Sabotaging America’s Energy Future for Political Games – Watts Up With That?

It’s hard to view the Biden administration’s last-minute moves to withdraw 264,000 acres of federal land in Nevada’s Ruby Mountains from oil, gas, and geothermal development as anything but an exercise in obstruction. This isn’t about protecting the environment—it’s about tying the hands of an incoming administration poised to reverse disastrous climate policies. In the waning days of Biden’s presidency—or more accurately, in the waning days of an administration largely piloted by climate-obsessed staffers—the White House has ensured that its progressive priorities will remain legally sticky, even as the reins of power shift to a more rational energy policy.

The Biden administration’s gambit, which proposes a 20-year withdrawal of these lands from leasing, conveniently includes a two-year temporary leasing prohibition while the process meanders through the public comment phase. This puts the lands off-limits almost immediately, erecting a bureaucratic wall for any incoming administration. Yet, if there’s one thing the past few decades of governance have taught us, it’s that no regulation or policy is immune to challenge when approached with the right mix of legal acumen and political will.

The Real Motive: Entrenchment by Design

This isn’t just about protecting the Ruby Mountains. After all, even environmentalists admit there are no known oil reserves in the area, with some lamenting that the “urgent threat” is gold mining—an industry unaffected by this withdrawal. Instead, this is the latest chapter in a broader strategy by climate warriors to create legal and procedural tripwires to stymie any rollback of their agenda. By initiating the withdrawal just weeks before the administration changes hands, they seek to cloak their decisions in the shroud of legality, betting on the complexities of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and potential lawsuits to discourage or delay reversal.

To their credit, it’s a savvy play. By using the machinery of government to amplify their ideological priorities, they’ve thrown down a gauntlet that the next administration will need to pick up carefully if it intends to return sanity to federal energy policy.

What Can Be Done? An Action Plan for Reversal

For the incoming administration, time is of the essence. Fortunately, this particular gambit, while troublesome, is far from insurmountable. Since the withdrawal is still within the public comment period when new agency leadership takes over, there are straightforward pathways to undoing this politically motivated maneuver. Here’s how:

1. Decline to Finalize the Rule

The easiest way to deal with this proposed withdrawal is simply to let it die on the vine. Under the APA, the incoming leaders of the relevant agencies—likely the Department of the Interior—have the discretion to review all public comments and decide whether or not to move forward. The Trump administration can simply conclude that comments opposing the withdrawal carry more weight and opt not to finalize the rule.

This approach avoids the procedural complexity of undoing a finalized withdrawal and sidesteps the two-year temporary prohibition. Once the rule is abandoned, the lands revert to their previous status, making oil, gas, and geothermal leasing immediately available.

2. Build a Strong, Reasoned Justification

If environmental groups or other stakeholders attempt to sue over the decision to abandon the rule, the administration must be prepared to defend its actions. Courts demand a “reasoned explanation” for any policy shift, meaning the administration must clearly articulate why the proposed withdrawal is unnecessary or harmful. The rationale could include:

• The absence of known oil reserves, rendering the withdrawal pointless as a practical matter.
• The economic harm to local communities, particularly in terms of lost opportunities for geothermal energy development.
• The narrow focus on oil and gas, while leaving mining activities untouched, exposing the withdrawal as arbitrary.

3. Rescind the Temporary Withdrawal

The Biden administration’s two-year leasing prohibition, implemented while the rule is under consideration, is another hurdle that the Trump administration could tackle directly. By issuing an executive order or agency memorandum, the new leadership can cancel the temporary freeze and restart leasing processes immediately. This might provoke legal challenges, but with sound reasoning and proper documentation, such an action is likely defensible.

Time to Call Out the Farce

What’s particularly galling about this whole episode is the blatant bad faith on display. The Ruby Mountains, as noted by the U.S. Forest Service in 2019, are unsuitable for oil and gas development, and conservationists themselves acknowledge there’s no viable oil to be found. The real aim here is to signal virtue to environmentalist allies while throwing procedural roadblocks in front of an administration determined to restore energy independence. The theater kids running this show are less interested in real-world outcomes than in satisfying their ideological fan base.

Conclusion: Undoing the Damage

The Biden administration’s Ruby Mountains withdrawal is a textbook example of using regulatory theatrics to pursue political goals under the guise of conservation. It’s not about protecting lands or species—it’s about binding the hands of future leaders with red tape and legal complexity. Fortunately, the incoming Trump administration has tools at its disposal to reverse course quickly and effectively.

By refusing to finalize the rule, rescinding the temporary freeze, and articulating a clear defense of its decisions, the Trump administration can ensure that America’s energy future isn’t held hostage to environmentalist dogma. It’s time to call out these games for what they are: an ideologically driven attempt to sabotage responsible energy policy. The new administration has the opportunity—and the obligation—to restore common sense to federal land management, putting the needs of the American people ahead of political theater.