Biden Ends Presidency How He Started It: Halting Oil Production
The president’s ban on offshore oil and gas drilling perfectly encapsulates his top-down legacy on energy.

With two weeks left in office, President Joe Biden is ending his presidency the same way he started it: halting oil production. On Monday, he announced a ban on offshore oil and natural gas drilling in more than 625 million acres of federal waters—roughly as large as the land area of Alaska, Texas, and Montana combined. The order will not impact federal offshore drilling in most of the Gulf of Mexico, which accounts for about 15 percent of total U.S. oil production.
Using his statutory authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Biden has permanently halted oil and gas development along the entire U.S. East Coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico along Florida's coast, and the Pacific Coast states of California, Oregon, and Washington. The order also closes off the remaining 44 million acres of the Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area in Northwest Alaska, which was created via executive order by Barack Obama in 2015 and reinstated by the Biden administration in 2021.
In a statement, Biden said, "In balancing the many uses and benefits of America's ocean, it is clear to me that the relatively minimal fossil fuel potential in the areas I am withdrawing do not justify the environmental, public health, and economic risks that would come from new leasing and drilling." It is true that in many of the affected areas, offshore drilling is already nonexistent. More than 10 states have banned or restricted drilling in their offshore waters. In states like North Carolina, public backlash and opposition from oceanfront communities have prevented projects from coming to fruition.
Biden also deemed the order as necessary to address climate change. Offshore drilling is often associated with catastrophes like the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, but it is not the environmental villain that some claim it to be. A 2023 report from the National Ocean Industries Association found offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico to produce oil with a carbon intensity nearly half that of the global average. The study found methane emissions from Gulf-drilled oil were also well below that of global competitors.
President-elect Donald Trump, who halted new oil and gas leasing off the coasts of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida through 2032 during his first term in office, has vowed to repeal the Biden ban on day one. Since the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act gives presidents considerable leeway to ban drilling but not to reverse said bans, overturning the order will likely require federal legislation. With Republican control of the U.S. Congress, "The stars are aligned for them to use the Congressional Review Act to undo Biden's harmful energy policies," said Daren Bakst, an energy policy expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in a press release.
The rule bookends a presidency that constantly used federal mandates to drive energy policy. In his first week in office, Biden canceled the Keystone XL pipeline and placed a ban on new federal oil and gas leasing, which remained in place until April 2022. While record gas prices in 2021 were a result of global supply not keeping up with global demand, Biden-era spending accelerated inflation and kept energy costs high. (Ironically, the Inflation Reduction Act championed by Biden gave oil and gas companies nearly $500 billion in new federal funding and tax credits.)
With offshore drilling already not operational in many of the ban's areas, the order will probably not affect energy prices long-term but is—hopefully—a final instance of Biden using state power to dictate the direction of energy markets. With a new Congress and presidential administration incoming, consumers and the environment would benefit from a federal government that allows markets to pick energy winners.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I thought his term ends on January 20, 2025. So the 20th amendment is non binding?
The constitution only binds republicans.
Biden’s handlers are trying to do as much damage as possible on the way out. And the democrats are claiming that somehow Trump can’t reverse his predecessor’s EO’s.
They truly hate this country and it’s citizens.
We might need to further revisit the lame duck period between an election loss and the new admin. Biden --- well, the ACTUAL folks in charge, anyway --- has behaved deplorably.
They belong in prison.
I find it odd that Democrats are arguing that an EO can't be undone when Biden took office and rescinded 100 or so on his first day. There is something odd about the way this law reads.
Where's Buttplug?
I'd like to see his excuses on this one.
No you wouldn't!
Rig count, bitches! - shrike probably.
That's a lot of Acts for a so-called free country
I've been told over and over that Reason never criticizes Democrats or Biden. This must be the very first time.
Well, now that he's out of office, it's safe.
Next up: Masks might just be talismans.
After that: Joe Biden isn't just old, he's got dementia.
Ideas™ !
RIG COUNT! SPITTIN' TOBACCY!
And child porn!
"Since the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act gives presidents considerable leeway to ban drilling but not to reverse said bans, overturning the order will likely require federal legislation."
Does the act prohibit reversal of the bans?
What you can do, you can undo.
I think you meant litigation, not legislation.
(speaking of legislation, it would be a hoot to have the house designate the republican national committee as the "other body" for the 25th amendment.
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.)
>> Does the act prohibit reversal of the bans?
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act allows the President to withdraw unleased lands in the outer continental shelf from eligibility to be leased (provision codified at 43 U.S. Code § 1341(a)).
No provision of the act allows the President to un-withdraw lands.
>> I think you meant litigation, not legislation.
The Congressional Review Act was mentioned, and that's a legislative procedure. A CRA reversal has to pass both houses of Congress like an ordinary law (including being subject to Presidential veto), but procedurally can't be filibustered.
