Arctic Refuge drilling controversy

The question of whether to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been an ongoing political controversy in the United States since 1977.^[1] As of 2017, Republicans have attempted to allow drilling in ANWR almost fifty times, finally being successful with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.^[2]

ANWR comprises 19 million acres (7.7 million ha) of the north Alaskan coast.^[3] The land is situated between the Beaufort Sea to the north, Brooks Range to the south, and Prudhoe Bay to the west. It is the largest protected wilderness in the United States and was created by Congress under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980.^[4] Section 1002 of that act deferred a decision on the management of oil and gas exploration and development of 1.5 million acres (610,000 ha) in the coastal plain, known as the "1002 area".^[5] The controversy surrounds drilling for oil in this subsection of ANWR.

Much of the debate over whether to drill in the 1002 area of ANWR rests on the amount of economically recoverable oil, as it relates to world oil markets, weighed against the potential harm oil exploration might have upon the natural wildlife, in particular the calving ground of the Porcupine caribou.^[6][7] In their documentary Being Caribou the Porcupine herd was followed in its yearly migration by author and wildlife biologist Karsten Heuer and filmmaker Leanne Allison to provide a broader understanding of what is at stake if the oil drilling should happen and educating the public. There has been controversy over the scientific reports' methodology and transparency of information during the Trump administration. Although there have been complaints from employees within the Department of the Interior,^{[citation needed]} the reports remain the central evidence for those who argue that the drilling operation will not have a detrimental impact on local wildlife.

On December 3, 2020, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) gave notice of sale for the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program in the ANWR with a livestream video drilling rights lease sale scheduled for January 6, 2021. The Trump administration issued the first leases on January 19, 2021. On President Joe Biden's first day in Office, he issued an executive order for a temporary moratorium on drilling activity in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.^[8][9] On June 1, 2021, Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland suspended all Trump-era oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge pending a review of how fossil fuel drilling would impact the remote landscape.^[10] On September 6, 2023, the Biden administration cancelled the leases.^[11]

As of 2025 by action of President Trump via executive order, the protected refuge has been declared open for oil and gas exploration and exploitation. ^[12]

This comes after the reversals of Trump’s Executive Orders from his first Presidential term, which was done by the Biden Administration. Not only is President Donald Trump reinstating his policy, but he has vowed to re-open an increased number of Alaskan lands than he did in his first presidency to get gas and extract oil.^[13] The framework of this policy revolves around the fact that Alaska is home to an abundant amount of natural resources that remain largely untapped. This goes beyond just drilling for oil, but additionally includes harvesting resources such as timber, mineral, energy, and even seafood. All these raw materials will contribute to improving the economy, according to the Trump Administration, and enhance the country for generations. Examples of these enhancements include boosting the United States’ global dominance in the energy field, increasing the government’s ability to protect against international actors who weaponize their energy supply, and eliminating the trade imbalance, therefore helping to secure higher-quality jobs for American citizens.  

Trump also aims to expedite the pace at which permits and leases are approved. This is so natural resource projects in Alaska, like developing the state’s liquified natural gas transactional process and transportation to regions of the US and to allies, can be done efficiently and effectively, hence maximizing the advancement of the economy and overall production. This emphasis and focus on the economy potentially puts the environment at risk of worsened pollution and other externalities. But the logistical reasoning by the Trump Administration is that the economic and natural security benefits are ones that the United States can matter-of-factly gain from. ^[14]

Still, there is opposition in the polarized sphere of environmental policy. The basis for one argument is that communities have already experienced the negative effects of climate change and the imposition of this Executive Order wouldn’t help the thinning sea ice, or the thawing permafrost Alaska is experiencing. These things are also may harm the United State.^[15] Additionally, some environmentalist groups have brought suits to court. They are claiming that Trump’s attempts to reverse the previous decisions that barred oil and gas drilling in specific parts of the Artic waters are unconstitutional. They argue that passage of these enforcements by past Presidents, such as former President Joe Biden, were meant to be, if not permanent, then not easily reversed by a new President.^[16] Law challenges continue to persist to question the constitutionality of Trump’s Executive Order that pushes for drilling.