Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

President-elect Donald Trump said that when he takes office he will “immediately” reverse President Joe Biden’s recent executive action making 625 million acres of U.S. coastal waters off limits for new offshore drilling. But Trump’s intent to quickly “unban” any future oil and gas drilling in those areas may not be as simple as he suggests.

That’s because Biden issued his ban using authority granted to presidents by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, a 1953 law that allows presidents to protect unleased lands of the outer continental shelf from oil and gas development. In 2019, a federal judge ruled that any such prohibition could be overturned by Congress — but not a future president.

However, after Biden announced the new ban on Jan. 6, the incoming president pledged to undo it.

“I see it just came over that Biden has banned all oil and gas drilling across 625 million acres of U.S. coastal territory,” Trump said in a Jan. 6 interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. “It’s ridiculous. I’ll unban it immediately. I will unban it. I have the right to unban it immediately.”

The next day, in a press conference from Florida, Trump reiterated his goal.

“President Biden’s actions yesterday on offshore drilling, banning offshore drilling will not stand. I will reverse it immediately. It’ll be done immediately and we will drill, baby, drill,” he said.

Here, we’ll explain what Biden did and how Trump may be able to stop it.

Biden’s Ban on New Offshore Drilling

Biden took executive action on Jan. 6 to protect much of the U.S. coastline from more exploratory drilling. He issued two presidential memorandums that withdrew more than 625 million acres of coastal waters from potentially being leased for new oil and natural gas production.  

A surfer stands with an offshore oil and gas platform in the distance on Jan. 5 in Seal Beach, California. Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images.

The areas covered by the actions are the eastern U.S. Atlantic coast; the eastern Gulf of Mexico; the Pacific Coast along California, Oregon and Washington; and portions of the Northern Bering Sea in Alaska.

States have rights to the resources in the area that is three nautical miles, or more in some cases, from their coastlines, according to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. But the federal government has jurisdiction over the outer continental shelf, which extends beyond the state jurisdiction. 

“President Biden has determined that the environmental and economic risks and harms that would result from drilling in these areas outweigh their limited fossil fuel resource potential,” the White House said in a fact sheet on his actions. “With these withdrawals, President Biden is protecting coastal communities, marine ecosystems, and local economies – including fishing, recreation, and tourism – from oil spills and other impacts of offshore drilling,” the fact sheet said.

The White House said that there is no expiration date for the withdrawals, which “prohibit all future oil and natural gas leasing” in the protected areas. The memorandums also note that nothing in the withdrawals “affects rights under existing leases in the withdrawn areas.”

Biden acted using the authority granted to presidents under section 12(a) of the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and this is not the first time that he has done so. Biden previously used his authority in January 2021, to protect part of the Northern Bering Sea, and in March 2023, he withdrew nearly 3 million acres of the Beaufort Sea in the U.S. Arctic Ocean from future oil and gas drilling.

In 2020, Trump, citing the same law as Biden, issued his own presidential memorandum making parts of the coasts of Florida, Georgia and South Carolina unavailable to be leased until 2032.

With Biden’s recent actions, the White House said the president has now conserved more than 670 million acres of U.S. federal land and waters.

Can Trump Undo the Ban? 

After Biden’s ban was announced this month, Trump said that he would quickly end it. But he may not be able to do so on his own.

Hannah Wiseman, a Penn State law professor and co-director of the university’s Center for Energy Law and Policy, told us in an email that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act authorizes presidents to, in the words of the act, “from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.” But the law “says nothing about whether a later President may revoke this prior withdrawal,” she said.

In fact, in 2017, Trump was unsuccessful in trying to reverse bans on new drilling in parts of the Atlantic Ocean that were implemented by President Barack Obama. Trump issued an executive order to undo Obama’s bans, but in 2019, a federal district judge in Alaska, Sharon Gleason, an Obama appointee, ruled that Trump’s order was “unlawful and invalid” because the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act does not allow a president to repeal a withdrawal made by another president.

“The court in 2019 reasoned that ‘the statute does not expressly grant to the President the authority to revoke prior withdrawals’ and that the phrase ‘from time to time’ does not suggest that presidential withdrawals of land from leasing must be temporary (subject to revocation),” Wiseman said.

The Trump administration appealed the decision, but a higher court never weighed in before Biden took office in January 2021 and revoked Trump’s executive order. After Biden’s revocation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit dismissed the case as moot.

This time, Trump could issue another executive order and hope that it survives a legal challenge.

Andrew Mergen, a professor in environmental law at Harvard Law School, told the Washington Post that he believes the 2019 court ruling could have been overturned if the appeal had proceeded. The Congressional Research Service also wrote in a January “legal sidebar” that a different effort by Trump “to revoke a withdrawal may be interpreted differently by courts.”

Another option is for Trump to work with the Republican-controlled Congress on legislation that would amend Biden’s ban or rescind it. In her email, Wiseman noted that Gleason’s 2019 ruling said that Congress could override a leasing ban “by either revoking the withdrawal itself … or amending Section 12(a) to expressly provide that a future President could also revoke a prior presidential withdrawal.”

Some Republicans have already suggested that they are open to do so. In a Jan. 6 statement he issued responding to Biden’s actions, Rep. Bruce Westerman, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said that congressional Republicans “will use every tool, including reconciliation,” to make the regions that Biden protected accessible for future oil and gas drilling.

The reconciliation process would allow the Senate to pass a bill with a simple majority instead of the 60 votes required to stop a potential filibuster.

