Doug Burgum's Claim: California as a 'National Security Risk'

Introduction: Doug Burgum's "National Security Risk" Claim Against California

Doug Burgum, serving as the Secretary of the Interior, publicly asserted that California represents a "national security risk" 1. These statements were made during an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital in early 2025, shortly after he commenced his tenure as the 55th Secretary of the Interior on February 3, 2025 1. Burgum’s primary rationale for this claim centers on California's energy policies, which he argues lead to a significant reliance on foreign oil and consequently undermine U.S. energy dominance 1. He specifically highlighted that over 60% of California's oil is imported from foreign countries, with Iraq identified as the top source, to power the state's substantial fleet of internal combustion vehicles 1. This introduction will explore Burgum's arguments in detail, setting the stage for a comprehensive analysis of his claims regarding California's energy landscape and its perceived implications for national security.

Burgum's Core Arguments: California's Energy Policies and Foreign Oil Reliance

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum has consistently characterized California's energy policies as a "national security risk" . His arguments center on the state's escalating reliance on foreign energy sources, its stringent environmental regulations, and the subsequent adverse effects on energy costs and grid reliability. Burgum views these as "restrictive blue state energy policies" that compromise U.S. energy dominance .

Specific California Policies and Conditions Criticized:

Burgum's critique targets several key aspects of California's energy landscape:

• Emphasis on Green and Foreign Sources: He explicitly links California's current energy policies, which prioritize green initiatives, to an increased dependence on foreign oil, posing significant national security concerns .
• Reduced Oil Refining Capacity: A critical factor cited is the dramatic decrease in the number of operational oil refineries in California, from 40 to nine, with two more expected to close . This reduction necessitates foreign gasoline imports 1.
• Fossil Fuel Restrictions: Burgum criticizes California's "restrictive policies" and "environmental restrictions on fossil fuel production" 3, including a general "green energy push" that he believes politically averts the harnessing of critical minerals, thereby impacting energy dominance 1.
• High Energy Costs: He points to California's high gas taxes and electricity costs as direct consequences of these policies 4.
• De-emphasis of Traditional Baseload Energy: Burgum advocates for power plants capable of continuous operation, favoring traditional baseload energy sources over the renewable approaches predominantly adopted by "blue states." He suggests that the closure of coal and natural gas plants contributes to increased blackout risks .

Arguments Linking Policies to National Security Risks:

Burgum articulates specific justifications for why these policies constitute a national security risk:

• Dependence on Foreign Oil and Supply Chain Vulnerability: California's energy policies compel the state to import a significant portion of its oil from foreign nations, primarily Iraq . Burgum highlights the inefficiency and vulnerability inherent in shipping oil "halfway around the world" to power California's vast fleet of internal combustion vehicles 4. This reliance on external sources, rather than domestic production, jeopardizes energy independence and security, creating "unacceptable exposure to geopolitical risks" 3. He notes that 63% of California's energy originates from foreign sources 3. To illustrate the consequences of such policies, he draws a parallel to New England importing natural gas from Russia in 2018 due to blocked pipelines, suggesting California faces a similar predicament .
• Economic Impact and Affordability Crisis: He argues that these policies significantly inflate living costs for Californians. The decline in domestic refining capacity directly leads to higher gasoline prices in California—almost double those observed in states like Houston, Oklahoma, or North Dakota . Burgum emphasizes that "policies are driving pricing. Politicians drive policies" , asserting that federal energy policy should prioritize affordability alongside national security 3.
• Undermining U.S. Energy Dominance: Burgum's broader energy philosophy, which stresses an "abundant supply of reliable energy" across all states for economic and national security and military preparedness, is, in his view, contradicted by California's approach 2. He contends that these restrictive state policies hinder domestic energy production and contribute to an overall "inadequate energy supply" nationally .
• Grid Instability and Blackout Risks: Burgum warns that the shuttering of coal and natural gas plants, driven by these policies, heightens the risk of grid instability and potential blackouts. The Department of Energy, aligning with Burgum's perspective, has projected a "100 times more blackouts by 2030" across the U.S. due to these plant closures .

