The Trump administration appears to be taking aim at the California Coastal Commission, suggesting the agency be abolished as a condition for giving the state tens of billions of dollars in federal wildfire aid.

What You Need To Know

  • Ric Grenell, Special Presidential Envoy, suggested during an appearance at CPAC late last month that dismantling the California Coastal Commission should be a condition for the state receiving federal disaster relief

  • Spectrum News asked the White House whether Grenell was speaking in his personal capacity or for the Trump administration when he made those remarks, but our request for comment went unanswered

  • Critics have accused the commission of overreach, from blocking the construction of affordable housing, to blocking an increase in Space X launches at Vandenberg Space Force Base

  • But even Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., who has introduced legislation to limit the commission’s power, would not go as far as Grenell, telling Spectrum News he believes “protecting our coast is vitally important”

The commission, created in 1972 by a ballot referendum, regulates use and access of land and water in the state’s coastal zone, construction and other activities. The ballot referendum became permanent law in 1976 after the state legislature passed the California Coastal Act.

Special Envoy Ric Grenell, who is rumored to have his own political ambitions to run for governor of California, floated the idea of conditioning Gov. Gavin Newsom’s $40 billion wildfire funding request on getting rid of the agency.

“I think squeezing their federal funds, making sure they don’t get funds, putting strings on them to get rid of the California Coastal Commission is going to make California better,” said Grenell at the Conservative Political Action Conference late last month.

Spectrum News reached out to the Coastal Commission for a response to Mr. Grenell’s remarks, but a spokesperson declined to comment. But Grenell’s suggestion sparked outrage among California Democrats on Capitol Hill.

“They protect access to the beach for ordinary citizens. They push back on millionaires and billionaires who try to block the sand and tell kids that they can’t sit behind their house, breaking California law,” argued Rep. Laura Friedman. “They push back against Elon Musk and his constant SpaceX launches and say ‘you have to work with the Coastal Commission to minimize the impact of these launches.’”

“Republicans say they’re for states’ rights — and they are until they’re not — until it’s politically expedient to say, well, we want a Bigfoot local or state government. That’s really not what you do in the wake of a disaster,” said Sen. Adam Schiff. 

Critics have accused the coastal commission of overreach, including that it has blocked the construction of desperately needed affordable housing. In 2024, it was sued by billionaire Elon Musk, who accused the commission of political bias for blocking his company, SpaceX, from increasing rocket launches at Vandenberg Space Force Base. Even Newsom, the state’s Democratic governor, said he supported Musk over the commission’s decision despite the two men campaigning for opposing presidential candidates at the time of the lawsuit’s filing.

Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., has introduced legislation to limit the commission’s power, including over rocket launches. He says he believes in the agency’s main objective, but that it should be reined in. 

“I think that protecting our coast is vitally important. California is one of the most beautiful places in the world, and I think that it’s a genuinely important priority. The problem is that this particular agency is not living up to its name.”

Mr. Kiley pointed out that the commission’s rejection of additional SpaceX launches and the commission’s suggestion that wildfire rebuilding projects in the greater Los Angeles area may be subject to permitting rules as just two problems with the commission. Gov. Newsom issued an executive order to suspend the commission’s authority when it comes to rebuilding efforts back in January.

Kiley’s legislation, the Coastal Commission Accountability Act, would amend the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), would “strip the California Coastal Commission of its powers under federal law” and limit the committee’s authority to review certain activities, “including national security-related activities, critical infrastructure projects, and activities with high economic impact, including post-disaster recovery and rebuilding.”

But when asked if he supported Grenell’s proposal to condition wildfire aid on dismantling the commission, Kiley would not go as far as the special envoy, suggesting reforms and speedy relief for Los Angeles.

“I certainly support reforms to make sure that the Coastal Commission does not continue to be an impediment to sensible policy in the areas of fire protection and water policy and much else in California. That’s what my bill seeks to do,” he said. 

“I do believe it’s vitally important that we get assistance to LA as soon as possible. I think that you’ll see some action on that before too long,” he added, saying he has also been pushing Newsom and the state legislature to make reforms when it comes to forest management and water policies within the state. Kiley, along with California’s other 51 House members and two senators, signed a letter to congressional leadership this month urging action on Newsom’s relief request.

Reps. Scott Peters and Robert Garcia, both Democrats, served on the California Coastal Commission in the past, and agreed reforms could be made to the agency. But both said they believe in the commission’s core objective, and that the decision should not be up to the Trump administration on how to change it.

“I know people are frustrated with it. It’s a hard process. It’s also protected our 1,100 miles of coast from being destroyed,” said Peters. “I think it’s got value. It’s really a choice for Californians to make. I’d love to see some reforms, but again, that’s not for President Trump to tell us how to do it.”

Garcia called the idea of putting such conditions on wildfire relief “horrendous.”

“Trump is trying everything he can to harm and to get payback. He doesn’t like the California Coastal Commission’s efforts to push back on SpaceX, or their efforts to protect the coastline, or to expand green space or to work through responsible development,” accused Garcia. “There are ways to improve the Coastal Commission, and the commissioners themselves will tell you that. This is not the way, and I strongly oppose that.”

The idea of trading federal wildfire assistance funding for dismantling a state entity also raises serious legal questions. Jessica Levinson, a professor at the Loyola Law School, says it would likely result in a court battle if it’s something the Trump administration plans to pursue.

“California would sue right away and say, you cannot put this condition on our receipt of federal funds. You cannot say we, California, only get the funds if we dissolve the Coastal Commission, because that infringes on our state sovereignty,” Levinson explained.

The basis of the argument, she explained, would come from the power given to states by the 10th Amendment, which gives powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government to the states or the people.

“If a judge and or ultimately the Supreme Court were to allow the Trump administration to follow through on a threat like that, then it could change our understanding of state sovereignty,” said Levinson. “I suspect that if the Trump administration really does follow through on exactly what they have said, no federal funds until you get rid of the Coastal Commission, that there could be a successful lawsuit by California.” 

We reached out to the White House for clarification whether Mr. Grenell’s comment reflects the position of the White House or whether those remarks were made in his personal capacity. We also asked if the White House had reviewed Gov. Newsom’s request for wildfire relief. Both inquiries went unanswered. 

While it’s unclear how Republicans or the White House will proceed with this disaster aid request, Schiff cautioned that putting conditions on disaster relief aid will set “a terrible precedent that will haunt us all.” 

“Are we going to have a Democratic president say, ‘no, no, unless you pass a commonsense gun safety bill, we’re not going to provide hurricane relief’? I don’t want to see us go down that road either,” he said.