The slugging has gone both ways, but the state\u2019s losses have been piling up.<\/p>\n
In 2019, for example, the Trump administration essentially yanked away a decades-old legal waiver that had allowed California to set its own clean air rules. And, last year, the administration offered to pay wind-power companies to kill clean-energy projects that California regulators liked. Most recently, the administration invoked a national emergency declaration to override the state\u2019s objections to reopening an oil pipeline off the coast of Santa Barbara County.<\/p>\n
All that losing has led to friction, even among people who generally share a belief that regulating natural resources is good for public health and the economy.<\/p>\n
![\"Sands](\"https:\/\/www.ocregister.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/OCR-L-COASTAL-0719-02.jpg?w=620\")
<\/p>\n
Sands Beach next to Coal Oil Point Natural Reserve in Santa Barbara, Calif. on June 27, 2026. The region is prized for its gorgeous beaches and ocean views. It also sits on one of the world\u2019s richest offshore oil reserves. (Ariana Drehsler\/The New York Times)\n<\/p>\n
![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.ocregister.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/OCR-L-COASTAL-0719-04.jpg?w=620\")
<\/p>\n
The Trump administration is interested in increasing oil production in California. (AP Photo\/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)\n<\/p>\n
![\"California](\"https:\/\/www.ocregister.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/OCR-L-COASTAL-0719-03.jpg?w=620\")
<\/p>\n
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, center, surveys damage during the Palisades fire in January 2025. The governor later drafted executive orders aimed at speedy rebuilding, which bypassed some California Coastal Commission approvals.
\n(Photo by Jeff Gritchen, Orange County Register\/SCNG)\n<\/p>\n
Show Caption<\/p>\n
1 of 3<\/p>\n
Sands Beach next to Coal Oil Point Natural Reserve in Santa Barbara, Calif. on June 27, 2026. The region is prized for its gorgeous beaches and ocean views. It also sits on one of the world\u2019s richest offshore oil reserves. (Ariana Drehsler\/The New York Times)\n<\/p>\n
Expand<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cTrump has been pretty much kicking our (butts),\u201d said Jolie Anderson, a Santa Monica single mother who said she volunteers with Heal the Bay and other environmental organizations.<\/p>\n \u201cI have no idea who is responsible for that,\u201d she added. \u201cI don\u2019t think there\u2019s any one reason, or group, or whatever. It\u2019s, like, people (in the environmental community) agree on big issues, but can\u2019t get out of their own way when some other people want to do something that\u2019s really bad for the ocean or the air or land.<\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s frustrating.\u201d<\/p>\n For its part, the state has fought back in court.<\/p>\n California currently is suing the Trump administration on a number of environmental fronts, including Trump\u2019s effort to reopen offshore oil exploration and Trump\u2019s move to spend $2 billion in congressionally allocated tax money to kill the wind projects. So far, none of the applicable open cases has moved up to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n It\u2019s just business<\/p>\n The ideological divide driving the fight isn\u2019t in dispute.<\/p>\n Trump and members of his administration have been openly disdainful of California\u2019s environmental regulations, saying they\u2019re bad for the economy in general and particularly bad for oil and gas operators that want to do business off the coast. The Coastal Commission \u2013 a 50-year-old, voter-created agency that is widely viewed as both a consistent protector of the state\u2019s 834-mile coast and, at times, mind-numbingly bureaucratic \u2013 is viewed by Trump officials as a ripe target.<\/p>\n In May, after the Coastal Commission raised what the administration described as \u201cunfounded objections\u201d to a request for more commercial space launches by Elon Musk\u2019s SpaceX out of Vandenberg Space Force Base, the administration announced its plan to use federal law to try to rein in the agency.<\/p>\n At the time, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick also expressed personal disdain for the state\u2019s stance on environmental protection.<\/p>\n \u201cObstructionist policies that delay critical national infrastructure in the name of environmental extremism are unacceptable. NOAA (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) will conduct its reviews consistent with the plain text of the (Coastal Zone Management Act), ensuring states give proper weight to economic development and the nation\u2019s priorities.\u201d<\/p>\n Environmental advocates are equally disdainful of Trump.