In the high-stakes world of Washington power dynamics, the line between public service and private interest is often a subject of intense debate, but rarely has it been as blurred as in the recent transition of Brittany Kelm. As a senior energy adviser at the White House’s National Energy Dominance Council, Kelm was the architect of several high-profile oil and gas initiatives, most notably the controversial restart of an offshore pipeline in California. Her move, just weeks ago, to lead the Washington policy office for Sable Offshore Corp.—the very company she championed while in office—has ignited a firestorm among ethics watchdogs and political rivals alike. This transition serves as a lightning rod for discussions regarding the “revolving door” that connects federal regulatory bodies with the massive corporations they oversee.
The following discussion explores the ethical implications of this career shift, the specific regulatory maneuvers used to bypass state-level environmental protections, and the broader impact on the integrity of government energy policy. We delve into the “brazen” nature of the transition, the use of emergency federal powers to override local opposition, and the international oil deals that were set in motion during Kelm’s tenure. Through this lens, we examine whether current ethics guardrails are sufficient to protect the public interest when the proximity between a government official and a private corporation becomes exceptionally close.
You have been described as a “deal closer” regarding oil and gas development. How did you earn that reputation during your time at the National Energy Dominance Council, and what does it signify for the relationship between the administration and private energy firms?
The reputation of a “deal closer” in the context of the National Energy Dominance Council is less about simple diplomacy and more about the aggressive navigation of regulatory bottlenecks that have stalled production for years. In Brittany Kelm’s case, this title was forged through her relentless work on the Sable Offshore Corp. project, which involved a pipeline system off the coast of Santa Barbara that had been sitting idle since a devastating oil spill in 2015. When Sable purchased that infrastructure in 2024, they were met with immediate and fierce resistance from California regulators, yet the council, with Kelm as the lead official, acted as a powerful ally to ensure the oil would flow regardless of state-level concerns. This wasn’t just behind-the-scenes policy work; it was a very public partnership, evidenced by her wearing a Sable-branded cap and an embroidered shirt during a tour of the facilities in early June. This signifies a shift in the administration’s role from a neutral regulator to what critics, including those in Governor Gavin Newsom’s office, call a “taxpayer-funded lobbying shop” for the fossil fuel industry. By prioritizing “regulatory certainty” and using federal muscle to reach final investment decisions, the council has created a blueprint where the government functions as a personal concierge for specific energy interests.
The optics of a White House official appearing in corporate-branded apparel while still in office are striking. From an ethics perspective, what are the specific concerns when a regulator adopts the visual identity of the company they are overseeing?
The sight of a senior White House adviser sporting a Sable-branded cap and shirt at a press conference in Santa Barbara isn’t just a minor fashion faux pas; it is a visual manifestation of the “red flashing lights” that ethics experts warn about. When a public official literally wears the logo of a private corporation they are currently regulating, it erodes the necessary distance between government authority and corporate profit, creating a profound appearance of bias. This specific incident in June took place while Kelm was still heavily involved in the administration’s efforts to “unleash” California’s offshore production, a task she celebrated openly on professional networking platforms. From an ethics standpoint, the concern is that such a display suggests the official has already aligned their professional identity and future career prospects with the company’s success, long before they officially leave public service. It raises the uncomfortable question of whether the policy decisions made in the months leading up to her August 14 departure—such as seizing oversight of the pipeline from the state—were made in the public interest or as a final service to a future employer.
There has been significant friction between federal authorities and California state regulators over the Sable pipeline. How did the administration utilize emergency powers to facilitate this project, and what does this mean for states’ rights?
The conflict over the Sable pipeline highlights a dramatic tug-of-war between federal dominance and the environmental goals of “blue states” like California. After Sable reached out to the council for assistance last September, the administration moved with remarkable speed to override local pushback, eventually seizing oversight of the pipeline from the state. In March, the Department of Energy took the extraordinary step of citing emergency powers to order a restart of the platforms’ oil production, a move that fundamentally challenged California’s authority to transition away from fossil fuels. This use of emergency orders essentially turns a project-specific dispute into a constitutional question about the limits of federal intervention in state-regulated infrastructure. While Attorney General Rob Bonta has pursued legal challenges to stop the oil from flowing, a federal judge recently ruled that production can continue, marking a significant victory for the administration’s strategy. For other states, this sets a precedent where federal agencies can use “emergency” designations as a blunt instrument to bypass years of state-level environmental review and litigation.
Your work also extended into the international arena, specifically with the reopening of Venezuela’s oil sector. Could you describe the transition from negotiating those diplomatic deals to attending a contract signing as a private citizen just days later?
The timeline of the Venezuela oil deals provides perhaps the most “brazen” example of the revolving door in recent history. While at the National Energy Dominance Council, Kelm was instrumental in crafting the policy that allowed energy companies to resume operations in Venezuela, even taking the first commercial flight to Caracas in seven years to establish those diplomatic relations. On Monday, she posted a parting message on LinkedIn reflecting on her White House role; by Tuesday, she was in Houston attending a signing ceremony for oil contracts with Petróleos de Venezuela, the state-run oil giant. To be at the negotiating table as a government official and then, four days after leaving that role, to be an invited guest of the foreign entity to watch those same deals get finalized is a sequence of events that leaves many in Washington stunned. While she claims she is not working on “ongoing official matters,” her presence at that ceremony in Houston alongside PDVSA officials underscores the incredible value of the insider knowledge and relationships she cultivated while on the public payroll.
With the current administration operating under what some call the “least restrictive ethics requirements” in fifteen years, what legal guardrails still exist to prevent conflicts of interest for departing officials?
Despite the rescinding of more stringent ethics orders from previous years, there are still foundational criminal statutes in place that are meant to serve as a firewall between public service and private lobbying. Specifically, former officials like Kelm are subject to a lifetime ban on “switching sides” to represent a private interest on the exact same specific matters—such as particular contracts or grants—that they were “personally and substantially” involved in while in government. Furthermore, there is a mandatory one-year “cooling-off” period that prohibits her from communicating with or appearing before her former office at the White House on behalf of her new employer. However, these laws are highly fact-specific and contain significant loopholes; for instance, she is still permitted to engage with other federal agencies on broad policy or regulatory issues, provided she doesn’t touch the specific projects she led at the council. The challenge for ethics officials is monitoring these interactions in real-time to ensure that no confidential information is being leveraged for Sable’s benefit. Without a robust executive order to close these gaps, the system relies heavily on the individual’s discretion, which is why the timing of her employment discussions and her very public support for Sable while in office remain such critical points of scrutiny.
What is your forecast for the future of government ethics and the energy industry’s influence in Washington?
I anticipate that we are heading toward a period of intense litigation and perhaps a legislative “correction” as the public and rival political factions react to these increasingly transparent transitions between the White House and Big Oil. The precedent established here—where an official can essentially “audition” for a vice president role by using federal emergency powers to save a company’s primary asset—will likely trigger new calls for a mandatory, multi-year ban on lobbying for any industry an official directly regulated. As the 2026 political landscape continues to evolve, the “revolving door” will no longer be seen as a quiet tradition of the Washington elite, but rather as a central campaign issue tied to the cost of energy and the protection of local environmental rights. We are likely to see more states follow California’s lead in suing the federal government over these interventions, creating a fragmented regulatory environment where “certainty” for companies like Sable remains elusive despite the best efforts of their well-connected advocates. Ultimately, the survival of these projects will depend on whether the courts view the administration’s “energy dominance” agenda as a legitimate use of executive power or as an overreach that violates the fundamental principles of government ethics.
