SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
September, 29 2023, 09:57am EDT
Contact:
Cory Gunkel, cgunkel@oceana.org
Megan Jordan, mjordan@oceana.org
President Biden Fails to Deliver on Promise to End New Offshore Drilling
United States to expand offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, putting communities and climate in jeopardy
President Biden announced plans today to expand offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico as part of his final proposed National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2023-2028. The new Five-Year Plan includes three new offshore oil and gas leases, covering an area that stretches from Texas to the Florida Panhandle.
Oceana’s Vice President for the United States, Beth Lowell, condemned the new leasing program and criticized President Biden for failing to keep his promise to prevent new drilling in U.S. waters:
“By failing to end new offshore drilling, President Biden missed an easy opportunity to do the right thing and deliver on climate for the American people. This decision is beyond disappointing, as Americans face the impacts of the growing climate crisis through more frequent and intense fires, droughts, hurricanes, and floods. President Biden is unfortunately showing the world that it’s okay to continue to prioritize polluters over real climate solutions. Expanding dirty and dangerous offshore drilling only exacerbates the climate catastrophe that is already at our doorstep. Unfortunately, it’s our coastal communities who will bear the immediate impact of this shortsighted decision.”
The Five-Year Plan is expected to be approved in December by Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland, following a statutory 60-day review period by Congress.
In a 2020 presidential debate, then-Senator Joe Biden told Americans, “I can guarantee you if I am president, there will be no offshore drilling.”
Despite that vow, the Biden administration will now expand offshore oil and gas development with three proposed lease sales scheduled in 2025, 2027, and 2029. The leases offer federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico, a region Oceana says has already been overburdened by the devastating impacts of offshore drilling.
“Every new drilling lease is a disaster waiting to happen,” Lowell said. “We know when companies drill, they spill, and offshore disasters impact communities, people, and businesses who rely upon a healthy ocean. Offshore drilling also fuels the climate crisis that will impact every single person living in the United States, but it will be low-income and marginalized groups who are disproportionately impacted. We can’t accept the consequences from President Biden’s failure to act. Congress must immediately reject this proposal during the review period and prevent all new leases on federal waters.”
A 2021 analysis by Oceana found that protecting all unleased federal waters from offshore drilling in the United States could prevent over 19 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions. That is the equivalent of taking every car in the nation off the road for 15 years. Ending new leasing could have also prevented more than $720 billion in damage to people, property, and the environment.
The three new leases will add to the more than 2,000 leases the oil industry already holds, according to a recent Oceana report. That totals more than 11 million acres of ocean, with 75% of those acres currently sitting unused.
For more information about Oceana’s campaign to stop the expansion of offshore drilling in the United States, please click here.
Oceana is the largest international ocean conservation and advocacy organization. Oceana works to protect and restore the world's oceans through targeted policy campaigns.
LATEST NEWS
Government Watchdog: Trump Administration Illegally Withheld EV Charger Funds
"These bipartisan investments need to start flowing immediately," the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee said of the GAO finding as a lawsuit over the funding got a boost from green groups.
May 22, 2025
Key congressional Democrats on Thursday welcomed a government watchdog's finding that the Trump administration unlawfully withheld appropriated funds for building electric vehicle charging infrastructure across the United States‚ a decision that came as advocacy groups joined a related lawsuit filed by state attorneys general.
Shortly after returning to office in January, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing agencies to pause disbursement of funds appropriated under the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, specifically mentioning the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program.
In response, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and one of its agencies, the Federal Highway Administration, in February canceled previously issued guidance for the NEVI program and suspended plans that states had submitted for grant money—which led to calls for Congress to stand up to the administration's "illegal attempts to halt legally mandated funding."
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in its Thursday decision that the department violated the Impoundment Control Act: "DOT is not authorized to withhold these funds from expenditure and DOT must continue to carry out the statutory requirements of the program. While DOT cannot withhold these funds under the ICA, DOT could propose funds for rescission or otherwise propose legislation to make changes to the NEVI Formula Program for consideration by Congress."
"The Trump administration didn't just break the law—it shortchanged the American people."
Politicoreported that "the GAO could issue similar rulings in the coming months, as the independent, nonpartisan watchdog agency works through at least 39 investigations into whether the Trump administration violated the Impoundment Control Act. GAO rulings are nonbinding but could influence Congress' response to... Trump's freezing of billions of dollars lawmakers intended to flow to specific programs and projects, as well as the many ongoing lawsuits challenging the president's tactics."
