe I am suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Trump’s Executive Orders are mostly for show, anyway, and he loves to “own the libs.” His critics just keep on taking his bait and their histrionics make them perfect foils. That’s the conventional wisdom. And, on its face, it sounds reasonable.
That is until you look at the barrage of precedents he’s setting with unprecedented speed. His rapid expansion of presidential power is unique in US history. It rivals the wartime powers wielded by Lincoln and FDR. Actually, now that he’s added airstrikes against speedboats into the mix with masked goons snatching and grabbing people off the street … not to mention the detention of student protesters for thought-crimes or the use of Palantir as private spies … he’s already expanded the president’s powers beyond those George W. Bush used during his Global War On Terror.
Trump has brought those chickens home to roost.
Now he’s poised to launch a Global War On Narcoterror and the rebranding of the Department of Defense is telegraphing his intentions. As Trump said:
"I don't want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense, too."
To wit, he dispatched seven warships and nuclear submarine to the Caribbean in the wake of his precedent-setting airstrike. He’s going on offense. He’s using the power he’s carving out of the remnants of the Constitution. He’s making the Presidency his own … much like the like the Oval Office and the Rose Garden. And that’s the issue … does anyone think he’s going to give up all the power he’s accrued and just hand it to a Democrat? Or to JD Vance, for that matter?
Or is he comfortable pushing the boundaries of Presidential power because he has no intention of ever letting anyone do to him what he’s doing to the Constitution.