The Law Of War - War And Energy Emergencies

International conflict—especially in the Middle East—often shocks the energy markets due to concerns about the availability and price of oil and gas. Long before the recent Venezuela and Iran crises, President Trump had already declared a "national energy emergency" in January 2025 based on threats to meeting domestic needs for energy production, transportation, refining, and generation, which he found to pose an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to the economy, national security, and foreign policy. Those concerns are more pronounced now with Iran's efforts to close off oil and gas exports transiting the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on energy infrastructure throughout the Persian Gulf.

In response to both the conflict and the resulting strain on global energy supply, the Trump Administration has begun, and is expected to continue, using both military and foreign policy tools, as well as domestic legal authorities, to influence energy production, transportation, and supply within the United States. President Trump has already invoked authorities to direct private companies to produce and transport oil and gas, and also temporarily waived Jones Act requirements to allow foreign-flagged vessels to transport oil and gas products between domestic ports. Most recently, the Administration has convened the "Endangered Species Committee"—a group of mainly Cabinet-level officials—to grant an exemption for oil and gas operations in the Gulf of America from Endangered Species Act requirements. The Administration might also seek to leverage other emergency authorities to control oil and gas exports, restrict foreign transactions involving domestic oil and gas, or for other related measures.

This chapter outlines certain ways the Administration has used, or potentially could use, these authorities in times of war and other national emergencies to influence the domestic energy sector. It also highlights practical considerations for domestic oil and gas companies navigating potential federal action in this area.

Defense Production Act

The Defense Production Act ("DPA") is arguably the most important authority available to the Administration in these contexts. Enacted in 1950, the DPA authorizes the President to ensure that private industry can meet national defense needs by requiring certain contracts or orders to take priority, allocating materials, services, and facilities, and, in the energy context, directing action to maximize domestic energy supplies.

In a recent Office of Legal Counsel opinion, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") concluded that the DPA allows the federal government not only to prioritize its own contracts, but also to require the production and transportation of energy resources to support national defense or domestic energy supply, including directing companies to prioritize certain private contracts. It also found that valid DPA orders can override conflicting state or local laws under the Supremacy Clause. The Trump Administration used the DPA during COVID-19 to keep meat and poultry plants operating, ordering facilities to remain open or reopen under federal guidance despite conflicting state or local restrictions.

In March 2026, the Administration applied a similar DPA approach in the energy context, ordering Sable Offshore Corp. and Pacific Pipeline Company to prioritize pipeline transport of specified offshore oil and related contracts. The order, requested by Sable, overrides a variety of California state laws and regulations, and after the state failed to grant a long-term easement needed to support transport of Sable's offshore oil and gas products. The same day the DPA order was issued, Sable sued California, arguing the DPA requires immediate pipeline operations and preempts state efforts to block them. Sable further contends that California exceeded its authority by imposing additional state requirements on Sable's long-term easement in an area already governed by federal pipeline safety law, thereby unlawfully obstructing the pipeline's operation and violating the DPA. The case highlights the DPA as a key tool in energy emergencies for allowing the federal government to direct private activity, override conflicting state laws, and, in some cases, enable companies to seek federal support to bypass regulatory barriers (similar in some ways to the Federal Power Act's Section 202(c) process).

Other Authorities

Other federal statutes provide important authorities during war or other national emergencies that may be used in the energy sector. For example, the federal government may seek to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA") and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act ("EPCA") to restrict exports or limit foreign transactions involving oil and gas. Unlike the DPA, however, these authorities are generally narrower and do not provide the same direct means of controlling domestic production and transportation. Other statutes give the President tools to influence domestic energy production more indirectly, including through waiver or modification of certain environmental or regulatory requirements.

International Emergency Economic Powers Act. IEEPA authorizes the President, upon declaring a national emergency, to address "any unusual and extraordinary threat" originating in whole or substantial part outside the United States that affects national security, foreign policy, or the economy. Once invoked, the President may regulate or prohibit transactions involving property subject to U.S. jurisdiction, including the import or export of oil and gas. In practice, the President could seek to use this authority to restrict exports or limit foreign transactions involving oil and gas, thereby redirecting supply to domestic markets. Although IEEPA does not expressly allow a president to control domestic production or transportation operations, a president could, at least in theory, seek to use this authority to significantly influence those activities by directing where and how energy resources are sold or moved.

Energy Policy and Conservation Act. EPCA authorizes the President, upon declaring a national emergency, to restrict exports of domestic energy resources under specified conditions. The President may prohibit exports of crude oil and natural gas produced in the United States, subject to exemptions determined to be consistent with the national interest, and may impose export licensing requirements or other restrictions on crude oil exports for a limited period. In practice, the President could use this authority to redirect supply to domestic markets. Like IEEPA, EPCA does not allow a president to directly control domestic production or transportation operations, but it can limit access to foreign markets and shape how and where energy resources are sold and moved.

Considerations for Energy Sector

Federal action during times of war or national emergency can affect far more than market conditions. Federal directives can influence how domestic oil and gas companies produce, transport, sell, and prioritize energy resources. These directives can help alleviate, and in some cases may create, conflicts among federal actions, existing regulations, and private contractual obligations. Companies should therefore consider whether their operations, infrastructure, or commercial arrangements could be affected by a federal prioritization or allocation order under the DPA, particularly where significant government contracts could be required to take priority over other commercial commitments. Companies should also consider how export restrictions or limits on foreign transactions under IEEPA or EPCA could affect market access, counterparties, and the international movement of oil and gas.

Companies should also consider whether, in certain circumstances, seeking federal direction could provide a path to address conflicting or burdensome state or local requirements, particularly where those requirements affect production or transportation. For that reason, companies should engage counsel early if federal action could disrupt their operations, counterparties, supply chains, or contractual arrangements, or if federal intervention could support continued operations. Early legal involvement can help assess exposure, navigate tension between federal and state requirements, preserve commercial flexibility, and position the company before the government acts. It can also help evaluate whether there is a viable basis to seek agency action or other federal relief and develop the legal and factual record needed to support that effort.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.