01-29-2025

Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential

Executive OrderView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: Executive Order 14153, issued on January 20, 2025, directs federal agencies to reverse policies enacted between 2021 and 2025 that restricted the development of natural resources—including oil, gas, minerals, and timber—in Alaska. It specifically aims to facilitate resource extraction in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the National Petroleum Reserve, and other state and federal lands.

Money: The order itself does not appropriate funds. However, by promoting oil and gas leasing, it is intended to generate revenue. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which previously opened ANWR to drilling, was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to raise about $1.1 billion in federal revenue over ten years, though initial lease sales fell far short of projections. Revenue from federal land leases in Alaska would be split between the state and the U.S. Treasury.

Your Impact: The most likely direct effect on an average American could be related to long-term energy prices and the national debate over climate policy and conservation. For Alaskans, the impacts are more immediate, potentially creating jobs in the resource sector while also affecting indigenous communities' subsistence lifestyles and the environment.

Status: Issued and published in the Federal Register on January 29, 2025.

What's Actually in the Bill

Executive Order 14153 is a presidential directive aimed at systematically dismantling a range of environmental protections and land use restrictions in Alaska implemented by the previous administration. Its core function is to mandate that federal agencies, such as the Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture, use their authority to maximize the development of Alaska's energy and natural resources. The order explicitly reverses numerous specific environmental impact statements, public land orders, and federal rules that limited mining, drilling, and logging.

Core Provisions:

  • Rescinds Previous Actions: Orders the revocation or revision of all agency actions from January 20, 2021, to January 20, 2025, that hinder resource development.
  • Promotes ANWR Drilling: Withdraws the previous administration's order that halted activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and cancels the associated environmental impact studies. It directs the government to reinstate previous plans from 2019 and 2020 to move forward with oil and gas leasing in ANWR's Coastal Plain.
  • Advances Gas and Mining Projects: Mandates agencies to expedite the Alaska LNG Project and reinstates the 2020 record of decision for the Ambler Road project, a controversial access road for a mining district.
  • Removes Forest Protections: Places a moratorium on the "Roadless Rule" in the Tongass National Forest, which protected millions of acres of old-growth rainforest from logging and road construction, and reinstates a 2020 rule that exempted the forest from these protections.
  • Rolls Back Reserve Management: Rescinds the 2024 rule for the management and protection of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A) and reinstates previous, less restrictive management plans.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The order states its purpose is to unlock Alaska's natural wealth to achieve several national goals.

  1. Raise citizen prosperity and enhance national economic and security interests.
  2. Deliver price relief for Americans and create high-quality jobs.
  3. Reduce trade imbalances and strengthen the nation's global energy dominance.
  4. Reverse "punitive restrictions" from the previous administration that targeted resource development in Alaska.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Energy (Oil, Gas, LNG), Mining, Timber, and Fishing.
Timeline: The order directs immediate review and action from federal agencies to rescind prior policies. Specific project timelines will depend on subsequent agency actions and potential legal challenges.
Scope: The order's provisions apply to federal and state lands across Alaska, with specific focus on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, the Tongass National Forest, and various transportation and energy corridors.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Great Land Divide (1970s-1980):

The debate over Alaska's vast federal lands intensified after the 1968 discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay. This led to two landmark pieces of legislation: the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), which settled Indigenous land claims, and the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). ANILCA was a monumental compromise that designated over 100 million acres for conservation while also mandating studies on the oil and gas potential of ANWR's "1002 area," leaving its fate to a future act of Congress.

The Political Football (1980-2017):

For decades, drilling in ANWR became a recurring, deeply partisan battle. Republicans made nearly 50 attempts to open the refuge, framing it as a key to energy independence, while Democrats successfully blocked these efforts, often through the use of the Senate filibuster, arguing for the preservation of its unique wilderness and the protection of Indigenous Gwich'in culture, which depends on the Porcupine caribou herd that calves in the 1002 area. The Inupiat, who live on the coast, have been more divided, with some supporting the economic opportunities drilling could bring.

Reconciliation and Reversal (2017-2025):

In 2017, the Republican-led Congress used the budget reconciliation process—a procedure immune to filibuster—to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which included a provision mandating two oil and gas lease sales in ANWR. The first sale, held in January 2021, was a commercial failure, generating a fraction of the projected revenue and attracting no major oil companies.

Upon taking office, the Biden administration placed a moratorium on ANWR activities, citing legal flaws in the environmental review. It later canceled the leases issued under the Trump administration. The administration also restored "Roadless Rule" protections to the Tongass National Forest, reversing a Trump-era exemption, and issued new rules to protect large portions of the National Petroleum Reserve.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • Fulfilling a Campaign Promise: The executive order aligns with a political platform centered on achieving "energy dominance" and removing regulations perceived as burdensome to the economy.
  • Reversing Predecessor's Legacy: The order is a direct and sweeping attempt to undo the environmental and conservation policies of the prior administration, representing a sharp pivot in land management and climate policy.
  • Economic Pressure: The order's sponsors argue that unleashing Alaska's resources will lower energy prices and create jobs, addressing economic concerns. This action prioritizes resource extraction as a primary economic driver for Alaska and a strategic asset for the nation.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This directly affects specific groups, namely Indigenous communities in Alaska, workers in the energy and timber industries, and companies involved in resource extraction, while the indirect effects on the environment and climate policy have implications for all Americans.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • For those in the energy, mining, and timber industries, the order could lead to increased job opportunities and economic activity in Alaska.
  • Proponents argue that increased domestic oil and gas production could eventually contribute to lower energy prices and reduce U.S. reliance on foreign energy sources.
  • The State of Alaska would receive a significant share of revenue from new resource leases, which could fund state services.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (1-5 years):

  • Increased industrial activity, including seismic testing and road construction, could disrupt pristine wilderness areas and wildlife habitats.
  • Legal challenges from environmental and tribal groups are almost certain, which could create uncertainty and delay project timelines.

