Trump plans to 'immediately' reverse Biden's 'ridiculous' ban on new oil and gas drilling along US coast

Fox News - Jan 6th, 2025

President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to reverse President Biden's recent executive order banning new offshore oil and gas drilling along most of the U.S. coastline. This ban, issued under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, spans approximately 625 million acres and targets areas along the East and West coasts, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and parts of Alaska’s Northern Bering Sea. Trump criticized the ban, deeming it detrimental to the U.S. economy and has vowed to 'unban' it immediately upon taking office. However, reversing this order poses significant challenges due to a 2019 court ruling stating that the act does not allow presidents to overturn bans set by previous administrations without Congressional approval. The immediate impact of this ban is the halting of new offshore drilling leases, which Trump argues could hinder efforts to lower energy prices and increase domestic energy production.

The executive order aligns with Biden's broader green energy agenda aimed at addressing climate change and protecting coastal environments from potential drilling impacts. Biden emphasized the importance of safeguarding coastal communities and transitioning to a clean energy economy, framing his decision as a necessary step for future generations. This move has sparked political contention, with voices like Trump’s spokeswoman, Karoline Leavitt, condemning it as politically motivated and harmful to American energy independence. This development is significant as it reflects the ongoing tension between environmental conservation efforts and energy industry interests, highlighting the complexities of U.S. energy policy and its intersection with climate objectives.

Donald Trump Joe Biden Climate Change Energy Policy Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Biden Executive Order Offshore Drilling Ban U.S. Coastline

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a controversial topic involving energy policy decisions by President Biden and former President Trump, focusing on offshore drilling. While it provides some factual information, it lacks in-depth sourcing and exhibits potential bias, particularly in how it frames the narrative around the political motivations of the actions discussed. The clarity is generally good, but there are areas where more context and balance could improve the reader's understanding.

Accuracy

The article accurately reports on President Biden's executive order to ban new offshore drilling across much of the U.S. coastline, as well as Trump's intent to reverse this decision if elected. However, it includes some misleading elements, such as referring to Trump as 'President-elect,' which is factually incorrect given the context. The article cites the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) correctly as the legislative basis for Biden's decision but does not provide in-depth evidence or links to primary sources. The reference to a federal judge's ruling in 2019 about the OCSLA adds some factual grounding, but the lack of direct quotes or data weakens its accuracy.

Balance

The article exhibits a noticeable bias in favor of Trump’s perspective, emphasizing his plans and criticisms of Biden's order. It presents Trump's statements prominently and uses emotive language like 'disgraceful decision' and 'political revenge,' which implies a partisan stance. Biden’s rationale for the ban, focusing on climate change and environmental protection, is included but not explored with the same depth or emphasis as Trump's perspective. The article lacks viewpoints from neutral experts or environmental groups, creating an imbalance in the representation of perspectives.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in presenting the events and statements related to the offshore drilling ban. The structure is logical, with a straightforward presentation of the sequence of events. However, the language occasionally shifts into emotive territory, which might detract from the neutrality of the presentation. While the article provides a clear narrative, it could enhance clarity by offering more detailed explanations of the legal and environmental aspects involved, potentially confusing readers unfamiliar with the topic.

Source quality

The article primarily relies on statements from political figures such as Trump and Biden without citing external expert sources or independent studies that could provide additional context and credibility. The lack of interviews with neutral parties or references to scientific data about the environmental impacts of offshore drilling limits the reliability of the information presented. The article also fails to provide links or references to the executive order, the OCSLA, or the 2019 federal ruling, which would enhance source quality.

Transparency

The article provides basic context about the executive order and the legal challenges involved but lacks transparency regarding the background of the cited figures and the political implications. It does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or the basis for the claims made by the political figures quoted. The piece could benefit from more information on how the executive order fits into broader energy policy and climate change initiatives, as well as a clearer explanation of the legal processes Trump would face if attempting to reverse the ban.