In a bold move that could reshape America’s energy landscape, the Trump administration is advancing plans to restart offshore oil and gas drilling along California’s coastline for the first time in decades. The draft proposal from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) outlines six lease sales off the Pacific coast, primarily around Santa Barbara County, scheduled between 2027 and 2030.
This initiative, part of a broader 2026-2031 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, also includes expansions in the newly renamed Gulf of America (formerly the eastern Gulf of Mexico).
President Trump’s “Drill, baby, drill” mantra is front and center, aiming to boost domestic production and reduce reliance on foreign energy sources. But California Governor Gavin Newsom isn’t having it. Labeling the plan “dead on arrival” (DOA), Newsom has vowed to fight it in court, calling it an assault on the state’s pristine coastlines and climate commitments.
“He didn’t promote it off the coast of Florida [near Mar-a-Lago]. That says everything about Donald Trump,” Newsom quipped, highlighting what he sees as hypocrisy in Trump’s selective drilling push.
Environmental groups like the Surfrider Foundation echo this sentiment, warning of increased spill risks reminiscent of the 1969 Santa Barbara disaster that birthed modern environmental protections.
This clash isn’t just about offshore waters—it’s the latest chapter in California’s long-running battle over fossil fuels, where state policies under Newsom have squeezed the industry to near extinction onshore while exposing vulnerabilities that Trump could exploit.
Newsom’s War on Fossil Fuels: A Timeline of Restrictions
Since taking office in 2019, Governor Newsom has waged an aggressive campaign against oil and gas, aligning with California’s ambitious climate goals. In 2021, he moved to end new fracking permits by 2024 and phase out oil extraction entirely by 2045.
This was built on earlier actions, like restricting drilling near communities and expanding health protections.
By 2023, state regulators approved just 10 new drilling permits annually—a fraction of historical levels—leading to a sharp decline in production.
Newsom’s policies have included lawsuits against oil companies for environmental violations and support for bans on new offshore leasing.
In September 2024, he signed bills to curb polluting operations near schools and daycares, further tightening the noose.
Critics argue this “war on energy” has crippled California’s once-thriving industry, with production plummeting and companies fleeing the state due to overregulation and high taxes.
Yet, facing soaring gas prices and energy shortages, Newsom has shown signs of reversal. In August 2025, his administration circulated drafts to ease permitting in oil-rich Kern County, and by September, he signed laws extending clean-energy programs while shoring up fossil fuel output to stabilize supplies.
This pragmatic shift underscores the tension between green ideals and economic realities.
Importing Jet Fuel from India: A Symptom of Self-Inflicted Wounds
California’s declining domestic production has forced increased reliance on imports, exemplified by last week’s shipments of jet fuel from India. As reported on Energy News Beat, the state now imports about 20% of its jet fuel, gasoline, and diesel from foreign sources, including India, amid a manufactured crisis in local refining and supply chains.
This dependency spikes costs—California’s gas prices are already among the nation’s highest—and exacerbates supply vulnerabilities, especially with no inbound pipelines for crude, gasoline, or aviation fuels.
The effects are ripple-wide: Higher fuel prices burden consumers and businesses, while disruptions could halt air travel and military operations. A recent report warns of an impending “aviation fuel crisis,” with declining in-state production straining regional supply chains and military readiness.
National Security Risks: California’s Achilles Heel
Newsom’s policies have turned California into a national security liability. By suppressing domestic output, the state imports over a million barrels of oil daily, tying its energy security to volatile geopolitics.
Critics, including Assemblyman Stan Ellis, highlight how this reliance amplifies risks: Any global disruption—wars, sanctions, or shipping issues—could trigger shortages, impacting not just civilians but U.S. military bases reliant on California fuels.
A October 2025 report deems California’s energy policies a “clear and present threat” to national security, noting the absence of inbound pipelines heightens vulnerabilities to supply shocks.
With imports from potentially unstable regions like the Middle East or India, the state risks blackouts, price surges, and compromised defense capabilities.
The Struggling Pipeline: A Ticking Time Bomb
At the heart of California’s woes is the state’s largest inland crude pipeline, operated by entities like Crimson (under CorEnergy), which is hemorrhaging $2 million monthly due to plummeting volumes.
Without rate hikes or increased throughput, a shutdown looms, forcing refiners to import more crude and exacerbating costs.
Regulators recently approved a major rate increase to keep it afloat, but sustainability remains questionable.
Kern County Leases: A Band-Aid, Not a Cure
In a bid to revive production, Senate Bill 237 (signed in September 2025) streamlines up to 2,000 new drilling permits annually in Kern County, aiming to reactivate idle pipelines and boost output.
However, experts warn it’s insufficient. Pipelines require minimum flow rates to operate efficiently—physics dictates that low volumes lead to inefficiencies, corrosion, and shutdowns.
With current lines running near empty, even new leases may not generate enough oil to maintain viability, potentially accelerating refinery closures like Valero’s Benicia site.
Can Trump Override California’s Mess?
The big question: Can the Trump administration bulldoze state barriers? On offshore drilling, yes—federal waters fall under BOEM’s purview, and Trump’s plan directly challenges California’s opposition.
For onshore issues like over-taxation and regulations, it’s trickier, but Trump has tools. His April 2025 executive order, “Protecting American Energy from State Overreach,” targets policies like California’s cap-and-trade, deeming them discriminatory against oil firms and inflationary.
While the Constitution limits federal interference in state affairs, Trump could use preemption, lawsuits, or incentives to lure companies back.
If successful, it might reverse the exodus, but expect fierce legal battles from Newsom’s camp. As Trump revs up federal energy ambitions, California’s self-imposed constraints highlight a stark divide. Will offshore drilling revive the Golden State’s oil glory, or will Newsom’s resistance prevail? The energy wars are just heating up.
Got Questions on investing in oil and gas?
If you would like to advertise on Energy News Beat, we offer ad programs starting at $500 per month, and we use a program that gets around ad blockers. When you go to Energynewsbeat.co on your phone, or even on Brave, our ads are still seen. The traffic ranges from 50K to 210K daily visitors, and 5 to 7K or more pull the RSS feeds daily.
https://energynewsbeat.co/request-media-kit/
Be the first to comment