Supporting Data Points and Examples:

Burgum substantiates his claims with several specific data points:

• Oil Import Percentage: California reportedly imports "63% of their energy from foreign countries" , also cited as "60%-plus" of its oil for internal combustion vehicles coming from foreign nations 1.
• Primary Foreign Oil Source: Iraq is identified as the leading country from which California imports oil .
• Refinery Closures: The state has seen a reduction from 40 to nine oil refineries, with two additional closures projected .
• Gas Price Disparity: Gas prices in California are "almost double" those in areas such as Houston, Oklahoma, or North Dakota .
• Electricity Cost Differences: Data presented by his colleague, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, indicated average electricity costs of $0.18 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in "blue states" versus $0.11 per kWh in "red states" . California led states with energy price increases, experiencing an estimated $650 increase in annual household electricity bills . Blue states saw an average increase of 4.0 cents per kWh, translating to $320 in added annual household electricity expenditures, compared to 1.5 cents per kWh for red states ($175 annually) 1.
• High Gas Taxes: California is listed among the top four states with the highest gas taxes 4.

California's Response and Rebuttals to National Security Risk Claims

California authorities and various experts have issued strong responses and counterarguments to Doug Burgum's assertion that the state's energy policies pose a "national security risk." Their rebuttals emphasize responsible energy transition management, economic stability, environmental protection, and a redefinition of what constitutes a genuine security threat.

Official Statements from California State Officials

The Governor's Office directly challenged Burgum's claims. Anthony Martinez, a spokesperson for Governor Gavin Newsom, stated that the accusation of California posing a national security risk "isn't grounded in fact" 1. Martinez affirmed that the state has proactively engaged with defense fuel customers, and no credible concerns have been raised regarding the military's future fuel supply 1. He highlighted California's responsible management of its energy transition while ensuring access to safe, reliable, and affordable transportation fuels 1. Martinez also referenced Governor Newsom's initiatives, such as SB X1-2 and AB X2-1, which implement state oversight and transparency tools to prevent severe fuel price spikes 1.

Officials from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) criticized federal actions, specifically pointing to the Trump administration's revocation of EV sales mandates and rollback of fuel economy standards 5. They warned that such measures "threatened public health, threatened our progress on lessening climate impacts, threatened California's economic prosperity and dampened our innovative spirits" 5. CARB indicated that the state might fail to meet federal air standards without new truck emission rules 5. Governor Gavin Newsom further commented on these actions, noting, "We are doubling down on stupid here in the United States, 70 percent of the EV market is coming out of China" 5.

The California Congressional Delegation, including U.S. Representative Jared Huffman and U.S. Senator Alex Padilla, along with 26 other state lawmakers, strongly opposed the Trump administration's plan for new offshore oil drilling 6. They argued that expanded drilling would "inevitably pollute our beaches, spelling disaster for California's economy and detrimentally impacting the rest of the country" 6. They characterized offshore drilling as a "ticking time bomb" due to the devastating risks posed by spills 6. Furthermore, they contended that increased offshore drilling near strategic military installations and logistics routes would undermine military readiness and create national security risks 6. The delegation cited a "bipartisan consensus" against expanded offshore drilling in California spanning five decades, reflected in state laws banning new offshore drilling and associated infrastructure in state waters 6.

Main Counterarguments and Alternative Perspectives

California lawmakers and officials advanced several counterarguments and alternative perspectives:

