President Biden and Trump’s Offshore Drilling Debate: Expanding or Restricting U.S. Energy Resources?

The debate over offshore drilling in the U.S. has seen a dramatic shifts over the past decades, shaped by changing ideologies and economic priorities. Successive presidential administrations have approached the issue from entirely different perspectives, often reflecting broader debates over energy security, environmental proportion, and economic growth. Former President Biden has prioritized environmental conservation, from placing restrictions on new offshore drilling leases to advocating for a transition to renewable energy sources. In contrast, President Trump emphasized energy independence and economic expansion, rolling back regulations to encourage offshore oil and gas exploration. These ideas have not only affected domestic energy policies but have had a significant impact on environmental conservation efforts.

President Biden’s Offshore Drilling Ban
At the heart of the offshore drilling debate is the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OSCLA), enacted in 1953 to regulate offshore mineral resource development. The OSCLA extends federal jurisdiction to the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)—the vast underwater landmass that begins beyond state-controlled waters and continues within the boundaries of the U.S. exclusive economic zone. The OSCLA grants the president authority to withdraw unleased portions of the OCS from future leasing. Section 12(a) of the OSCLA states that the president may from time to time remove areas from drilling, either temporarily or permanently. Over the years, multiple administrations have used this authority to either protect areas from exploitation or expand domestic energy production.

On January 6, 2025, before leaving office, former President Biden invoked the OSCLA to impose a sweeping ban on new oil and gas drilling across more than 625 million acres of U.S. coastal waters. The ban covers the entire Eastern Seaboard, the Pacific Coast, the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, and the Northern Bering Sea, effectively preventing future leasing in these areas. In what he framed as a permanent stop to new offshore drilling, the former president stated drilling imposed unnecessary risks to the environment, public health, and coastal communities’ economies.

While significant in scope, the decision is considered symbolic because the ban will not impact areas where oil and gas development already exists or is currently underway. Furthermore, it primarily covers areas where drillers will have little to no important prospects, such as the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. In a statement, former President Biden declared that his decision reflects the idea that drilling could cause “irreversible” damage to the nation and that protecting America’s coasts is the only choice to consider for the benefit of future generations. However, this decision, made a couple of weeks before President Trump’s inauguration, has faced pushback from both the Trump administration and oil and gas industries.

President Trump’s Response and Legal Challenges to Offshore Drilling Policies
In response to President Biden’s ban, Trump stated on The Hugh Hewitt Show that Biden’s action was “ridiculous” and that he would immediately undo the ban. On January 20, 2025, President Trump followed through by signing Executive Order 14148 to lift Biden’s ban, an action consistent with his policies to prioritize energy independence and economic growth through increased fossil fuel production. The order also attempts to revoke a March 2023 order to block oil and gas drilling on 2.8 million acres in the Arctic Ocean. However, the reversal may face significant legal obstacles.

A 2019 court ruling determined that the OCSLA does not grant the president the authority to overturn a previous ban, meaning President Trump’s attempt to lift the ban would likely require congressional action. League of Conservation Voters v. Trump at 17–18. The order traces back to Trump’s efforts in 2017 to reverse withdrawals in the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean imposed by President Obama. Ultimately, U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason ruled that Obama’s withdrawal of about 120 million acres of waters would remain in effect unless revoked by Congress. Id. The Ninth Circuit later vacated the ruling as moot. League of Conservation Voters v. Biden at 4. As a result, no direct precedent exists on the president’s authority to reverse offshore land withdrawals under the OSCLA, but Congress still has the power to modify or reverse these withdrawals.

Interestingly, some energy analysts suggest that Biden’s ban may have little impact on U.S. oil production, which has even set new records under the Biden administration. For instance, Tom Kloza, the global head of energy analysis at the Oil Price Information Service, stated that it’s “not particularly consequential for the U.S. exploration and production going forward.” Biden’s ban is also facing legal challenges by third parties, with Republican attorneys general from five states, and industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute and the Gulf Energy Alliance, filing a joint lawsuit. Additionally, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and oil producer W&T Offshore have joined a separate lawsuit against the ban.

Conclusion
The contrasting actions of President Biden and Trump regarding offshore drilling shows the significant influence of presidential authority under the OSCLA. While President Biden's ban reflects a commitment to environmental protection and climate action, President Trump's attempt to lift the ban highlights a focus on economic growth and energy independence. Ultimately, the debate over offshore drilling continues to be shaped by competing priorities: the need to protect marine ecosystems and combat climate change, versus the desire to capitalize on domestic energy resources for economic and security benefits. As administrations change, so too will the policies governing offshore drilling, with each new administration reshaping the future of energy development and environmental management in the U.S.