View the Original .pdfThe 1-Minute Brief
What: A Presidential permit has been granted to Junction Pipeline Company, LLC, authorizing the construction and operation of a 30-inch pipeline to import crude oil and other petroleum products from Canada into the United States at Toole County, Montana.
Money: The permit itself does not specify a dollar amount. However, an analysis of a recent Republican-led reconciliation bill suggests that pipeline companies investing in carbon dioxide and hydrogen projects could receive up to $3.2 billion in tax credits, which may influence the financial landscape for such projects.
Your Impact: For the average American, the most likely direct effect is a potential stabilization or marginal decrease in fuel prices due to an increased supply of crude oil from a neighboring ally. However, there is also an indirect impact related to the ongoing national debate on fossil fuels versus renewable energy.
Status: Granted. The Presidential permit was signed on June 30, 2025, and is scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on July 3, 2025.
What's Actually in the Permit
This Presidential permit grants legal authority for a private company, Junction Pipeline Company, LLC, to build, connect, and operate pipeline facilities across the U.S.-Canada border. The permit explicitly allows for the importation of a wide range of crude oil and petroleum products, but not natural gas. The core function of the document is to provide federal approval for the cross-border infrastructure, subject to numerous conditions.
Core Provisions:
- The permit authorizes a 30-inch diameter pipeline to be built in Toole County, Montana, extending from the international border to the first mainline shut-off valve within the U.S.
- The permittee, Junction Pipeline Company, LLC, must secure all other necessary federal, state, and local permits and comply with all applicable laws, including safety regulations from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).
- The U.S. government retains the right to take possession of the facilities for national security purposes, with fair compensation to be paid to the owner.
- The permittee is required to indemnify and hold the United States harmless from any liability arising from the project, including environmental contamination.
- Any substantial changes to the facility or its operation require a new or amended Presidential permit.
Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):
The permit is issued by the President to authorize the construction and operation of energy-related facilities at the nation's borders. The underlying policy, as expressed in executive orders from the current administration, is to expedite energy production and transmission projects to ensure a secure and abundant supply of American energy.
- Authorize Junction Pipeline Company, LLC to construct, connect, operate, and maintain pipeline facilities for energy importation.
- Facilitate the import of crude oil and a wide variety of petroleum products from Canada.
- Ensure the project adheres to U.S. laws and regulations while placing liability and costs on the private permittee.
Key Facts:
Affected Sectors: Energy, Construction, Transportation, Environmental Services.
Timeline: The permit was granted on June 30, 2025. Construction timelines will depend on the permittee securing other relevant permits.
Scope: The permit directly affects the border crossing at Toole County, Montana, but the pipeline is part of a larger system impacting energy markets in both the U.S. and Canada.
The Backstory: How We Got Here
Timeline of Events:
Post-War Expansion (1950s-1970s):
The U.S.-Canada energy relationship deepened after World War II with the discovery of significant oil reserves in Alberta. This led to a boom in cross-border pipeline construction to transport Canadian resources to U.S. markets. Major projects like the Interprovincial Pipeline (now part of the Enbridge Mainline) were built, establishing a pattern of U.S. logistical routes being essential for moving Canadian energy. The 1970s energy crisis, prompted by an Arab oil embargo, further incentivized the development of North American energy resources and the pipelines needed to transport them.
The Era of Political & Environmental Battles (2008-2024):
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline, first applied for in 2008, became a flashpoint, symbolizing the growing conflict between energy security, economic interests, and environmental protection. The project faced years of regulatory hurdles and intense public debate, with its permit being denied by one administration, approved by the next, and ultimately revoked again, leading the developer to cancel the project in 2021. During this period, the authority for issuing such permits was delegated to the State Department under executive orders, but the ultimate decision remained a highly political one, resting with the President.
Why Now? The Political Calculus:
- Shift in Energy Policy: The permit's issuance on June 30, 2025, reflects a significant shift in executive branch policy. The current administration has issued a series of executive orders aimed at "Unleashing American Energy," prioritizing the rollback of environmental regulations and streamlining the permitting process for fossil fuel projects.
- Energy Security and Prices: Proponents of new pipelines argue they are essential for American energy independence and for lowering high energy costs that have affected consumers, particularly in regions like the Northeast.
- Post-Election Mandate: The administration is acting on a campaign platform that promised to expand drilling and fossil fuel infrastructure, viewing the election as a mandate to pursue an "energy dominance" agenda. This permit is a concrete step in fulfilling that promise.
Your Real-World Impact
The Direct Answer: This directly affects specific groups like landowners and construction workers in Montana, but its indirect effects on energy prices and the environment could be felt by most Americans.
What Could Change for You:
Potential Benefits:
- Lower Fuel Costs: An increased and stable supply of crude oil from a reliable trading partner like Canada could lead to lower prices at the pump for gasoline and diesel.
- Job Creation: The construction phase of the pipeline will create temporary, high-paying jobs in the skilled trades in Montana.