Long-term:

  • The development of fossil fuels in sensitive Arctic ecosystems could lead to irreversible environmental damage and increase the risk of oil spills.
  • The burning of fossil fuels extracted from these areas would contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, working against climate goals.
  • For the Gwich'in people, development in ANWR threatens the Porcupine caribou herd, which is central to their subsistence culture and food security.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: Alaska Native corporations, Indigenous communities (particularly the Gwich'in and Inupiat), oil and gas companies, mining corporations, and the Alaskan state government.
Secondary Groups: Commercial fishing fleets, tourism operators, and environmental advocacy organizations.
Regional Impact: The impact is overwhelmingly concentrated in Alaska, especially the North Slope, Southeast Alaska (Tongass), and remote interior regions.

Bottom Line: This executive order prioritizes economic development through resource extraction in Alaska, which could bring jobs and revenue but poses significant risks to the environment and the traditional lifestyles of some Indigenous peoples.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Unleash American Energy"

Core Stance: Strongly in favor of the executive order, viewing it as a necessary correction to unlock Alaska's economic potential and secure U.S. energy independence.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Maximizing domestic energy production is crucial for national security and lowering costs for consumers.
  • ✓ Reducing federal regulations and environmental reviews removes unnecessary burdens and stimulates economic growth.
  • ✓ The previous administration's policies were an overreach that "locked up" valuable resources and harmed Alaska's economy.
  • ✓ Development can be done in an environmentally responsible way, with a minimal footprint.

Legislative Strategy: To support and defend the executive order from legal challenges and to use congressional oversight to ensure federal agencies comply with its directives promptly. May seek to codify these changes through legislation.

Democratic Position: "Protect Our Last Great Wilderness"

Core Stance: Strongly opposed to the executive order, viewing it as a reckless giveaway to corporate polluters that threatens iconic landscapes and undermines climate action.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a national treasure that must be permanently protected as wilderness.
  • ✓ Rushing to drill ignores the rights of the Gwich'in people and threatens their subsistence way of life.
  • ✓ Opening new areas to fossil fuel extraction is incompatible with addressing the climate crisis.
  • ✗ The economic benefits are overstated, as demonstrated by the poor results of the 2021 lease sale.

Legislative Strategy: To challenge the executive order in court and introduce legislation like the "Arctic Refuge Protection Act" to designate ANWR as a wilderness area, thereby providing permanent protection from development.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ⚠️ Questionable

Basis of Authority:

The President is acting under their constitutional authority as head of the executive branch to direct federal agencies on how to implement and enforce existing laws. (Article II, Section 3: "...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.") The order directs agencies to use their discretion under various statutes like the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).

Take Care Clause (Article II, Section 3): "[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."

Constitutional Implications:

Separation of Powers: While the President can direct agencies, this power is not unlimited. An executive order cannot override laws passed by Congress. This E.O. attempts to reverse agency actions (rules, environmental reviews) that were themselves undertaken to comply with statutes like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act.

Precedent: Courts have established that while a new administration can change policy, it cannot be "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). An agency must provide a reasoned explanation for reversing a prior rule or decision, and simply citing a change in presidential policy is often not enough.

Federalism: The order touches on federalism by aiming to transfer federal lands and authority to the State of Alaska for projects like the LNG pipeline and by altering the revenue-sharing formula for resource extraction.

Potential Legal Challenges:

Legal challenges are highly probable and are likely to come from a coalition of environmental organizations and tribal governments. The core arguments will likely be:

  • Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA): Opponents will argue that the order forces agencies to rescind formal rules and records of decision without going through the legally required notice-and-comment rulemaking process and without providing a rational basis for the change beyond a new political agenda.
  • Violation of Environmental Statutes: Lawsuits may claim that by reinstating old environmental reviews and canceling newer ones, the administration is failing to comply with its duties under NEPA to take a "hard look" at the environmental consequences of its actions.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER

5-Minute Actions:

  • Contact the White House: Use the White House comment line or website to express your support for Executive Order 14153.
  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I support the President's actions to increase energy production in Alaska and urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to oppose any attempts to block it."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee to explain why you support this policy.
  • Join an Organization: Groups that advocate for resource development, such as the Alaska Oil and Gas Association or Americans for Prosperity, are likely to support this order.

TO OPPOSE THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to vote NO on any bill that would allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge and to support legislation that would permanently protect it."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Submit a Public Comment: When agencies begin the process of rescinding rules as directed by the E.O., there will be public comment periods. Participate through regulations.gov.
  • Join an Organization: Environmental and conservation groups like The Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Audubon Alaska, and Defenders of Wildlife, as well as the Gwich'in Steering Committee, actively oppose drilling and will be leading efforts against this order.