>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Predictably, many Democrats responded with outrage. Condemnations poured in from progressive lawmakers who accused the administration of escalating tensions. Governor Newsom quickly joined that chorus.
Instead of focusing on national security implications, however, Newsom’s team zeroed in on gasoline prices — attempting to frame the strike as an economic liability for American consumers.
“Average gas prices in California have stayed below $5 for nearly two years,” the post reads. “Trump’s new war is already rattling markets.”
“We’re watching this space. Closely.”
The tone suggested confidence. The reaction that followed was anything but.
The U.S. Oil and Gas Association wasted no time responding — and they did not hold back. In a blistering reply, the organization referred to the anonymous staffer behind the tweet as a “pajama boy” before delivering a sobering reality check about California’s energy dependence.
According to the association, California imports approximately 63 percent of its crude oil from foreign nations — despite sitting atop an estimated 1.7 to 2 billion barrels of proven reserves within its own borders.
In other words, the state lecturing Washington about market instability is deeply entangled in the very foreign energy supply chains it claims to be worried about.
The trade group didn’t stop there. They broke down exactly where California’s imported crude originates, citing data from the California Energy Commission.
Iraq accounts for roughly 21 percent of the foreign crude processed in California refineries. Brazil contributes about 20 percent. Guyana supplies approximately 16 percent, while Ecuador provides another 14 percent. Colombia adds around 6 percent, with Canada and Mexico each contributing roughly 4 percent. The United Arab Emirates makes up about 2 percent, and Saudi Arabia and others fill in the remaining share.
That means a state boasting about price stability is heavily reliant on oil flowing from some of the most politically volatile regions in the world.
Critics argue that California’s aggressive climate policies — including restrictions on new drilling permits and refinery regulations — have forced the state into this position. Rather than tapping into its own reserves, Sacramento has increasingly leaned on foreign producers to keep the lights on and cars running.
The Oil and Gas Association summed it up bluntly: “The only state worried about rattling foreign markets is California because you have let yourselves become dependent on foreign supplies.”
“You’ve done this to yourselves.”
What was intended as a quick partisan jab at Trump’s foreign policy has instead reopened a long-simmering debate over California’s energy strategy. For years, state leadership has championed green initiatives while simultaneously importing vast quantities of crude from abroad.
Now, as global markets react to geopolitical upheaval, that contradiction is front and center.
Whether one supports or opposes the strike on Iran, one thing is clear: California’s energy independence — or lack thereof — has become part of the national conversation once again. And this time, it wasn’t Washington that brought it up.
