As Trump officials visit Alaska, feds announce plans to remove some restrictions on Arctic drilling
The Trump administration plans to lift environmental protections on roughly half of the National Petroleum Reserve on Alaska's North Slope, reopening the area to possible oil and gas drilling.
The new move would reverse actions taken during the Biden administration to restrict development in the 23 million-acre reserve.
The plans, announced Sunday in Utqiagvik and formally on Monday by the U.S. Department of the Interior, open a public comment period, with final action to come later. The plans were announced as three of the Trump administration's top officials visit Alaska.
U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and Lee Zeldin, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, are in Alaska this week for a series of events, including a speaking engagement at Gov. Mike Dunleavy's annual sustainable energy conference, which begins Tuesday in Anchorage.
During a brief question-and-answer session with reporters on Sunday, U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, sat alongside the three cabinet members and called the effort to restrict development in NPR-A the 'most egregious effort of the Biden administration,' adding that 'one of the top priorities is to get the NPRA back to where it was supposed to be by the intention of Congress, to develop oil and to remove all the regulations that the Biden guys put on NPR-A, and that is a huge priority.'
While large oil companies have expressed little interest to date in drilling within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which lies to the east of the Prudhoe Bay oil fields, there has been interest in drilling within the reserve, which lies to the west.
Since the first days of the second Trump administration, federal officials have said that they are prioritizing an effort to eliminate obstacles for companies interested in digging or drilling for natural resources in Alaska.
Burgum, Wright and Zeldin traveled to the North Slope after meeting with state officials in Anchorage on Sunday and were scheduled to tour Pump Station No. 1 of the trans-Alaska Pipeline System before returning to Anchorage on Tuesday to participate in the governor's energy conference.
The two-hour Anchorage event was largely closed to the public, but reporters were able to listen to closing remarks and ask limited questions at the end.
There were no new details about the potential construction of a trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline, and officials did not address the Trump administration's decision to freeze or rescind grants awarded to renewable energy projects in Alaska.
Burgum, speaking in Anchorage, noted that Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport offers direct flights to 16 countries and talked about the 'rise of the Pacific' in terms of global commerce.
'Alaska can play such a huge role in this, but we've got to get the federal government out of your way. That's what the three of us are here to do,' he said.
In response to a question, Burgum said the administration plans to prioritize development of the planned Ambler Road, a 211-mile mining access road through the Brooks Range, and the proposed King Cove Road, an 11-mile road connecting King Cove to the Cold Bay airport, among other projects.
On Monday, environmental groups responded to the NPR-A decision with scorn and concern.
Grandmothers Growing Goodness, an environmental group that supports Indigenous communities in the Arctic, said that the repeal of the Biden administration protections would significantly impact Teshekpuk Lake and its surroundings, which are important for the Teshekpuk caribou herd. 'The area is also integral to Indigenous subsistence practices, supporting hunting, fishing, and gathering,' they said, in an email statement with the announcement
Protest demonstrations are planned in Anchorage for Monday and Tuesday to oppose the proposed Alaska LNG pipeline project and 'other fossil fuel projects promoted by Gov. Dunleavy's 'sustainable energy conference,'' according to organizers.
