Carbajal called the plan \u201cfederal overreach\u201d and said the rationale had less to do with wartime necessity than with old allegiance to oil.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThis push for offshore leasing didn\u2019t start with the [2026 Iran] war,\u201d he said. \u201cIt has been in the works for months and months.\u201d He added that \u201cintroducing massive oil rigs and increased maritime traffic into these high-stake zones [areas with a concentration of military operations, such as Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton] creates unnecessary and hazardous interference with essential mission readiness.\u201d<\/p>\n
Carbajal\u2019s Democratic colleagues stood as one in agreement. Representative Mike Thompson, a Vietnam veteran, said the president \u201cisn\u2019t interested in bolstering our energy leadership\u201d and warned that expanded drilling would threaten both military operations and marine ecosystems.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Representative Mike Levin, whose district includes Camp Pendleton, called the administration\u2019s logic, one which champions oil and openly opposes offshore wind proposals<\/a>, internally absurd.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWhat national security risk exactly are they talking about from offshore wind?\u201d he asked. \u201cBecause there really isn\u2019t one.\u201d If anything, he said, fossil-fuel infrastructure is the real operational hazard.<\/p>\n Representative Derek Tran, whose district includes Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos, was more direct.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cOil spills are not a matter of if, but rather when,\u201d he said, warning that cleanup could sideline training operations for weeks or months.\u00a0<\/p>\n Congressmember Jimmy Panetta, a Navy veteran, argued that new drilling would \u201clock in fossil fuel dependence\u201d while exposing coastal infrastructure and military installations to added risk.<\/p>\n The most personal remarks came from Nick Borrelli, a Marine combat veteran and therapist who works with service members in ocean-based recovery.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe ocean is where I learned discipline as a Marine,\u201d he said, \u201cand it\u2019s where I found my way back to myself after coming home from combat.\u201d<\/p>\n All of that was clear. Less clear was the answer to a question at the center of the administration\u2019s case \u2014 and, closer to home, Sable Offshore\u2019s.<\/p>\n That argument goes like this: California\u2019s refining capacity has thinned; the state is effectively isolated when it comes to pipelines; coastal bases still require steady supplies of jet fuel and gasoline; and increased reliance on imports, particularly in a volatile global market, creates a national-security vulnerability. The administration and oil interests contend that additional in-state production could help relieve that pinch.<\/p>\n Asked directly whether California\u2019s refinery constraints pose a real risk to military fuel supply, Carbajal acknowledged part of the premise. \u201cTwenty percent of the fuel that is imported to California comes from Asia, where supplies are being strained due to the recent war,\u201d he said. But he quickly pivoted, blaming \u201cDonald Trump\u2019s dangerous and volatile military actions\u201d and adding, \u201cI don\u2019t know how they [California military bases] would be impacted in any way, shape, or form from the decisions that this administration is trying to advance.\u201d<\/p>\n Thompson\u2019s response remained broad. \u201cIt was a global market before refineries shut down, and it\u2019s going to be a global market after,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Neither response directly addressed whether California\u2019s coastal bases face any meaningful supply vulnerability \u2014 or whether any dedicated military fuel backstop exists.<\/p>\n Separate from supply is the question of risk \u2014 specifically, the risk of another spill.<\/p>\n Much of the ongoing legal fight over Sable\u2019s restart centers on whether the California State Fire Marshal or the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) should have final authority over the Sable pipeline. Asked what difference that makes, Carbajal said that \u201cCalifornia has stricter corrosion controls in place for pipelines that are high risk,\u201d Sable being one of them. Those standards, he said, are designed to prevent \u201canother catastrophic spill like the 1969 and 2015 spills.\u201d<\/p>\n Since the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill<\/a>, the question of who gets final say over pipeline restart has remained deeply contested. Sable maintains it has met safety requirements; state regulators say otherwise. A Santa Barbara judge recently upheld an injunction blocking restart<\/a>, reinforcing the Fire Marshal\u2019s authority under a prior federal agreement. The Trump administration, however, has argued that the Sable pipeline qualifies as interstate \u2014 despite not crossing state lines \u2014 and therefore falls under federal jurisdiction through PHMSA<\/a>. On Monday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued the Trump administration <\/a>over what he described as the \u201cillegal\u201d restart of Sable\u2019s oil production.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Screenshot-2026-03-27-at-12.20.47-PM.png\")
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management\u2019s 11th National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Draft Proposed Program Areas and Sale Years: Lower 48 States | Credit: BOEM![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Screenshot-2026-03-27-at-12.20.57-PM.png\")
California Military Installations and Operational Areas | Credit: Governor Newsom\u2019s Office<\/p>\n
![\"Kathy](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/1705455896357.jpg\")
![\"Santa](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/image-1-Large.jpeg\")