On Friday, January 24, 2026, California has thrown down the gauntlet in a legal battle with the Trump administration over who controls the fate of two oil pipelines within its borders.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) for asserting federal jurisdiction over two pipelines located entirely within the state, from Santa Barbara County to Kern County, and approving their restart by Sable Offshore Corp.
This marks the 55th legal action by California against the administration, centering on whether state or federal authority should govern the pipelines, which do not cross state lines or extend into federal waters. While California argues for its autonomy, the administration’s move raises broader questions about where the line should be drawn.
These pipelines carry the weight of a grim past. According to Fox News, back in 2015, one of the Los Flores pipelines ruptured due to corrosion, unleashing the Refugio oil spill that dumped over 100,000 gallons of crude into the environment, with at least 21,000 gallons reaching the ocean.
Now, PHMSA’s green light to Sable Offshore Corp. to restart operations has reignited old fears. California contends that oversight lies with the state, given the pipelines’ purely intrastate route.
Attorney General Bonta isn’t mincing words on this. “PHMSA’s approval of the restart of the pipeline is the latest example of Trump doing the oil industry’s bidding,” he declared.
Bonta’s frustration is palpable when he insists, “Oversight of the pipelines is controlled by California, not the federal government.” That’s a fair point—why should a state be sidelined on infrastructure within its borders?
The claim by Sable Offshore Corp. that these pipelines tie into a broader system reaching federal waters on the outer continental shelf seems like a stretch to critics. Bonta calls it a pretext.
The stakes here are about principle. When a state’s ability to protect its own environment is undermined, it sets a dangerous precedent for other industries and regions.
Let’s not forget the ghost of Refugio lingering over this decision. A repeat of 2015 would be catastrophic, and many argue California is better positioned to enforce rigorous safety checks than a federal agency potentially swayed by industry ties.
This is a test of how much a state can safeguard its own backyard. If PHMSA’s ruling holds, what stops other federal agencies from overriding local decisions on everything from water rights to energy projects?
Supporters of the administration might argue that a unified federal approach ensures consistency across states. But consistency at the cost of local expertise and accountability feels like a hollow victory.
The heart of this lawsuit is simple: who gets to call the shots? Bonta and California are fighting to keep that power close to home, where the impact of a spill would be felt most acutely.
Yet, the Trump administration’s move through PHMSA signals a belief that national interests—or perhaps industry priorities—take precedence.
As this legal battle unfolds, the outcome will ripple beyond California’s borders. It’s a fight over more than pipelines—it’s about the balance of power in a nation where states and feds often see eye to eye on very little. Let’s hope the resolution prioritizes safety over politics, whatever the jurisdiction.