Biden and Obama’s Energy Coup: Undermining Trump’s Mandate

In a calculated move that bypassed Congress and voters alike, the Obama and Biden presidencies orchestrated sweeping bans on offshore drilling, weaponizing executive authority to block future administrations from harnessing America’s vast energy resources. In 2016, Donald Trump’s "Drill, Baby, Drill" slogan became a rallying cry for a nation tired of energy dependency and bureaucratic obstruction. Energy independence was central to Trump’s mandate, a rejection of the left’s climate alarmism and a reassertion of American sovereignty. Yet, just one month before Obama’s term ended, he acted swiftly and decisively to block Trump’s agenda by invoking an obscure 1953 law to withdraw vast swaths of offshore resources from energy development—an action Biden now seeks to replicate on an even larger scale with just two weeks left in his term.

Together, these maneuvers exemplify a deliberate strategy to tie the hands of duly elected administrations and impose a radical environmental agenda without congressional input. The timing, the judicial roadblocks, and the flawed interpretation of law all point to a coordinated effort to overturn the will of voters and stifle America’s path to energy independence.

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA): A Tool for Tyranny?

The law at the heart of this controversy is the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) of 1953, originally designed to balance offshore resource development with environmental protections. Section 12(a) of the act grants the president authority to withdraw lands from leasing, stating:

"The President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf."

On its face, the law’s language is plain and flexible. The phrase “from time to time” suggests decisions made under this authority are dynamic, subject to revision based on the nation’s evolving needs. Nowhere does the statute imply withdrawals are permanent. Yet, this open-ended phrasing has been weaponized by progressive administrations to claim they have the right to enact sweeping, irreversible bans.

Obama’s 2016 invocation of OCSLA permanently withdrew 125 million acres of Arctic waters and portions of the Atlantic from oil and gas leasing—a decision made just 42 days after Trump’s victory and a month before leaving office. It was a transparent attempt to hamstring Trump’s agenda and prevent him from unlocking the estimated 90 billion barrels of untapped oil and 327 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in these areas.

Presidential Precedent: Flexibility in Leasing Decisions

Historically, presidents have exercised their authority under OCSLA to both withdraw and restore lands for leasing, reflecting the evolving priorities of the nation. This flexibility underscores the dynamic nature of Section 12(a), which allows the executive to act in the best interest of the nation. Examples abound:

• President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953): Shortly after OCSLA’s passage, Eisenhower issued proclamations establishing offshore areas for oil and gas leasing. His executive actions often included adjusting these areas based on evolving federal priorities.

• President Richard Nixon (1969-1974): Nixon revised earlier designations, opening certain offshore areas for resource development while withdrawing others. His actions responded to environmental concerns and the energy crisis of the 1970s.

• President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989): Reagan modified withdrawals initiated by earlier administrations to expand offshore oil and gas development. His administration emphasized energy independence, revisiting areas previously withdrawn from leasing.

• President George H. W. Bush (1989-1993): Bush Senior issued an executive order extending moratoria on certain areas but also revisited boundaries established by earlier withdrawals, reflecting shifting political and environmental priorities.

These examples demonstrate that presidential authority under OCSLA has always been a tool of adaptability, a precedent Trump follows as he seeks to restore access to lands unjustly withdrawn. His efforts reflect the same executive discretion exercised by Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush to balance resource development with evolving national priorities. Each president acted to balance resource development and environmental protection, reinforcing the idea that decisions made under Section 12(a) are inherently reversible and tailored to national interests.

A Flawed Legal Precedent

When Trump sought to reverse Obama’s Arctic withdrawal, he found himself entangled in a judicial battle initiated by a nonprofit backed by George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. In the 2019 case League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, Judge Sharon L. Gleason, an Obama appointee to the U.S. District Court for Alaska, ruled against Trump. Gleason concluded that Section 12(a) permits presidents to permanently withdraw lands but does not explicitly grant them the authority to reverse those withdrawals, despite 66 years of precedents suggesting otherwise.

