The Trump administration has unveiled a sweeping new plan to reopen offshore oil drilling along the coasts of California, Florida, and Alaska, marking the most aggressive shift in U.S. offshore energy policy in decades. The move is part of President Trump’s broader energy strategy aimed at accelerating fossil fuel production and asserting what he calls American “energy dominance” in the global marketplace. For the oil and gas sector, the proposed leasing program signals new opportunities in previously restricted regions, but it also faces fierce political resistance and environmental scrutiny.
This marks the first significant attempt to authorize new offshore drilling leases in federal waters off California and Florida since the 1980s and 1990s, respectively. Though California currently operates legacy offshore rigs, no new federal leases have been issued since 1984. Meanwhile, Florida’s federal offshore waters in the eastern Gulf of Mexico have been under moratorium since 1995 due to oil spill concerns.
Reviving Offshore Drilling as a Pillar of U.S. Energy Policy
Since returning to office in January, President Trump has prioritized a sharp pivot away from climate-focused policies instituted under his predecessor. One of the early executive actions of his second term reversed the federal ban on offshore leasing in several key coastal areas. Trump has characterized climate change as a “con job” and has instead emphasized fossil fuel development as a cornerstone of American energy security.
At the heart of this new agenda is a five-year leasing plan released by the Department of the Interior, proposing six new lease sales off California’s coast, several in waters at least 100 miles off the Florida shoreline, and more than 20 lease sales off Alaska, including a newly charted “High Arctic” region in the remote Arctic Ocean. The targeted zone off Florida borders an area of the central Gulf that already hosts a dense network of wells and infrastructure.
In a statement, the American Petroleum Institute and allied trade groups endorsed the plan, stating that it aligns with the long-standing potential of U.S. offshore reserves. “California’s history as an oil-producing state, combined with existing infrastructure in the southern part of the state, provides a unique opportunity to unlock undiscovered resources efficiently,” the groups wrote in a joint letter to the administration earlier this year.
Texas-based Sable Offshore Corp. is already moving to revive production off the Santa Barbara coast, where a 2015 oil spill halted operations. The Trump administration has cited the project as a model of what it aims to achieve by streamlining permitting processes and dismantling regulatory hurdles that previously stalled development.
Resistance Builds Across Political Lines and Coastal Communities
Despite the industry optimism, the plan has generated immediate backlash from both Democratic and Republican leaders in coastal states. California Governor Gavin Newsom denounced the proposal, calling it “dead on arrival.” His administration has not yet received formal details from federal agencies but has expressed staunch opposition. “Offshore drilling is expensive, risky, and threatens the long-term health of California’s coastal economy,” a spokesperson for Newsom stated.
Florida’s leadership, while Republican-aligned, has also voiced concern. Senator Rick Scott, who successfully lobbied against a similar offshore drilling initiative during Trump’s first term as Florida’s governor, recently co-sponsored a bipartisan bill to extend the existing drilling moratorium. “Florida’s pristine beaches and marine ecosystems are essential to our economy and way of life,” Scott said. “I will fight to ensure they are preserved for future generations.”
Tourism accounts for a significant share of economic activity in both California and Florida, and local governments across both states have historically resisted any expansion of offshore operations. Environmental groups have echoed these concerns, warning that a single spill could cause irreversible harm to marine life, coastal communities, and local economies.
In Washington, the proposed offshore expansion has triggered sharp criticism from Democratic lawmakers. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff of California, alongside House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman, issued a joint statement warning that the move “would devastate coastal economies, jeopardize national security, and increase risks to public health and safety.” The group pointed to the costs associated with major spills, which can run into the billions when factoring in cleanup, litigation, lost tourism revenue, and long-term environmental degradation.
Joseph Gordon, campaign director for Oceana, called the plan “an oil spill nightmare” and emphasized the threat to communities that rely on healthy ocean ecosystems. “We should be protecting our coasts, not putting them up for auction,” Gordon said.
Still, Trump officials insist that the expanded leasing plan is necessary to meet rising energy demand and maintain strategic control over domestic supply. “Every offshore region with the potential to contribute to jobs, energy security, and economic growth should be considered,” said one administration official, noting that global demand for oil and gas remains strong despite the growth of renewables.
At the federal level, the administration’s executive orders have already reversed many of the previous restrictions, and legal efforts to halt Trump’s leasing plans are likely to unfold in the coming months. In a related court ruling, a federal judge invalidated President Biden’s 2020 executive action that sought to remove over 600 million acres of federal waters from consideration for offshore development. The ruling effectively cleared the path for Trump’s new offshore push.
As the leasing plan proceeds through the regulatory and public comment process, industry leaders will be closely watching whether the administration can withstand bipartisan opposition and environmental lawsuits. For operators, the new leasing opportunities represent a rare opening in two of the most heavily restricted offshore markets in the country. Whether the plan advances will hinge not just on energy economics but also on political will in two of America’s most economically and environmentally sensitive coastal states.