In a Thursday statement about the GAO findings, U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said, "This legal decision affirms what we've long known: The president is breaking the law to block funding Congress passed on a bipartisan basis and that is owed to the American people—simply because he disagrees with it. This plain fact is unacceptable—and it cannot stand any longer."
"Congress passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law by wide margins and specifically provided funding for every state to build out a network of chargers for the electric vehicles that families are increasingly turning to and that are being made right here in America, she continued. "These investments should be getting out the door—creating new jobs and helping Americans get where they need to go without interruption—but President Trump has illegally choked this funding off."
"These bipartisan investments need to start flowing immediately—as do the hundreds of billions of dollars in other investments President Trump is holding up," she added, taking aim at his Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director. "I don't care about Russ Vought's personal interpretation of our spending laws; the Constitution is clear, and President Trump simply does not have the power of the purse—Congress does."
House Budget Committee Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) released a similar statement welcoming the GAO's new legal opinion that "the Trump administration broke the law when it blocked funding that Congress had already approved."
"That money was supposed to build and maintain a nationwide EV charging network—and with it, create good-paying jobs in communities across the country," he stressed. "Instead, the administration stalled economic growth, delayed critical infrastructure, and undermined job creation—all without a shred of legal authority."
"This wasn't just a legal violation. It was an economic setback for American workers, and a direct hit to the communities counting on these investments," Boyle added. "The Trump administration didn't just break the law—it shortchanged the American people."
According to Politico, while the DOT could not be reached for comment, an OMB spokesperson called GAO's opinion "wrong" and said the department is "appropriately using the authority granted to it by statute to review state plans."
Standing up for cleaner vehicles and clean air. @sierraclub.org @climatesolutions.org @earthjustice.org and allies sue Trump Admin for illegally impounding funds that Congress appropriated for EV charging. www.sierraclub.org/press-releas...
[image or embed]
— Ross Macfarlane (@rossmacfarlane.bsky.social) May 22, 2025 at 3:53 PM
The attorneys general of 16 states and the District of Columbia disagree, and have filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The Sierra Club, CleanAIRE N.C., Climate Solutions, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, Plug In America, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, the Southern Environmental Law Center, and the West End Revitalization Association joined that legal challenge on Thursday.
"Donald Trump is trying to cut jobs, increase pollution, and endanger our health. We refuse to let him," said Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous in a statement. "NEVI benefits everyone, whether you drive an EV or not, and the only people who benefit from blocking it are Big Oil and auto executives seeking to keep us hooked on fossil fuel-powered cars, while communities in every corner of the country lose out on infrastructure investments in our growing clean energy economy."
"The NEVI program is working and states are legally entitled to the money allocated to them by Congress," Jealous added. "Once again, we are taking the Trump administration to court over its reckless and illegal actions."
Keep ReadingShow Less
These Six Republicans Stand to Profit After Breaking Their Vow to Protect Medicaid
"Millions of Americans will see their healthcare, food, and education costs skyrocket, all so House Republicans can hand themselves and their wealthiest donors a huge tax break."
May 22, 2025
Just five weeks after pledging that they would not support the Republican Party's budget reconciliation package if it included cuts to Medicaid, six GOP lawmakers ultimately did just that on Thursday morning—and an analysis by government watchdog Accountable.US suggested they voted for the legislation to benefit themselves, despite the suffering it would cause for their constituents.
Along with cutting Medicaid for close to 14 million Americans and slashing nearly $300 billion in food assistance, the bill Republicans voted on in the early morning hours after weeks of deliberation included a tax policy proposal to expand a provision called Section 199A, which was previously introduced during the first Trump administration as part of the GOP's original law providing tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.
The bill that passed in the House Thursday would raise the percentage of qualifying business income—such as rental income—people can deduct from their taxes from 20% to 23%. The provision is now set to expire at the end of the year.
If it's extended as written in the reconciliation bill, Accountable.US identified six Republican House members who could directly benefit from the expansion of the "pass-through deduction": Reps. Rob Bresnahan of Pennsylvania, Rob Wittman of Virginia, Jen Kiggans of Virginia, Young Kim of California, Juan Ciscomani of Arizona, and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey.
Those six lawmakers were among the 12 who last month wrote to GOP leaders to say they represent "districts with high rates of constituents who depend on Medicaid" and to "reiterate our strong support for this program that ensures our constituents have reliable healthcare."