'It's hard to overstate the havoc this could wreak on the Western Arctic's undisturbed habitat for caribou, polars bears and belugas,' said Marlee Goska, Alaska attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. 'Trump's fixation on plundering Alaska's ecosystems for short-term gain is matched only by the stupidity of turning this precious place into a fossil fuel extraction site. Alaska's vast expanses of wild lands are a big part of what makes our state so special, and we'll do everything possible to protect these places.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump debanking order will have limited impact on crypto, experts say
Last week, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing bank regulators to rescind guidance that could lead to 'politicised or unlawful debanking.' Crypto businesses, and even some prominent conservatives — including the president himself — have alleged they were denied or lost access to bank accounts at the behest of politically-motivated, Biden-era regulators. But last week's executive order, entitled, 'Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,' won't do much for crypto businesses that fear they've been locked out of the traditional financial system, according to experts who spoke to DL News. That's because the order does little to root out 'reputation risk.' The term refers to regulators' ability to dissuade banks from engaging supposedly controversial customers, such as pornographers, firearms manufacturers, payday lenders, and crypto companies. Critics of the practice say that banks should only consider objective criteria, such as a customer's financial risk, when deciding whether to offer someone a checking account. Guidance documents and manuals 'This is going to make people happy who have been asking for it, but it's not clear how much good it's going to do them,' Dru Stevenson, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, told DL News. The executive order directs bank regulators to remove the use of reputation risk 'or equivalent concepts' that could result in 'politicized or unlawful debanking' from their 'guidance documents, manuals, and other materials.' But it isn't clear that examples of debanking were motivated by politics, according to Stevenson. 'It's not clear to me that they couldn't still allow for reputational risk that would apply to, say, an AI company, because that's not exactly a political issue or something that's unlawful,' he said. And reputation risk can have a downstream effect on banks' profits. 'If you have risk averse investors at one of the gigantic pension funds, or mutual funds, and they find out that Wachovia has gone gung ho about crypto, that might be a reason for them to switch to a more conservative bank,' Stevenson said. Moreover, banks were always free to ignore guidance documents and manuals according to Stevenson. As such, removing references to reputation risk from such documents will likely have little practical effect. 'If you're an agency, you can't go into court and say, 'This person violated our guidance document,'' he said. 'You have to show that they violated the statute or that they violated a codified regulation that went through notice and comment rulemaking.' Management reports Julie Hill, the dean of the University of Wyoming's law school, noted that Trump-appointed bank regulators have already said they will stop using reputation risk. While the regulators have new leadership, they are largely staffed by the same people who served under the Biden administration, Hill added. And reputation risk isn't the only tool regulators can use to pressure banks to reject certain customers. Anti-money laundering laws are one reason banks often reject customers, according to Hill. 'The vast, vast majority of suspicious activity reports don't lead to any sort of follow up, let alone any sort of enforcement,' she told DL News. Moreover, banks are not allowed to tell customers that their account was flagged for suspicious activity. 'We have a situation where banks had to file one or more SARs, and they decided it's just not worth it, we should debank, because we don't want our regulators upset with us, and it's getting expensive to file all these SARs.' Another tool at regulators' disposal: management reports. 'If a regulator suggests to a bank, 'We think this is risky, maybe you want to stop doing it' [but] it's not really that risky, banks might do it anyway,' Hill said, 'because their management rating will get downgraded and then that impacts all sorts of things, including their capital requirements.' Those ratings are also secret, according to Hill. 'Anytime you see a really broad authority with very little limit, and then also a lot of secrecy or lack of transparency about how regulators or banks implement that, you're likely to set up claims for debanking,' she said. Banks' responsibility The executive order also directs the regulators to identify financial institutions that had any 'past or current, formal or informal, policies or practices that require, encourage, or otherwise influence … politicized or unlawful debanking.' Finding examples of politically-motivated debanking could be straightforward if the orders came from federal regulators, according to Hill. 'It's a much harder thing if what you think happened is the banks, for whatever reason, just decided to debank people for political reasons, unconnected with risk or profit or whatever,' she said. 'There's a real question about how we think regulators are going to figure that out and whether we think there's any duty on the bank to voluntarily disclose it.' Whatever the effect of the executive order, both professors agreed that a new administration could reinstate the use of reputation risk unilaterally. 'It kind of highlights how unsticky changes made by the executive branch are when it comes to discretionary enforcement,' Hill said. 'This is one of those things that can change from administration to administration.' Stevenson agreed. 'If we ever get to have other presidents, the next president can just do another executive order and put it all back, like, overnight,' Stevenson said. Aleks Gilbert is DL News' New York-based DeFi correspondent. You can contact him at aleks@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Intercept