<\/p>\n They note that Trump openly sought $1 billion from oil industry executives<\/a> while running for a second term and, since his return to power, he\u2019s tried to deliver on a promise<\/a> to use the presidency to boost that industry\u2019s profits. Some use terms such as \u201cinane\u201d and \u201cflat-out stupid\u201d to describe Trump\u2019s efforts to roll back non-carbon businesses, such as electric cars and wind power.<\/p>\n And, critically, many argue that the administration\u2019s definition of \u201cpriorities\u201d referenced in Lutnick\u2019s public comment is actually limited to just a few industries, particularly oil and gas. Some add that such industrial favoritism is a threat to the overall economy.<\/p>\n \u201cThe story that is not being told right now is that probably the largest constituency in opposition to what Trump is doing, regarding the Coastal Commission and environmental deregulation in general, is the business community,\u201d said Grant Bixby, a Newport Beach real estate broker and member of the Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast, a group that includes more than 8,200 members of both political parties.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen this administration says it wants to be \u2018business friendly,\u2019 it\u2019s referring to oil and gas. But other businesses are harmed by that.<\/p>\n \u201cAs a business person, you sometimes have to make tough choices, and you may have to upset somebody. We understand that,\u201d Bixby added.<\/p>\n \u201cBut it really doesn\u2019t make economic sense, in our view, to try to appease that one industry. It\u2019s actually bad for the overall economy.\u201d<\/p>\n Oversight or intimidation?<\/p>\n Technically, the upcoming \u201cperformance review\u201d of California\u2019s coastal environmental regulation work won\u2019t be limited to the Coastal Commission.<\/p>\n The public hearings<\/a> slated to be held live, Aug. 10 at the Hilton Santa Monica Hotel, and online Aug. 11 and 12 (to attend, register via email to czma.california-evaluation@noaa.gov by Aug. 8) will look at the state\u2019s Coastal Management Program, which includes the California Coastal Commission, the California Coastal Conservancy and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.<\/p>\n Roughly 10% of the Coastal Commission\u2019s $48 million annual budget is federally financed, and all three state agencies get some money from Washington. Because of that, the agencies all come under federal oversight as part of the Coastal Zone Management Act.<\/p>\n It\u2019s unclear what, if anything, the review can do to change the state\u2019s environmental stance. The amount of federal funding for the Coastal Commission and other agencies isn\u2019t so large that it can\u2019t be recouped in Sacramento. And the federal government \u2013 for now \u2013 doesn\u2019t have a powerful voice in how states choose to regulate public resources.<\/p>\n But some environmental advocates fear the fight is about attitude and power, and that anti-regulatory voices in Washington, and elsewhere, are shouting down long-held environmental goals.<\/p>\n \u201cThis fight is basically about intimidation,\u201d said Garry Brown, founder of Orange County Coastkeeper, a Costa Mesa-based nonprofit that works to protect the ocean and other water quality in the region.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Trump administration is unhappy with the Coastal Commission for a lot of reasons; for SpaceX, and for offshore oil, the list goes on. But the real goal is to override the state\u2019s right to set its own agenda. That\u2019s the big picture here.\u201d<\/p>\n As part of the review, officials from NOAA will hear from members of the public, business leaders, and others, to see if the state is doing enough to help \u201cspaceport infrastructure, offshore oil production, pipeline maintenance, desalination projects and undersea cables.\u201d<\/p>\n At least some in the administration have already determined that the Coastal Commission isn\u2019t doing well at any of that.<\/p>\n \u201cUnder my leadership, I say this: \u2018No more,\u2019\u201d Commerce Secretary Lutnick wrote, in May, as part of the department\u2019s first step to review the Coastal Commission.<\/p>\n Until the latest move from the Trump administration, the Coastal Commission was facing similar, if less strident, criticism from some liberal lawmakers in California.<\/p>\n Last year, days after wildfires devastated huge swaths of Los Angeles County, Gov. Gavin Newsom moved to sideline the agency<\/a> from playing a big role in fire-related rebuilding. At the time, Newsom was taking up common cause with Trump, who threatened to withhold federal rebuilding money unless the state defunded the Coastal Commission.<\/p>\n Since then, legislators in Sacramento have proposed more than two dozen laws that would, in some way, change how the Coastal Commission regulates projects that could affect ocean health and beach access.<\/p>\n