• Economic Impact of Environmental Policies Redefined: California's marine economy, which generated $51.3 billion in GDP and $26.7 billion in wages in 2021, relies heavily on a healthy and clean coastline 6. The delegation asserted that environmental damage from oil spills would negatively impact various sectors, including tourism, recreation, fisheries, deepwater port commerce, and defense infrastructure, thus harming both the state's and potentially the nation's economy 6.
• National Security Redefined: The California Congressional delegation redefined the concept of "national security risk" in the energy context, arguing that additional oil rigs near California's strategically vital waters and military installations would diminish military readiness 6.
• Energy Transition Management: Governor Newsom's spokesperson emphasized the state's "serious work to protect consumers and stabilize our fuel market during a global energy transition that is reshaping refineries across the country and around the world" 1. This perspective highlights California's proactive role in managing a complex, global shift rather than being a source of risk.
• Cost Drivers Beyond State Policies: While not a direct statement from California officials regarding Burgum's specific claims, the general argument that external factors contribute significantly to energy costs was articulated by others. For example, a spokesperson for Maryland Gov. Wes Moore countered criticisms of high electricity costs by stating that "Marylanders don't pay their power bill in red or blue. They pay it in dollars." The spokesperson attributed rising costs to Trump-era tariffs on steel and utility equipment and a "nightmare budget," suggesting that high costs are not solely a consequence of state-level policy choices but can be influenced by broader economic and federal factors 1.

Independent Policy Experts or Organizations

Independent voices also lent support to California's approach. Colorado Rep. Alex Valdez, chair of his state's energy and environment committee, praised California's leadership in sustainability 5. He stated that California has "paved the road for other states to follow on policy, on incentives" concerning electric vehicle adoption and building codes 5. Valdez acknowledged California's progressive Assembly and governor for enabling this leadership 5.

In summary, California's response to claims of being a national security risk underscores a commitment to balancing environmental stewardship with economic prosperity and strategic energy management. The state's officials and experts assert that their policies are grounded in fact, protect consumers, and are essential for long-term economic and national security, while also redirecting attention to external factors and federal actions that pose actual threats or challenges.

Political Motivations and Strategic Context

Doug Burgum's characterization of California as a "national security risk" is deeply rooted in his conservative political ideology, past achievements, and strategic positioning within the Republican Party, particularly in alignment with the "energy dominance" agenda of the Trump administration. His statements are a calculated effort to appeal to a specific political base and differentiate himself on key policy issues.

Doug Burgum's Political Background and Aspirations

Doug Burgum brings a unique background to his political career, having a successful history in business, notably leading Great Plains Software before its acquisition by Microsoft, where he subsequently served as a senior vice president 7. His political ascendancy saw him serve as the 33rd Governor of North Dakota from 2016 to 2024, securing re-election in 2020 with a significant majority 7. During his tenure, North Dakota achieved notable economic milestones, including high GDP growth and the nation's lowest unemployment rate, earning Burgum recognition from Forbes as "America's Best Entrepreneurial Governor" 8.

In June 2023, Burgum launched a bid for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination but suspended his campaign in December 2023 due to challenges in meeting RNC debate qualification criteria 7. Following this, he endorsed Donald Trump and became an advisor on Trump's energy policy 7. In February 2025, Burgum was confirmed as the 55th United States Secretary of the Interior under President Donald Trump, a role that also designated him an "energy czar" with a seat on the National Security Council . His political platform is predominantly conservative, emphasizing fiscal conservatism and, increasingly, the imperative of energy independence for national security 7.

Alignment of Criticisms with Broader Political Platform

Burgum's criticisms of California, particularly his branding of the state as a "national security risk," are directly consistent with his core political platform, which champions "energy dominance" and critiques what he terms "climate extremism" .

• Energy Policy: Burgum explicitly cites California, alongside New England, as a "national security risk" because state policies promoting the retirement of "baseload" power sources contribute to elevated electricity rates and an increased reliance on foreign energy 9. He highlighted California's importation of over 60 percent of its oil from foreign nations as a significant national security vulnerability 9. This perspective underpins his belief that American energy independence is vital for national security, arguing that restrictions on domestic energy production necessitate imports from other countries, potentially including adversaries 7. He further posits that abundant, affordable, and reliable energy is crucial for economic prosperity, inflation control, and powering an "AI-driven economy," which he views as an "AI arms race" where California's high energy costs deter critical capital investment, such as for data centers .
• Critique of Climate Policies: His statements frequently frame California's progressive environmental and energy policies as examples of "climate extremism" or "climate idealism" that he believes undermine national security and economic prosperity, inadvertently benefiting U.S. adversaries such as Russia, Iran, and China 10. He advocates for expanding fossil fuel production ("drill, baby, drill") and critical mineral extraction ("mine, baby, mine") on public lands, a stance that sharply contrasts with states pursuing aggressive decarbonization policies .
• Border Security: In his capacity as Secretary of the Interior, Burgum contributed to the Trump administration's border security initiatives by transferring jurisdiction along California's southern border with Mexico to the Navy, establishing a militarized zone 11. This action, aimed at enhancing national defense and safeguarding public lands, further illustrates his commitment to a robust national security agenda that includes stringent border enforcement 11.

