WASHINGTON D.C. (KEYT) – Last night, the House of Representatives debated the nation's annual defense spending bill and passed an amendment that authorized the Trump Administration to seize state property on behalf of private energy company Sable Offshore.
The amendment, authored and added the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2027 by Texas Congressman Wesley Hunt, would empower the Secretary of Defense to, "acquire, by purchase, donation, exchange, or condemnation, on behalf of the United States, such permanent easements over all lands along the route of the Santa Ynez Pipeline System, including all lands owned or otherwise held by the State of California or any agency, department, or instrumentality thereof, as the Secretary determines necessary to ensure continuous pipeline transportation of crude oil from the Santa Ynez Unit to domestic refineries supplying Department of Defense installations in the State of California."
The properties included in the Defense Bill are the same properties the Houston-based energy company reportedly requested the Trump Administration use eminent domain to acquire on its behalf.
"Given the current policies and actions of the State of California aimed at preventing the flow of oil from the [Santa Ynez Unit], the DOE [U.S. Department of Energy] should consider exercising eminent domain rights over a ~3 mile section of the [Santa Ynez Pipeline System] through state waters and a ~4 mile section of the SYPS that traverses Gaviota State Park," Politico reported a June 2, 2026, letter from legal representatives of Sable Offshore stated to the U.S. Department of Energy.
Local Congressman Salud Carbajal shared official remarks during last night proceedings and noted the impact of the Hunt Amendment.
"I oppose this amendment. We know that the military does not need this provision to ensure a stable supply. We already are the largest oil producer in the world, producing nearly 14 million barrels of oil a day. So let's be clear: this is not about energy independence or national security. It is about giving Big Oil special treatment at the expense of California. Under this [Hunt] amendment, a single certification from the Secretary of Defense unlocks sweeping legal protections for fossil fuel projects. States and local governments cannot interfere. Courts are told to presume that delaying this project harms national security on the Secretary's word alone. And we know what that means. Challengers cannot dispute the Secretary's determination."
On March 13 of this year, the Trump Administration announced that it had forced Sable Offshore to restart oil production, including the use of onshore pipelines shuttered since a massive oil spill from a ruptured pipeline in 2015.
Notably, the order to restart did not explicitly direct crude oil from the Santa Ynez Unit for exclusive military use nor limit its destination to the nation's strategic petroleum reserve at the time and even if it had, repeated national security claims by Sable and federal officials do not hold up to scrutiny.
Nevertheless, the Hunt Amendment explicitly tied Sable Offshore to national security interests.
"Congress finds that the acquisition of easements under subsection (a) is required to satisfy a requirement vital to the national security within the meaning of section 2663(g) of title 10, United States Code, and that delay in such acquisition would be detrimental to the national security. The Secretary of the Army may accordingly commence condemnation proceedings under subsection (a) in advance of the report otherwise required under section 2663(f) of title 10, United States Code, and shall submit such report not later than seven days after commencement of such proceedings."
California Attorney General Bonta has filed multiple lawsuits in federal court, even as recently as this week, arguing that orders issued by federal regulators about restarting oil pipelines including taking over exclusive regulatory authority of restart plans on Dec. 17, issuing an approval of restart plans on Dec. 22, and granting an Emergency Special Permit to restart pipelines on Dec. 24, were all unlawful.
"The Wright Order is an affront to, and usurpation of, the traditional police powers delegated to the states, in that it seeks to override any and all California laws that stand in the way of the restart of the Pipelines," stated a lawsuit challenging the forced restart filed by the Attorney General. "The Wright Order also does not allege that Sable is part of a national energy program or a national defense program...The Wright Order also fails to provide any rational basis that connects how ordering Sable to 'require acceptance and prioritize performance' [a quote from the Defense Production Act] of 'contracts' or 'allocations' would promote the national defense with respect to energy. The Secretary fails to rationally explain why the Wright Order only favors Sable, nor does it provide any credible information to support the restart of Sable’s pipeline in a manner that is 'immediate' and circumvents state and federal law, as well as existing court orders."
Indeed, broad statements about a domestic energy crisis and the need to secure forms of energy for national security purposes do not match the same Administration's recent actions including cutting billions in energy investments, potentially outside of its legal authority, rescinding over 3.5 million acres of offshore waters leased for energy generation and cutting deals to terminate offshore wind leases for projects on both coasts, and even spending almost a billion dollars to halt plans to build offshore wind farms, an action that is now subject to a Congressional inquiry and multiple Freedom of Information Act requests by Your News Channel author.
"The pipeline operator [Sable Offshore] then relied on the [U.S. Secretary of Energy] Wright Order, and a contemporaneous opinion from the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, to argue that any state laws or existing court orders standing in the way of restart could be ignored and set aside," detailed the Attorney General's lawsuit. "The very next day, on March 14, 2026, the pipeline operator restarted pumping oil through pipelines despite an outstanding preliminary injunction in state court, despite not having necessary permits from either the state or the federal government for pipeline operation, despite still not having approval from several state agencies, and despite not having a current or valid easement to keep or utilize the segment of its pipeline crossing California state property."