7 minutes ago
- The Intercept
Veterans Are 'Guinea Pigs' in Trump's First National Abortion Ban Experiment
Ash Wallis knows she likely wouldn't survive another pregnancy. Doctors said as much years earlier after she suffered a pulmonary embolism following a miscarriage, and got a second blood clot. Getting pregnant again isn't a risk she is willing or able to take. 'I have two sons,' said Wallis. 'I don't want to leave them motherless.' Wallis, 40, begged her health care provider to give her an IUD — her best chance at preventing another pregnancy and protecting her life. But her provider, the Department of Veterans Affairs, refused to cover the procedure. Despite three years of service in the Army, Wallis was forced to pay out of pocket at a local clinic. 'The risks of me getting pregnant and there being a significant health issue were too much risk for me to gamble on,' she said. Access to reproductive care and abortion has long been a problem for those who rely on VA care. But a policy change by the Trump administration stands to make reproductive health for service members and veterans even worse. Last week, the administration posted a proposed rule for VA facilities that would severely narrow access to abortion — eliminating exceptions for health, rape, and incest, and only allowing the procedure in situations deemed to threaten the life of the mother. The rule would also ban any counseling for abortion through the VA. The proposed policy now enters a mandatory 30-day comment period, after which it can go into effect. Experts told The Intercept that the rule change will have devastating consequences for the millions of service members and veterans reliant on health care through the VA, as well as their families. 'It's the worst-case scenario,' said Rachel Fey, vice president of policy and strategic partnerships at Power to Decide, a nonprofit focused on reproductive and sexual health. The Department of Veterans Affairs has long excluded abortion care and abortion counseling from its medical benefits package, with a narrow exception for the 'life of the mother.' That changed in 2022 when the Biden administration, recognizing the danger posed to veterans and service members by the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, instituted a new rule allowing for abortion counseling and abortion care in an expanded list of circumstances. It's this Biden-era change that is under attack by the Trump administration. The administration describes the proposed policy shift as a return to form. 'Prior to the Biden Administration's politically motivated change in 2022, federal law and longstanding precedent across Democrat and Republican administrations prevented VA from providing abortions and abortion counseling,' wrote Gary Kunich, a Veterans Affairs spokesperson, in a statement to the Intercept. Fey and other reproductive health experts had anticipated the Trump administration would institute an abortion ban at the VA. But they told The Intercept that this version is particularly draconian considering the dramatic fall-off in abortion access following the Dobbs decision. 'This new policy would be one of the strictest abortion bans in the country, and for veterans living in the 12 states that ban abortion, it would further close off what may be their only opportunity to access urgently needed abortion care,' said Liz McCaman Taylor, senior federal policy counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, in a statement. 'For veterans living in these states, they may now be forced to carry pregnancies to term even if they were raped or the pregnancy puts their health in jeopardy.' The proposed rule would 'reinstate the full exclusion on abortions and abortion counseling.' Unlike under the Biden rule, which allowed for abortion counseling and abortion care to protect the health of the mother or in cases of rape and incest, the new proposed rule only includes a vague, narrow exception for 'life of the mother.' 'For the avoidance of doubt, the proposed rule would make clear that the exclusion for abortion does not apply 'when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term,'' wrote the administration in a summary of the draft proposal. However, in a potentially complicating line, the administration wrote: 'Taken together, claims in the prior administration's rule that abortions throughout pregnancy are needed to save the lives of pregnant women are incorrect.' Jaclyn Dean, director of congressional relations, reproductive health, at the National Partnership for Women & Families, said that the lack of medical clarity around when doctors are allowed to intervene is going to cost lives. 'If I'm a doctor for the VA,' said Dean, 'I'm very confused about what I'm legally allowed to do.' Fey said her organization, Power to Decide, was 'not aware of any circumstances' where the VA covered abortion care under the life exception in place before the Biden rule. 'There was always sort of supposed to be this very, very narrow life exception, but similar to what's happening now in the post-Dobbs world, we're seeing that those life exceptions don't work in practice,' she said. Lindsay Church, executive director of Minority Veterans of America, said the counseling ban adds another layer of risk because providers are prevented from even discussing the option of abortion until it may be too late. 'Good luck if you get to a place where you're dying,' said Church, 'because you can't get abortion counseling before that. And that, to me, is insulting. Not only that, but it could have deadly consequences.' Read Our Complete Coverage The counseling ban also means veterans or active-duty service members referred to the Veterans Affairs administration for care after being sexually assaulted can't discuss abortion as an option with their provider. 