Strategic Benefits and Motivations

These claims offer several strategic advantages for Burgum, enhancing his national political appeal and distinguishing him from other political figures.

• Appealing to Conservative Base: By characterizing California as a "national security risk" due to its energy and environmental policies, Burgum directly appeals to a conservative base that perceives such policies as detrimental to economic growth and national strength . This narrative resonates with voters who prioritize energy independence, deregulation, and a strong national defense, showcasing his adherence to core conservative principles.
• Differentiation and Issue Ownership: During his presidential campaign, Burgum sought to distinguish himself by focusing on substantive issues like energy and national security, rather than "culture war issues" 7. His direct criticisms of California's policies allowed him to demonstrate a practical, business-oriented approach to governance and highlight perceived failures of progressive governance, solidifying his image as an expert on energy and its intrinsic link to national security 7.
• Reinforcing Trump's Agenda: In his current role as Interior Secretary, Burgum actively champions the Trump administration's "energy dominance" agenda . His pronouncements regarding California serve to validate Trump's broader criticisms of policies that, from their perspective, weaken America. By identifying a clear problem in California's energy policies and offering solutions such as expanded drilling, mining, and LNG exports, Burgum reinforces the administration's platform and his role as a key implementer of these policies 7.
• Justifying Policy Direction: Framing California's policies as a "national security risk" provides a compelling justification for the aggressive pursuit of fossil fuel extraction and deregulation across federal lands and waters, a primary directive given to him by President Trump 7. This strategic framing legitimizes efforts to reverse policies that the administration views as impediments to U.S. economic and geopolitical strength.

Defining "National Security Risk" in a State Context

The application of the term "national security risk" to the policies of a U.S. state, such as California, represents a significant conceptual and political contention. This section critically examines how Doug Burgum, Interior Secretary under President Trump, interprets and applies this term, contrasting his perspective with the counter-definitions and alternative interpretations presented by California officials and other experts.

Doug Burgum's Interpretation of "National Security Risk"

Doug Burgum's pronouncements largely frame "national security risk" through the lens of energy independence, economic stability, and U.S. energy dominance. His criticisms of California's energy policies are central to this definition, specifically highlighting concerns related to:

• Reliance on Foreign Oil: Burgum explicitly links California's energy policies, which prioritize green initiatives, to an "unacceptable exposure to geopolitical risks" 3. He argues that importing over 60% of its oil from foreign countries, with Iraq identified as a primary source, makes California a "national security risk" 1. This dependence on external sources for critical energy supplies, rather than domestic production, is seen as undermining U.S. energy independence and security . He views the shipping of oil "halfway around the world" to fuel California's large fleet of internal combustion vehicles as inefficient and vulnerable 4.
• Undermining U.S. Energy Dominance: Burgum contends that California's "restrictive blue state energy policies" hinder domestic energy production and contradict the goal of U.S. energy dominance 1. His broader energy philosophy emphasizes an "abundant supply of reliable energy" as crucial for protecting economic and national security 2.
• Reduced Refining Capacity and Economic Impact: The significant reduction in California's oil refineries, from 40 to nine, is cited as a contributing factor leading to higher gasoline prices and increased reliance on foreign gasoline imports . Burgum links these higher energy costs (e.g., nearly double gas prices compared to other states, higher electricity costs) to state policies, stating, "Policies are driving pricing. Politicians drive policies" 1. He further suggests that high electricity rates in California could deter investment in critical sectors like data centers for an "AI-driven economy," posing another economic vulnerability 9.
• Grid Instability: Burgum warns that the shuttering of coal and natural gas plants, driven by these policies, increases the risk of grid instability and potential blackouts, predicting a substantial rise in blackouts across the U.S. .