That reference to "California state property" was directly mentioned in the Hunt Amendment to the latest Defense appropriation bill.
"Upon acquisition of any easement under subsection (a), the Secretary of the Army shall issue to the operator of the Santa Ynez Pipeline System a license authorizing such operator to use such easement for the operation, maintenance, inspection, and repair of the Santa Ynez Pipeline System for the purpose of transporting crude oil from the Santa Ynez Unit to domestic refineries supplying Department of Defense installations in the State of California."
After the Refugio Oil Spill of 2015, restart of the involved onshore pipelines, including the ruptured segment now known as Line CA-324, was subject to state oversight under the authority of a consent agreement in federal court signed by the previous operators.
Sable was complying with the conditions of that federal court order until late last year.
In September of last year, Sable Offshore submitted a Request for Approval of Restart Plans, which involved the onshore pipelines, to the California Office of State Fire Marshal as detailed in the consent decree.
The state safety regulator found that there were still outstanding steps required before approving a restart the following month.
Instead of conducting the requested safety actions, Sable Offshore instead informed investors in December of last year that it had determined that pipelines connecting offshore platforms to the onshore oil processing plant on the Gaviota Coast and then on to Pentland Station in Kern County are technically interstate pipelines under the Pipeline Safety Act and requested that federal regulators take over its restart plans.
According to an 8K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Sable Offshore told investors that it did not make any additional investments, including safety requests by the Office of State Fire Marshal, but it has made notable campaign contributions to national and local recipients.
A May 2026 bicameral Congressional inquiry specifically detailed allegations of financial ties between Sable Offshore and President Trump's campaigns under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
"Sable is also currently under investigation by the SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] for allegations of advance information being shared selectively among company insiders in October 2025, right before Sable raised $250 million by selling shares of its common stocks to private investors to help keep the company afloat," a letter from members of California's Congressional delegation noted in May. "The Trump administration has clearly been working hand in glove with Sable to try to force the restart of SYU. For example, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement made misleading statements about SYU oil production in July 2025 that paralleled statements made by Sable, the same statements that resulted in securities class action lawsuits by your [Sable's] shareholders."
"Executives at Sable have directly contributed to President Trump's campaigns...contributed over $300,000 to Super PACs like Right to Rise USA and Senate Leadership Fund which made contributions to President Trump’s 2016 and 2024 campaigns. Additionally, Gregory Patrinely, Executive Vice President and CFO of Sable, contributed thousands of dollars to Trump-aligned committees in 2020 and 2024," detailed the California delegation's letter to Sable Offshore's CEO back in May. "During his campaign, President Trump promised to reverse environmental rules for your industry in exchange for $1 billion in donations. It is difficult to avoid the inference that actions like the use of DPA [Defense Production Act] to overcome state laws on behalf of an oil producer represents a fulfillment of that 'pay to play' promise."
According to the Federal Elections Commission, Sable Offshore contributed $98,487.24 to the Santa Barbara County Republican Party between January of 2025 and June of this year as well as $35,979,453.49 to super PAC Texans for a Conservative Majority and $25,000 to Republic Party-affiliated super PAC the Congressional Leadership Fund.
The Santa Barbara County Republican Party was contacted for comment and confirmation of the contribution and its response will be added to this article when it is received.
Last night, Congressman Carbajal detailed the material benefits Sable Offshore has acquired through its spending.
"[Sable Offshore] receive procedural advantages that no other litigant enjoys – including the ability to essentially choose which federal court will hear a challenge. It is interesting to me that this amendment is sponsored by Congressman Hunt, from Houston, where Sable Offshore Oil's headquarters is located. Sable Offshore, of course, is the operator of the Santa Ynez Pipeline System, which the Trump administration forced back online over the objections of California. This is the pipeline that caused the devastating Refugio oil spill in 2015 in my district. My constituents, who must live with the risk this operation poses, are overwhelmingly opposed. But the Trump administration used the Defense Production Act to preempt state law. The state of California is challenging that authority in court. I guess Sable is worried about losing in court—as they should be—because this amendment would allow the company to avoid accountability by moving to a more favorable court, blocking the California lawsuit, and preventing any court from issuing an injunction against this project. So let me be clear again: this isn't about national security. It is a bailout for polluters. "
Your News Channel reached out to Sable Offshore, Congressman Hunt's Office, and the Bob Smith for Congress campaign for more information about the amendment and their respective responses will be added to this article when they are received.
Sable’s Eminent Domain Requests Included in Amendment to Latest Defense Authorization Bill News Channel 3-12.
Hence then, the article about sable s eminent domain requests included in amendment to latest defense authorization bill was published today ( ) and is available on News channel ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Sable’s Eminent Domain Requests Included in Amendment to Latest Defense Authorization Bill )
Also on site :
- DSA Brain Trust Confuses Two Jewish Joshes, Then Ilhan Decries Bombs She Voted For All Along
- Dem. Sen. Andy Kim Says Noncitizens Voting Isn't As Big of a Problem As Trump Makes It Sound
- Harold Ford Jr. Warns Fellow Dems Their Socialist Takeover Is Turning the Big Tent Into a Loony Bin