Destroying America’s energy future for political games—does Watt support that?

The Biden administration’s last-minute move to withdraw 264,000 acres of federal land from oil, gas and geothermal development in Nevada’s Ruby Mountains can hardly be seen as an act of obstructionism. This is not about protecting the environment, but about tying the hands of the incoming administration to reverse disastrous climate policies. In the final days of the Biden presidency — or, more accurately, the final days of an administration led largely by a climate-obsessed staff — the White House has ensured that its progressive priorities will remain legally sticky, Even if the control of power is transferred to energy policy it is more reasonable.

The Biden administration's strategy is to propose eliminating leases on these lands over 20 years, conveniently including a two-year temporary ban on leasing while the process proceeds during a public comment phase. This almost immediately makes these lands off-limits, erecting a bureaucratic wall for any incoming administration. However, if the last few decades of governance have taught us one thing, it is that no regulation or policy is immune to challenge given the right combination of legal acumen and political will.

The real motivation: solidification by design

It’s not 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 “imminent threat” is gold mining – an industry unaffected by the withdrawal. Rather, it is the latest chapter in the climate warriors’ broader strategy to erect legal and procedural tripwires to prevent any rollback of their agenda. By initiating the reversal weeks before the government changes hands, they seek to hide their decision under the guise of legality, betting on the complexity of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and potential litigation to prevent or delay the reversal.

To its credit, this was a shrewd play. By using the machinery of government to reinforce their ideological priorities, they are challenging the next administration to do so carefully if it intends to restore sanity to federal energy policy.

What can be done? reversal action plan

For the incoming administration, time is of the essence. Fortunately, this particular strategy, while troublesome, is not insurmountable. Since the withdrawal is still within the public comment period when new agency leadership takes over, there is a direct path to undoing this politically motivated move. Here's how:

1. Refuse to finalize rules

The easiest way to handle the withdrawal of this proposal is to let it die on the vine. Under the APA, the new leader of the relevant agency, such as the Interior Department, has the authority to review all public comments and decide whether to move forward. The Trump administration could simply conclude that the comments against troop withdrawal carry more weight and choose not to finalize the rule.

This approach avoids the procedural complexities of revoking a final exit and sidesteps a two-year interim ban. Once the rules are waived, the land is restored to its previous condition, making oil, gas and geothermal leases immediately available.

2. Build a strong, sound case

The government must be prepared to defend its actions if environmental groups or other interested parties attempt to challenge the decision to waive the rule. The court requires a “reasonable explanation” for any policy shift, meaning the government must clearly articulate why a proposed withdrawal is unnecessary or harmful. Reasons may include:

• lack of known oil reservesmaking withdrawals meaningless in practical terms.
• economic harm Impacts on local communities, particularly lost geothermal energy development opportunities.
• Narrowly focused on oil and gaswhile keeping mining activity unchanged, exposes the divestment as arbitrary.

3. Undo temporary exit

The two-year rental ban imposed by the Biden administration while it considers the rule is another hurdle that the Trump administration could directly address. By issuing an executive order or agency memorandum, new leadership could lift the temporary freeze and immediately restart the leasing process. This may trigger a legal challenge, but with sound reasoning and proper documentation, the conduct may be defensible.

It's time to end this farce

What was particularly galling about the whole incident was the blatant display of malice. As the U.S. Forest Service noted in 2019, the Ruby Mountains are unsuitable for oil and gas development, and conservationists themselves admit that no viable oil can be found. The real purpose here is to demonstrate virtue to environmental allies while erecting procedural hurdles in the face of a government determined to restore energy independence. The theater kids running this show are less interested in real-world outcomes and more interested in satisfying their ideological fan base.

Conclusion: Undo the damage

The Biden administration’s withdrawal from Ruby Mountain is a textbook example of using regulation to pursue political goals under the guise of conservation. This is not about protecting land or species, but about tying the hands of future leaders with red tape and complex laws. Fortunately, the incoming Trump administration has the tools to turn things around quickly and effectively.

By refusing to finalize the rule, lifting the temporary freeze and explicitly defending its decision, the Trump administration can ensure that America’s energy future is not shackled by environmentalist dogma. It’s time to expose these games for what they are: ideologically driven attempts to undermine responsible energy policy. The new administration has an opportunity and an obligation to restore common sense to federal land management and put the needs of the American people above the political stage.

Relevant