"We cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations," wrote the lawmakers last month. "Cuts to Medicaid also threaten the viability of hospitals, nursing homes, and safety-net providers, nationwide. Many hospitals—particularly in rural and underserved areas—rely heavily on Medicaid funding, with some receiving over half their revenue from the program alone."
"It is the peak of hypocrisy that the loudest and most vocal opponents of Medicaid cuts cowered in a matter of days in favor of a bill that will make the largest cuts to Medicaid in modern history—all to pay for lower taxes for the richest."
With the six Republican members poised to earn thousands more each year from the pass-through income deduction, those concerns appeared to have evaporated on Thursday.
"It is the peak of hypocrisy that the loudest and most vocal opponents of Medicaid cuts cowered in a matter of days in favor of a bill that will make the largest cuts to Medicaid in modern history—all to pay for lower taxes for the richest," said Tony Carrk, executive director of Accountable.US. "Even worse, those very members stand to financially gain from those tax cuts, while their own constituents lose their healthcare. Their votes aren't just a flip-flop; they are a betrayal to hardworking Americans everywhere who will be worse off because of this bill."
Accountable's Cash in Congress project found that for the 2023 tax filing year, the six members of Congress earned a combined $327,000 in pass-through income, according to financial disclosures.
Bresnahan stands to benefit the most from the extension of Section 199A, The American Prospectreported, as he earned at least $137,000 from rental properties. Out of the six lawmakers, he also represents the most Medicaid beneficiaries: 230,000.
Wittman reported $105,000 or more in pass-through rental income, and represents 125,000 people who receive Medicaid. Kiggans reported $50,000 and represents 130,000 people who use the healthcare program for low-income Americans.
All together, reported The American Prospect, the lawmakers represent 971,000 Medicaid beneficiaries who could be affected by a work requirement amendment that would go into effect at the end of 2026 and other provisions.
"Millions of Americans will see their healthcare, food, and education costs skyrocket, all so House Republicans can hand themselves and their wealthiest donors a huge tax break," said Accountable. "The only 'winners' in this bill are the billionaires that paid for it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Intolerable Attack,' Trump DHS Blocks Harvard From Enrolling International Students
"There is no purpose to this other than to hurt Harvard and its students for not fully capitulating to Trump," a professor at the University of Denver wrote.
May 22, 2025
Observers are sharply condemning a decision by the Trump administration, announced on Thursday, to terminate Harvard University's Student Exchange and Visitor Program certification, meaning that the Ivy League school will no longer be able to enroll foreign students.
According to the announcement from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the move also means that foreign students already enrolled at Harvard must transfer elsewhere. The administration alleges the school's leaders have permitted "anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students."
In a statement shared with multiple outlets, a spokesperson for the school called the Trump administration's actions "unlawful."
"This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard's academic and research mission," the spokesperson said.
Harvard has over 6,700 international students, according to data from the school, or 27% international enrollment.
"This intolerable attack on Harvard's independence and academic freedom is plainly government retaliation for Harvard's speech standing up for itself and the rule of law. America must rally to the side of Harvard and its students in court, in Congress and in our communities," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who earned his undergraduate and law degrees from the school, wrote on Thursday.
"I am losing my mind with the lawlessness of this administration," wroteDevin Driscoll, a lawyer, on X on Thursday. "The government is singling out Harvard because they don't like it and it's fighting back."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, an immigration lawyer, wrote that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's "action is also likely illegal. She doesn't name a single rule Harvard is alleged to have violated and SEVP certification can't be terminated discretionarily."
Seth Masket, a political science professor at the University of Denver, wrote on Bluesky that "there is no purpose to this other than to hurt Harvard and its students for not fully capitulating to [President Donald] Trump."
Harvard has been repeatedly in the Trump administration's crosshairs. In March, the Trump administration sent letters to 60 universities, including Harvard, letting them know they were under investigation and "warning them of potential enforcement actions" if they do not take adequate steps to protect Jewish students. The administration later said it was reviewing $9 billion in funding for Harvard, claiming it had not done enough to curb antisemitism.
In April, after the administration issued a list of demands to Harvard which the university's president refused to comply with, the administration froze over $2 billion in funding for the school. Harvard has sued the Trump administration over that funding. Trump has also said he will revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status.
Also in April, the Trump administration threatened to prevent the school's ability to enroll international students unless it gave DHS a list of requested information about student visa holders.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular