For the first time in decades, the Trump administration has unveiled a sweeping proposal to open federal waters off the coasts of California and Florida to new offshore oil and gas drilling—a move that has ignited fierce debate across the political spectrum and drawn sharp criticism from environmental groups, local officials, and even some within the president’s own party.
Announced on November 20, 2025, the plan is the most aggressive offshore leasing schedule in recent memory. According to AP and POLITICO, it outlines up to 34 auctions for oil and gas leases between 2026 and 2031, including six sales off Southern California, two in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and a staggering 21 off the coast of Alaska, with some targeting the previously untouched High Arctic more than 200 miles offshore in the Arctic Ocean. The proposal marks a dramatic reversal of the Biden administration’s policies, which had emphasized renewable energy and sharply curtailed new oil and gas leasing in federal waters.
“By moving forward with the development of a robust, forward-thinking leasing plan, we are ensuring that America’s offshore industry stays strong, our workers stay employed, and our nation remains energy dominant for decades to come,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement, as reported by AP. Burgum’s remarks echo President Donald Trump’s rhetoric of “energy dominance,” a phrase that has become central to his administration’s energy strategy since he began his second term in January 2025.
The plan’s reach is broad and, in some ways, provocative. Not only does it propose new drilling in waters off California—where no new federal leases have been issued since the mid-1980s—but it also targets areas off the coast of Florida, long shielded from such activity by a moratorium that now extends until 2032. The proposed Florida leases would be at least 100 miles from shore, adjacent to the Central Gulf of Mexico, which already hosts thousands of wells and hundreds of drilling platforms. The Trump administration’s initial inclusion of the Atlantic coast was dropped after bipartisan pushback from Florida lawmakers, POLITICO notes.
For California, the proposal is particularly contentious. Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and vocal Trump critic, responded swiftly and unequivocally. Speaking at the COP 30 climate conference in Brazil, Newsom declared the plan “dead on arrival.” He later stated, “For decades, California has stood firm in our opposition to new offshore drilling, and nothing will change that. We will use every tool at our disposal to protect our coastline.” Newsom, who is widely considered a potential 2028 presidential contender, has made environmental protection a centerpiece of his administration, especially in the wake of recent oil spills off the California coast.
Newsom’s stance is shared by many California Democrats, including Representative Jared Huffman, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. Huffman ridiculed the idea that companies would succeed in exploiting potential California leases, telling reporters, “It’s about the dumbest thing you could do with your money, short of buying a Donald Trump meme coin.” The state’s history with offshore drilling is fraught; the infamous 1969 Santa Barbara spill galvanized the modern environmental movement, and subsequent state and federal actions have made new leasing all but impossible.
But the Trump administration’s plan is not just a jab at California liberals. It also sets up a fight with Florida Republicans, who have traditionally opposed offshore drilling due to the state’s reliance on tourism and concerns over environmental risks. Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis and Senators Rick Scott and Ashley Moody have all voiced strong opposition. “As Floridians, we know how vital our beautiful beaches and coastal waters are to our state’s economy, environment and way of life,” Scott said. “I will always work to keep Florida’s shores pristine and protect our natural treasures for generations to come.” Moody called the proposal “HIGHLY concerning” and pledged to engage directly with the Interior Department.
In an effort to address some of these concerns, the plan includes a 100-mile buffer zone off Florida’s coast, but critics argue this may not be enough to safeguard the state’s tourism industry or military training areas. The moratorium on drilling off Florida’s coasts—extended by Trump himself during his first term—remains in effect until 2032, and it’s unclear how the new proposal would interact with this legal barrier.
The situation in Alaska is equally complex. The plan calls for more than 20 lease sales in the region, including the High Arctic, which has never before been drilled. The last Arctic Ocean lease sale was held in 2008, and a 2012 attempt by Shell to drill there ended in failure. With crude prices currently low, it remains to be seen whether oil companies will take the risk of development in such remote and challenging environments.
Industry groups have welcomed the proposal as a much-needed step to ensure the long-term viability of U.S. oil production. The American Petroleum Institute called it a “historic step” toward unleashing vast offshore resources. Erik Milito, president of the National Ocean Industries Association, emphasized the need to “make sure we’re not missing out on potential strategic opportunities 10, 15, 20 years down the road, because the production we have now is because of decisions we made 10, 15 years ago.” He argued that casting a wide net in the proposed plan would allow the government to gather valuable input from companies on the geology and drilling interest of various areas.
Environmental organizations, however, are sounding the alarm. Joseph Gordon, campaign director for Oceana, warned, “The last thing America needs now is a massive expansion of offshore drilling that could shut down our shores with catastrophic oil spills. Congress, and coastal state leaders, must stand together to defend all of our coasts and demand that the Trump administration go back to the drawing board to take their states out of the final plan.” Democratic lawmakers, including California Senators Alex Padilla and Representative Huffman, echoed these concerns, stating that opening vast coastlines to new offshore drilling would “hurt coastal economies, jeopardize national security, ravage coastal ecosystems, and put the health and safety of millions of people at risk.”
Despite the high-profile announcement, many experts believe that significant legal, regulatory, and political hurdles could prevent much of the proposed drilling from ever taking place. Glenn Schwartz, director of energy policy for Rapidan Energy Group, told POLITICO that the sales off California are “unlikely to be implemented” because of the state’s veto authority and the lengthy litigation that would almost certainly follow any attempt to move forward. The plan itself is still in draft form and will undergo public comment and possible revision before being finalized next year.
As the public comment period opens and the debate intensifies, the future of America’s coasts—and the balance between energy development and environmental protection—hangs in the balance. The outcome will likely shape the nation’s energy landscape for decades to come.