Trump administration orders restart of oil drilling along California coast amid Iran war97%

By Clara Harter64%

3/14/2026, 12:57:55 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Left Leaning Bias, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 87.7% saturation with 501 hits. Analysis detected 2,363 faulty-reasoning hits from 571 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 95.3% and a BS Rank of 97% (671 of 21,198 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 96.80% of the article peer group.

The Trump administration invoked a Cold War-era law to restart offshore drilling in Southern California, citing national security needs to produce more oil amid the Iran war. 
Gov. Newsom accused Trump of using the pretext of war to open California’s coastline to Big Oil, said this “wouldn’t lower prices.” 
Environmental advocates express alarm about orders to restart offshore drilling at the site of a devastating 2015 oil spill in Santa Barbara. 
President Trump is asserting executive authority to demand the controversial resumption of offshore oil drilling along California’s coastline as gas prices soar amid the ongoing war with Iran. 
On Friday, Trump signed an executive order giving the Department of Energy the ability to use a Cold War-era law known as the Defense Production Act to accelerate oil and gas development. 
Energy Secretary Chris Wright quickly responded with an order directing Sable Offshore Corp. to restore operations of the Santa Ynez Unit and Santa Ynez Pipeline System along the Santa Barbara County coast. 
“Today’s order will strengthen America’s oil supply and restore a pipeline system vital to our national security and defense, ensuring that West Coast military installations have the reliable energy critical to military readiness,” Wright said in a statement. 
Gov. Gavin Newsom blasted the action as “an attempt to illegally restart a pipeline whose operators are facing criminal charges and prohibited by multiple court orders from restarting.” 
He pledged legal action against the move. 
“Donald Trump started a war, admitted it would spike gas prices nationwide, and told Americans it was a small price to pay,” Newsom said. 
“Now he’s using this crisis of his own making to attempt what he’s wanted to do for years: open California’s coast for his oil industry friends so they can poison our beaches.” 
Friday’s announcements seek to make good on previous threats from the Trump administration to force the resumption of offshore oil drilling in California. 
They also follow years of effort from Houston-based Sable Offshore Corp. to revive dormant oil infrastructure along the Santa Barbara County coast. 
Environmental organizations, local residents and state political leaders have strongly opposed such resumption, citing potential dangers to ocean health. 
Sable has faced particular backlash over its efforts to restart a pipeline that ruptured in 2015, causing one of the biggest oil spills in state history. 
Talia Nimmer, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, decried Trump’s executive action as a “revolting power grab by an extremist president.” 
“Trump is misusing this Cold War-era law just to help a Texas oil company skirt vital state laws that protect our coastline, and Californians will pay the price,” Nimmer said in a statement. 
Mandating a restart of these defective oil pipelines won’t curb high gas prices, but it will put coastal wildlife at huge risk of another oil spill.” 
Sable’s Santa Barbara County facilities could produce around 50,000 barrels of oil a day, replacing nearly 1.5 million barrels of foreign crude each month, according to the Department of Energy. 
Still, this represents a drop in the bucket compared with the estimated 20 million barrels a day currently held up by Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz in response to ongoing American and Israeli attacks. 
Two weeks into the Iran war, crude oil has reached $100 a barrel, and the average price of gas in California has topped $5.40 a gallon, according to the American Automobile Assn. 
Times staff writer Grace Toohey contributed to this report. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.8%Clara Harter: 4.3%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias8.8%This article: 5.3%Clara Harter: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Anchoring Bias5.3%This article: 8.4%Clara Harter: 5.4%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic8.4%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 87.7%Clara Harter: 9.8%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect87.7%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Clara Harter: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias10.9%This article: 47.6%Clara Harter: 11.8%Daily Pilot: 7.7%Negativity Bias47.6%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 15.4%Clara Harter: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias15.4%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 28.4%Clara Harter: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem28.4%This article: 3.9%Clara Harter: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man3.9%This article: 17.5%Clara Harter: 5.2%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority17.5%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 10.2%Clara Harter: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope10.2%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 2.4%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 17.7%Clara Harter: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring17.7%This article: 3.3%Clara Harter: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon3.3%This article: 36.6%Clara Harter: 8.6%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion36.6%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 19.4%Clara Harter: 2.1%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.4%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.3%Clara Harter: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division6.3%This article: 8.4%Clara Harter: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal8.4%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 2.5%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 4.1%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 51.0%Clara Harter: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias51.0%This article: 27.1%Clara Harter: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias27.1%This article: 0.0%Clara Harter: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

571 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.