On January 6, 2025, just weeks before the end of his term, President Joe Biden invoked a seldom-used 1953 statute to prohibit oil and gas exploration across 625 million acres of federal waters. This move promises a complicated legal conflict with the incoming Trump administration.
The extensive protection, which was established under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), spans an area larger than the combined size of the Louisiana Purchase and the states of Texas and Alaska. It effectively puts a halt to future energy exploration in large swathes of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and parts of Alaska’s Northern Bering Sea.
The president-elect, Donald Trump, labeled Biden’s application of the 1953 law as “the worst abuse of power” he had ever seen, according to a statement released on Tuesday. This sentiment was reiterated by the incoming White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and American Petroleum Institute president Mike Sommers, who collectively called for a return to a “pro-American energy approach to federal leasing.”
The 72-year-old legislation grants presidents the authority to unilaterally exclude areas from mineral leasing, providing no methods for reversal – a fact that may hinder Trump’s ambitions to quickly escalate fossil fuel production. Legal scholars point out that overturning Biden’s decision would likely necessitate an act of Congress, given the law’s lack of provisions for presidential reversals.
Trump, the incoming president, has pledged to “immediately un-ban” the restrictions, claiming they compromise American energy security. “This ban will be challenged on day one,” Trump asserted, though the legal route remains uncertain as the OCSLA has never been thoroughly examined in the Supreme Court.
The safeguarded area includes key regions that Trump had earmarked for energy development during his first tenure. While most drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico are unaffected, the ban effectively thwarts future expansion in areas Trump had previously designated for fossil fuel development.
The oil and gas industry vehemently disapproved of the decision, calling for Congress to obstruct it. Industry spokespeople expressed worries that the restrictions could affect the country’s future energy supply and economic prospects, particularly as emerging technologies enable access to previously unreachable deposits.
The decision marks a stark departure from Trump’s policies during his first term. Although Trump initially advocated for increased drilling, he later prohibited operations off the coasts of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina until 2032 – a move perceived as politically motivated to garner support from coastal states. Biden’s wider ban now significantly extends those protections.
Support for the decision has emerged from both Republican and Democratic coastal state governors and communities, who have long advocated for increased ocean protection. Environmental organizations have labeled the decision as “historic,” while GOP lawmakers view it as “executive overreach” necessitating congressional scrutiny.
Biden’s timing of this action aligns with previous presidential endeavors to protect federal waters. Former President Bill Clinton invoked the same law in 1998 to safeguard parts of Alaska’s waters. President Barack Obama used it in 2016 to protect large portions of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans. The Trump administration tried to reverse Obama’s prohibitions in 2017 but encountered unresolved legal difficulties.
The ban chiefly impacts regions with low drilling potential. It does not affect areas where the majority of U.S. offshore drilling takes place, particularly in the central and western Gulf of Mexico. Existing oil and gas development operations in active drilling areas will proceed unhampered.
The Department of Interior estimates that the current leases in the Gulf of Mexico hold enough resources to maintain present production levels for several decades. “This is about protecting future generations while ensuring energy security today,” Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said at a press briefing.
This clash sets the stage for what could be the first significant energy policy dispute of Trump’s second term. Conservative legal groups are already assembling challenges, asserting that the law’s permanent withdrawal provision infringes upon the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine. Concurrently, environmental groups are gearing up to defend the ban in court.