Burgum's implicit definition aligns with his conservative political platform and his role within the Trump administration, championing "American Energy Dominance" and critiquing "climate extremism" . This strategic framing allows him to appeal to a conservative base, differentiate himself politically, and justify federal policy directions aimed at expanding fossil fuel production and deregulation 7.

California's Counter-Definitions and Alternative Interpretations

California officials and lawmakers present a counter-narrative, challenging Burgum's assertions and offering alternative interpretations of what constitutes a "national security risk" for a state:

• Factuality of Claims: Anthony Martinez, a spokesperson for Governor Gavin Newsom, asserted that Burgum's claim that California poses a national security risk "isn't grounded in fact" 1. He affirmed that California responsibly manages its energy transition without compromising fuel supply for the military 1.
• Environmental Damage as a National Security Risk: In stark contrast to Burgum's energy-centric view, California's Congressional Delegation argued that proposed federal actions, specifically expanded offshore oil drilling, would create national security risks 6. They contended that additional oil rigs near California's strategically vital waters and military installations would undermine military readiness 6. Furthermore, they highlighted that oil spills would devastate California's marine economy (a $51.3 billion GDP sector in 2021), impacting tourism, recreation, fisheries, and defense infrastructure, thus posing an economic and security threat 6.
• Threats to Public Health and Climate Progress: Officials from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) warned that federal actions, such as revoking EV sales mandates and rolling back fuel economy standards, "threatened public health, threatened our progress on lessening climate impacts, threatened California's economic prosperity and dampened our innovative spirits" 5. This perspective reframes national security to include the protection of public health, climate resilience, and economic innovation stemming from green initiatives.
• Responsible Energy Transition: Governor Newsom's office emphasized California's "serious work to protect consumers and stabilize our fuel market during a global energy transition" 1. This highlights a state-led effort to navigate energy changes while ensuring stability, rather than posing a risk.
• Cost Drivers Beyond State Policies: Some counterarguments, while not directly from California officials regarding Burgum's specific claims, point to federal policies (e.g., Trump-era tariffs on steel) as contributing to rising electricity costs, suggesting that economic challenges are not solely attributable to state-level environmental mandates 1.

Broader Implications of Applying "National Security Risk" to State Issues

The debate between Burgum and California illustrates the politicization of the "national security risk" concept when applied to state-level policy decisions. This strategic framing has several implications:

• Political Weaponization: Labeling a state's policies as a "national security risk" serves to elevate a policy disagreement to a matter of existential national concern, thereby exerting political pressure and potentially justifying federal intervention or criticism. It allows for the casting of specific state policies, particularly those differing from federal priorities, as detrimental to the national interest 3.
• Divergent Prioritization of Values: The differing interpretations reveal a clash in prioritized values. Burgum's perspective prioritizes energy independence through domestic fossil fuel production, economic affordability driven by lower energy costs, and traditional definitions of geopolitical security 7. California, conversely, prioritizes environmental protection, climate change mitigation, public health, and a green economy, arguing these contribute to a more holistic and resilient form of security 6.
• Federal-State Relations: The discussion highlights tensions in federal-state relations, particularly when a federal official criticizes state sovereignty over its energy and environmental policies. Burgum's statements align with a broader federal agenda seeking to challenge "blue state" energy regulations and promote a national "energy dominance" strategy .

Table 1: Contrasting Definitions of "National Security Risk"

In conclusion, while Burgum defines "national security risk" for California through its perceived energy vulnerabilities and economic burdens linked to green policies, California officials redefine the term to include the risks posed by environmental degradation, climate inaction, and federal policies that could harm its natural resources and economic resilience. This conceptual divergence underscores a fundamental disagreement on national priorities and the role of state-level policies in contributing to or detracting from national security.