The ruling defies both logic and statutory language. The very phrase “from time to time” implies reversibility. If a president can withdraw lands, they can also restore them to leasing—a principle consistent with executive authority over federal lands. Judge Gleason’s decision ignored this fundamental principle, creating a one-way ratchet where withdrawals are permanent but leases are temporary. Furthermore, the legislative intent, as detailed in various congressional records, emphasized the dynamic nature of offshore resource management. During the Act’s drafting, Congress discussed the importance of executive discretion in responding to developments in technology, resource discovery, and global markets. This reinforces the idea that Congress intended the President to have leeway in implementing and revising policies as necessary. This interpretation not only conflicts with the statute’s plain language but also undermines the flexibility Congress explicitly intended.

The Predatory Timing of Obama and Biden

Obama’s Arctic withdrawal, issued at the eleventh hour, was more than an environmental move—it was a political trap. By invoking Section 12(a) so late in his presidency, Obama effectively forced Trump into years of litigation. That delay robbed the nation of a key opportunity to expand energy independence.

Now, Biden seeks to repeat this strategy on a much larger scale with a proposed withdrawal of another 625 million acres, encompassing:

• The entire Atlantic Coast;

• The Eastern Gulf of Mexico;

• The Pacific Coast from Washington to California;

• Portions of Alaska’s Northern Bering Sea.

If enacted, this withdrawal would leave only limited portions of the Gulf of Mexico open for future drilling and removing as much as 450 billion barrels of untapped oil and 1,635 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in these areas. This action, taken just as Trump prepares to retake office, is a blatant continuation of Obama’s strategy: to subvert the electoral mandate of the American people and enshrine a radical environmental agenda through executive fiat.

The Stakes for Energy Independence

The consequences of these withdrawals are profound. Offshore areas hold vast untapped resources critical to America’s energy security. Restricting access to these reserves undermines U.S. energy independence, increases reliance on foreign oil, and cripples industries that provide high-paying jobs for American workers. Additionally, concentrating all of the nation’s offshore drilling in the Western Gulf of Mexico places the entire energy sector at significant risk. Hurricanes and other natural disasters routinely disrupt operations in this region, as seen in the devastating impacts of storms like Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Hurricane Ida in 2021, which temporarily crippled energy infrastructure and led to significant economic losses. This overreliance on the Western Gulf of Mexico underscores the risks of concentrating all offshore drilling in one area. By banning drilling off the entire Atlantic Coast, Pacific Coast, Arctic, and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, we are unnecessarily putting America’s energy future in jeopardy. Diversifying drilling locations is essential to mitigating these risks and ensuring resilience in America’s energy sector. By banning drilling off the entire Atlantic Coast, Pacific Coast, Arctic, and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, we are unnecessarily jeopardizing our energy future. Diversity in drilling locations is key to ensuring resilience and stability in America’s energy sector.

Trump’s vision of energy dominance was more than rhetoric. Under his administration, the U.S. became a net exporter of energy for the first time in decades. Reversing these withdrawals is essential to restoring that independence and fulfilling the mandate given to Trump in 2016 and again in 2024.

A Call to Action

President Trump must act decisively to overturn Obama and Biden’s predatory bans. The flawed precedent set by Judge Gleason should not deter action. Instead, Trump should:

1. Revoke Obama and Biden’s Withdrawals: Trump’s executive authority under OCSLA remains intact. The plain language of the statute affirms his right to restore lands for leasing.

2. Circumvent the Gleason Ruling in Another District: The interpretation that withdrawals are permanent is ripe for judicial challenge. Trump should immediately seek declarative relief in a district more favorable to the president, such as the Fifth Circuit, which has historically supported broader interpretations of executive authority. By choosing a venue aligned with constitutional principles and executive discretion, Trump can ensure a stronger foundation for his case. He should not wait for another Soros-backed NGO to sue. By proactively bringing the case, Trump can establish a clear pathway to restore executive authority and lay the groundwork for a Supreme Court showdown.

3. Reassert Energy Independence: By opening these areas to leasing, Trump can unleash America’s energy potential, reduce foreign dependence, and deliver on his promise to put America First.

Conclusion

Obama and Biden’s actions represent an audacious attempt to overturn the will of the voters and lock in a radical agenda through executive overreach. Their use of Section 12(a) as a political weapon defies both the plain language of the law and the principles of democratic governance. President Trump has both the authority and the responsibility to reverse these withdrawals, restore energy independence, and ensure that the American people—not unelected bureaucrats or activist judges—determine the nation’s future.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏 and subscribe to the Deep Dive podcast.