French energy group Engie is in discussions with US officials about reimbursement for its offshore wind leases in US waters, as the Trump administration pushes back against the sector.

Engie CEO Catherine MacGregor confirmed this week that the company was exploring options to cancel three of its offshore lease‑holding positions through its 50–50 joint venture with Portugal’s EDP Renewables, Ocean Winds, which together have been behind major planned projects in the United States.

The company has paused all three developments and recorded impairment charges on the assets following a sharp reassessment of the US offshore wind market amid policy shifts under president Donald Trump.

“Discussions are ongoing to see if an agreement is possible,” MacGregor said, without revealing specific terms. “We’ll see about these terms; an agreement is possible depending on the discussions,” she added.

The move follows the Trump administration’s decision to reimburse French oil major TotalEnergies nearly $1bn it had spent on offshore wind leases. The administration presented the deal as a win because TotalEnergies agreed to reinvest the funds in US LNG projects.

TotalEnergies’ CEO Patrick Pouyanne claimed that the risk of losing $928m was “unacceptable”, while critics question the legal basis for using federal money for the reimbursement.

Engie’s portfolio through Ocean Winds includes Southcoast Wind, a 2.4GW project off Massachusetts, the 2.4GW Bluepoint lease in the New York Bight – on which the company spent $765m, and the 2GW Golden State Wind lease off California with a reported $150m paid for the rights.

“Economically and in terms of public acceptance, I strongly believe in offshore wind power. Of course, you must plan the projects well and involve the fishermen. However, [developing offshore wind power in the United States] would remain a challenge as there are no clear policy guidelines. New offshore wind projects are going to be complicated regardless of the administration,” MacGregor said.

Critics of the Trump administration argue that the reimbursement approach undermines the original auction and contract structure, which did not include a built‑in clause for lease cancellation at this stage.

They warn that using settlement funds for such deals creates a dangerous precedent that could reshape how the federal government negotiates offshore assets.