We asked Trump’s transition team how he plans to go about reversing Biden’s executive action, but we have not received a response.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

The post How Trump May Be Able to Stop Biden’s Ban on New Offshore Drilling appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

Quick Take

Oregon has sent hundreds of firefighters, 75 fire engines and other equipment to help battle the blazes in Southern California. But social media posts falsely claim Oregon’s firefighting vehicles were “being held in Sacramento for emissions testing.” California and Oregon officials said the trucks only go through quick safety inspections.

Full Story

The wildfires raging since last week in the Los Angeles area have killed at least 24 people, consumed over 62 square miles, destroyed thousands of homes and displaced more than 150,000 people. The National Weather Service predicted severe wind gusts again this week in Los Angeles and Ventura counties that could intensify and spread the fires, the Los Angeles Times reported.

To assist its neighbor, the Oregon State Fire Marshal has sent 370 firefighters, 75 fire engines, 30 water tenders that carry water to a fire line and other equipment to Southern California.

But social media posts have spread the false claim that California has delayed the deployment of Oregon’s equipment in order to inspect the trucks’ emissions and ensure they meet state environmental requirements.

Conservative activist Dinesh D’Souza, who has previously spread election misinformation, posted on X on Jan. 11 claiming, “Oregon sent 60 fire trucks to California to help with the fires, but they’re being held in Sacramento for emissions testing. You can’t make this up! What is going on?!” The post, which included a video of a man attributing that information to a publication called the Santa Monica Observer, received more than 1.3 million views as of Jan. 13, according to the platform.

The Santa Monica Observer, which has posted false news and dubious information in the past, according to the Los Angeles Times, wrote that its “original story was based on a tweet that has since been deleted” and said that it “can verify that there are fire fighters and vehicles from all over the Western US, fighting fires on the Westside now.”

A Jan. 12 Threads post also claimed, “The state of Oregon sent 60 fire trucks to California to assist with the wild fires. However they have not arrived. Why? All 60 fire trucks were stopped in Sacramento because (get this) they [didn’t] have a California Smog Emission test. So they are all currently in Sacramento, awaiting a smog test and have not gotten it yet. California is dead serious.”

A factsheet compiled by the office of California Gov. Gavin Newsom to address misinformation about the fires said D’Souza’s claim is wrong. The factsheet says, “out-of-state fire trucks take part in 15 minute safety & equipment inspection to ensure no issues with the vehicle. At the time of the original post, the Oregon firefighting teams were already in the Los Angeles area battling the blazes.”

In addition, Newsom said in a Jan. 11 post on X, “Oregon has courageously sent CA some of their best firefighters and equipment — all have been here for days fighting these blazes. To say otherwise is not only incorrect, it’s offensive to the brave men and women who are fighting on the frontlines right now.”

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or CAL Fire, posted a video on Jan. 11 showing the safety inspection process for out-of-state vehicles assisting in the firefighting efforts.

Salem, Oregon Engine 15 helps extinguish an attic fire in Southern California on Jan. 10. Photo courtesy of Oregon State Fire Marshal.

In an email to FactCheck.org, Kassie Keller, a spokesperson for the Oregon State Fire Marshal, also said the social media claim “is not true; no emissions testing took place.”

Keller directed us to a Jan. 12 statement on Facebook issued by the Oregon fire marshal, which said, in part: “We want to clear up confusion about our Oregon firefighters and equipment sent to California to help with the wildfires. There is misinformation spreading on social media and from some news outlets claiming our equipment had to pass emissions tests and our equipment and firefighters were turned away or delayed. TO BE CLEAR: THIS IS FALSE.

“Our firefighters left Oregon mid-morning on Wednesday (1/8) from various locations in the state. These strike teams traveled to Sacramento where they stayed the night. On Thursday (1/9) at 6 a.m., they went through a routine safety check with CAL Fire to make sure the engines were mechanically sound. CAL Fire posted on their social media channels detailing the process.

“Our strike teams were scheduled to arrive in Southern California on Thursday. There was no delay in the process or travel. Our equipment is held to the highest safety standard to ensure the safety of our firefighters. This equipment also does not regularly travel hundreds of miles at a time. Firefighter safety is our number one priority.

“No engine was turned away. They all completed the safety check, and all 15 strike teams arrived in Southern California on Thursday and began their 24-hour shift early Friday morning,” the Oregon fire marshal’s statement said.

The state of California has some of the strictest vehicle emissions requirements in the U.S., according to the Kelley Blue Book. But the state has not required the Oregon fire equipment to undergo smog tests before assisting in the battle against the Los Angeles area wildfires, as some social media posts have claimed.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

Sources

“California Fire Facts.” Gavinnewsom.com. Accessed 13 Jan 2025.

Harter, Clara, et al. “Weather services issues its most severe fire warning for parts of L.A. area as winds pick up.” Los Angeles Times. 13 Jan 2025.

Keller, Kassie. Public affairs director, Oregon State Fire Marshal. Email to FactCheck.org. 13 Jan 2025.

Oregon State Fire Marshal. “Clearing Up Misinformation.” 12 Jan 2025.

Oregon State Fire Marshal. “Oregon State Fire Marshal sending additional support to California.” 11 Jan 2025.

Weber, Christopher and Holly Ramer. “24 dead as fire crews try to corral Los Angeles blazes before winds return this week.” Associated Press. 13 Jan 2025.

The post Oregon Fire Trucks Fighting L.A. Blazes Didn’t Require ‘Emissions Testing’ appeared first on FactCheck.org.