SANTA MONICA, Calif. — The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) held a public hearing Monday in Santa Monica to begin a federal review of the California Coastal Commission and other agencies responsible for overseeing the state’s 840-mile shoreline. The review is part of an effort by the Trump administration to reassess the commission’s authority, which it views as an obstacle to development projects along California’s coast.

The California Coastal Commission has been the primary state agency charged with protecting the coastline since its establishment in the 1970s under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The agency’s mandate includes preserving public access and regulating development along the shorelines, which are vital to the state’s economy and identity.

Acting director of NOAA’s Office for Coastal Management, Keelin Kuipers, said the evaluation would focus on how California administered federal grants and loans, the effectiveness of its coastal management programs, and regulatory enforcement. Hundreds of attendees at the hearing, including commission members, business owners, scientists, and activists, expressed concern that curtailing the commission’s authority could reverse decades of environmental protections, jeopardizing both ecosystems and public access.

Many participants framed the review as politically motivated, pointing to the administration’s push to expand offshore oil production and roll back environmental regulations. Maureen Ellenberger, a Santa Barbara resident, criticized the review as an attempt to undermine state control, citing the administration’s reopening of an offshore oil pipeline near her community despite California’s opposition. The 2015 pipeline spill near Santa Barbara remains a potent symbol for local resistance to increased oil extraction.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has accused California of obstructing federal priorities, including spaceport development and offshore drilling, describing the state’s environmental regulations as extreme in a letter earlier this year. Meanwhile, Kate Huckelbridge, executive director of the Coastal Commission, defended the agency’s track record, noting that a separate federally initiated review last year found the commission performed strongly, though that review remained incomplete.

The review’s conclusions could lead to the commission’s decertification or the loss of federal funding, which constitutes about 10 percent of its budget. Additional partner agencies could be affected financially as well. Huckelbridge warned that California is not the only state with similar coastal programs and that this review could set a precedent affecting coastal management nationwide.

California’s coastline not only supports millions of visitors but also generates tens of billions of dollars annually. The state has historically resisted efforts to ease development restrictions along the shore, leading to frequent clashes with conservative federal officials, including former President Donald Trump, who publicly disparaged the commission over regulatory disputes.

This year, California filed a lawsuit against the federal government over the administration’s use of the Defense Production Act to restart the oil pipeline near Santa Barbara. Environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council criticized the administration’s approach, with NRDC lawyer Joel Reynolds highlighting a broad federal pattern of environmental deregulation and disregard for scientific consensus on climate change.

Locally, officials including Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath emphasized the county’s commitment to limiting new drilling and phasing out existing oil wells. Horvath stressed that local authorities and the state know best how to manage and protect the coast and pledged continued resistance against federal moves perceived as threatening those efforts.