CRA reversals have to be done in a limited time period (60 legislative session days), so they functionally are only useful for removing regulations enacted relatively late in an administration that is being followed by an opposite-party administration that also controls both houses of Congress. (Though passed in 1996, the first time it got any real use was 2017, when Trump and the Republican Congress killed 14 Obama Administration rules.)
One thing about a rule killed by the CRA is that it can't be re-enacted by the executive. It takes a real, fillibuster-able law to re-enable a rule killed by the CRA.
The open question here is whether an OCSLA withdrawal counts as a rule for the CRA, which is not obvious.
Hi, thanks for the article; however the title, "...halting oil production" seems misleading. The document you linked to says, "Nothing in this withdrawal affects rights under existing leases in the withdrawn areas."
No existing or even planned production is being halted, and these regions do not seem to be that great for production anyway.
This is the kind of thing that hurts Reason's credibility drawing attention away from the good work that is done.
AI Mthr fkr!
They drew that attention away a decade ago.
Cunning Stunt.
Was rig count a lie?!
Fuck Biden.
One man should not have enough power to force an entire industry to it's knees. End the Imperial Presidency and return to our Constitutional Form of Government with 3 Co-equal branches.
Trump may have been a mediocre president, but Biden has been a terrible and if not the absolute worst president one of the very worst presidents.
Biden has the lowest approval rating since 1952.
Dems really hated the US becoming energy independent under Trump. They truly are the party of elites now, where high energy prices don’t affect their ability to pay rent and put food on the table.
Using Climate Change as an excuse gives away the game. That is because it’s not a scientific theory, since Climate Change cannot be falsified, but a cargo cult religion. It uses the same arguments used for Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Warming, but can’t anymore, because, it, unlike Climate Change, could be, and was, falsified. The Artic and Antarctica didn’t melt. More Polar Bears than ever. The ocean didn’t uniformly rise (though some places rose, while others dropped a little). Etc. But then, if you look at raw temperature readings, the climate hasn’t gotten warmer (though warmer is probably good), instead of fudged and creatively interpolated US and UK government data, the climate really hasn’t gotten warmer. So, we are at the place with Climate Change, where regardless of whatever happens, whether there are more or fewer hurricanes (there are fewer, which is apparently supposed to be bad, somehow), more or less snowfall, etc, proves through Climate Change that the First World, and only the First World (China, in particular, being exempt - which itself is suspicious as to the origin of this nonsense), needs to reduce national (but not global) CO2 (a gas) emissions. Yes, it makes little logical sense. It doesn’t need to - it’s not science, rather, it’s a religion. Personally, and I think a huge number of Americans agree, going back to our Judeo-Christian roots is far healthier for this country as a national religion.
Americans have been paying for it for the past four years with sky high energy costs, double the costs for food and worse yet, unwanted illegal aliens.
With the price of ground beef at $6.50/lb. or even chicken is so expensive you have to think twice, along with every other commodity that is delivered or created through the use of oil, it is obvious Biden's policies are counter productive as well as destructive.
Of course, these are not ole Joe's policies but those of the Marxist ghews in the White House.
"The president’s ban on offshore oil and gas drilling perfectly encapsulates his top-down legacy on energy."
...and Biden's deep hatred of the United States and all us peasants.
Blame-Shifting in the details.
"The IRA created game-changing opportunities through energy incentives and tax credits for oil and gas entities to build infrastructure that existed for *clean energy* generation and production. "
Yeah; I knew there was a gotcha to that federal $500B claim.
It's all for "The weather changes" BS-alarm initiatives.
The hell of it is that Trump reversing it doesn't really accomplish much, unless they change the statute to take this power away from Presidents.
Off shore drilling is a long term investment, nobody is going to make the investment if they know there's a fair chance that a Democratic President is going to come along in 8 years to render a 10 year payback time investment worthless.
The Democrats have successfully made large sectors of the economy too risky to invest in, and they don't need to be in control much of the time to keep them that way. They just need to maintain the looming threat that a Democrat will in an election before your investment has paid off.
I mean, I get the principle you're talking about, and it's a good one, but in this specific case, no, that doesn't apply.
A) The statute -- 43 U.S. Code § 1341(a) -- only allows the President to withdraw "unleased lands". So there's no risk that somebody will invest a bunch of money and then have it yanked out from under them; nobody spends any money on development before they acquire the lease.
B) Trump probably can't reverse the withdrawal in any case, because 43 U.S. Code § 1341(a) doesn't provide for un-withdrawal.
C) If a withdrawal under the statute is something that can be reversed by a Congressional Review Act resolution (a court will probably have to decide that), and the CRA resolution goes through, then no future president would be able to re-withdraw them anyway, because the CRA has a no-backsies clause.
Biden is doing what he can to screw over America on the way out. Well his handlers are.
He's a bitter old man. Has been for what 40 years?