- Energy Security: Reducing reliance on oil from less stable regions of the world enhances national security and economic stability.
Possible Disruptions or Costs:
Short-term (1-3 years):
- Construction Disruption: Landowners along the pipeline route in Montana will experience temporary disruptions due to construction activity.
- Local Infrastructure Strain: A surge in workers could strain local housing and public services in sparsely populated areas like Toole County.
Long-term:
- Environmental Risks: The operation of a major oil pipeline carries the risk of spills, which can cause significant and long-lasting damage to local ecosystems, water sources, and agricultural land.
- Climate Impact: Critics argue that investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure locks the country into decades more of carbon emissions, working against climate change goals.
Who's Most Affected:
Primary Groups: Landowners, ranchers, and Native American tribes in Toole County, Montana; construction workers; Junction Pipeline Company, LLC and its investors.
Secondary Groups: U.S. oil refineries, Canadian oil producers, railroad companies that also transport oil.
Regional Impact: The most direct impact is in Montana. However, the flow of oil will affect refinery operations and fuel markets regionally and potentially nationally.
Bottom Line: For most people, this permit means a greater flow of oil from Canada, which could help keep fuel prices in check but also deepens the nation's commitment to fossil fuels, a point of major political and environmental debate.
Where the Parties Stand
Republican Position: "Drill, Baby, Drill"
Core Stance: Overwhelmingly supportive, viewing the permit as a critical step toward American energy dominance and economic strength.
Their Arguments:
- ✓ New pipelines create jobs, lower energy prices, and strengthen national security by ensuring a reliable energy supply from an ally.
- ✓ Reducing regulatory burdens and expediting permits for energy projects is essential for economic growth.
- ✓ Maximizing domestic and North American fossil fuel production is a strategic imperative.
- ✗ They actively oppose what they see as Democratic-led efforts to stifle the fossil fuel industry through excessive environmental regulations.
Legislative Strategy: To support the President's executive actions by passing legislation that further streamlines permitting, provides financial incentives for fossil fuel projects, and potentially limits states' ability to block pipelines.
Democratic Position: "A Divided Path"
Core Stance: The party is split, with a growing divide between environmental advocates and those focused on energy costs and union jobs.
Their Arguments:
- ✗ A vocal wing of the party strongly opposes new fossil fuel infrastructure, citing climate change and the risk of oil spills.
- ✓ Some Democrats, particularly in regions with high energy costs, are open to new pipelines to provide affordable energy to their constituents and support trade unions.
- ⚠️ Many express concern over the use of executive power to bypass what they see as necessary environmental reviews.
- ⚠️ There are concerns that federal pipeline approvals could trample on the rights of states, local communities, and tribal nations.
Legislative Strategy: To push back against the administration's "drill-first" agenda through oversight hearings, introducing legislation to restore environmental protections, and empowering the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) with stronger enforcement capabilities.
Constitutional Check
The Verdict: ✓ Constitutional
Basis of Authority:
The President's power to issue permits for cross-border pipelines is not explicitly granted in the Constitution but is widely understood to derive from their inherent authority over foreign affairs and as Commander in Chief. Federal courts have repeatedly upheld this authority. The permit itself states it is granted "By virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States of America." This power is often formalized through Executive Orders.
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2: "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties... and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors..."
(While not a direct grant for pipelines, this clause forms part of the broader foundation for the President's role in foreign relations, which courts have cited as the basis for this permitting power.)
Constitutional Implications:
[Presidential Authority]: Courts have held that because Congress has not created a specific statutory scheme for oil pipeline border crossings, the President's inherent constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs fills that gap.
[Precedent]: Legal challenges to past pipeline permits, such as for the Keystone XL and Alberta Clipper pipelines, have affirmed that the decision to issue a permit is a presidential action, largely immune from judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
[Federalism]: A major point of contention is whether the federal permit preempts state and local laws. While the permit requires compliance with state and local regulations, legal battles often arise when states attempt to block projects that have received federal approval, raising questions of federal versus state power.
Potential Legal Challenges:
Legal challenges are highly likely from a coalition of environmental organizations and potentially Native American tribes. Lawsuits will likely argue that the environmental reviews conducted prior to the permit's issuance were insufficient under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or that the project threatens endangered species or critical habitats.
Your Action Options
TO SUPPORT THIS PERMIT
5-Minute Actions:
- Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I support the President's decision to grant the Presidential Permit for the Junction Pipeline to enhance our energy security."
30-Minute Deep Dive:
- Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to express your support for policies that encourage domestic and North American energy production.
- Join an Organization: Consider joining industry and trade groups that advocate for energy infrastructure.
TO OPPOSE THIS PERMIT
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 oppose the Junction Pipeline permit and fight against new fossil fuel infrastructure."
30-Minute Deep Dive:
- Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper outlining your concerns about the pipeline's potential impact on the climate and the local environment in Montana.
- Join an Organization: National environmental groups like the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and local grassroots organizations in Montana are actively involved in opposing such projects.