'We already know that women veterans experience Military Sexual Trauma at alarming rates, and many of us continue to fight battles long after our service ends,' said Stephanie Gattas, founder of the Pink Berets, which offers support for women veterans struggling with PTSD, military sexual assault, and other mental health issues. Over 8,000 service members, who can also be referred to the VA for care, reported being sexually assaulted last year. And nearly 500 people reported being sexually assaulted while on a VA campus last year, according to Church. Both numbers are likely a severe undercount. 'The military community is wrought with sexual violence,' said Church. 'Now, if you get raped and become pregnant … because of assault at the Department of Veterans Affairs, they won't help you.' Sylvia Andersh, a former service member who worked at Veterans Affairs hospitals as a nurse, called the lack of exceptions for rape 'cruel.' 'My faith in humanity has been quite tested with the fact that they're willing to blatantly hurt women,' said Andersh. For Wallis, who was sexually assaulted while serving in the military, the lack of rape exceptions is especially troubling. 'It feels like being spit in my face,' she said. 'I wrote a check up to and including my life for this country, and I'm not provided equal access to care,' Wallis said. Wallis also worries that this new policy could increase suicidal ideation among service members. 'An unexpected pregnancy, whether it's due to rape, incest, or contraceptive failure, doesn't matter what the cause is,' she said, 'it increases suicidal ideation, and in the lack of access to care, you add that in, and that risk increases further.' The biggest impact is going to fall on veterans and service members living in states with abortion bans, experts told The Intercept. The Department of Veterans Affairs is the largest integrated health care system in the United States, serving 2 million women veterans, over 400,000 of whom live in states with abortion bans. 'We were living in a much different world the last time this total ban was in effect.' Though the Trump administration insists the policy change would be a return to standard VA practice, Taylor, of Center for Reproductive Rights, points out that the landscape has changed following the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision. 'We were living in a much different world the last time this total ban was in effect. This is the first time there has been a total abortion ban in VA health care facilities since Roe v. Wade was overturned,' said Taylor. 'Before Roe fell, if a veteran couldn't get an abortion at a VA health care facility, they could seek one elsewhere in their state. Now, abortion is banned in many states, and over 100 clinics have closed, meaning veterans living in those states will be totally out of options.' Wallis said she feels as if the administration is testing how far it can restrict access to care, pointing to the abortion ban and new restrictions on gender-affirming care at the VA. 'We're the guinea pigs they want to test what they're able to do to the general public,' she said. 'I truly feel like they're testing what they want to do with the rest of the country on us, and it's scary to me.'
USA Today
7 minutes ago
- USA Today
Are stimulus checks coming? What to know after Trump proposed tariff rebate
Last month, President Donald Trump teased that a potential rebate could be attached to the worldwide tariffs he announced earlier this year. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate,' Trump said on July 25 ahead of his trip to Scotland, where he planned to iron out the details of a United Kingdom trade agreement. The White House has announced that some of the tariffs, which were disclosed on April 2, have raised $100 billion in revenue. Trump didn't provide further details on the potential rebates, which are unlikely to pass in Congress, except to say they would only be available to people from certain income levels. The president would need congressional approval to authorize the rebates. While details are scarce, here's what you need to know about a potential tariff rebate. Previous story: Trump considers 'rebates' to US taxpayers from tariff income Sen. Josh Hawley introduces rebate bill Shortly after Trump's July comments, Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, introduced the American Worker Rebate Act of 2025. The proposed legislation would send rebate checks of at least $600 per individual to U.S. residents. A family of four could receive up to $2,400. The legislation allows the credit to increase if tariff revenues exceed 2025 projections. 'My legislation would allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump's tariffs are returning to this country,' said Hawley in a news release announcing the bill. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said tariff revenue is expected to reach $300 billion annually. Yet, economists have said the policies could increase inflation and cost taxpayers thousands of dollars per year, especially if Trump doesn't reach trade deals with key partners like Canada and Mexico. For joint filers with an adjusted gross income of over $150,000 and people filing single who earn more than $75,000, the benefit would be reduced by 5%. The legislation has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee. It would need to pass both the Senate and the House of Representatives to become law. What are some of the hurdles facing the rebate? Republican lawmakers are unlikely to be excited about increasing federal spending. The stimulus checks issued during the COVID-19 pandemic cost the government about $164 billion. If checks were issued, it would mean a significant percentage of tariff revenue would be going back to taxpayers at a time when Trump himself has said his priority is paying down $37 trillion in debt. "The big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said in July. 'But we're thinking about rebates.' In an interview with Semafor, one conservative lawmaker shot down the idea. "People love spending money and granting new tax cuts when we can't afford it," Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, told the outlet. 'We're $37 trillion in debt and running $2 trillion a year deficits – some time, this madness just has to end.' How is a tax rebate different from a stimulus check? A tax rebate is a reimbursement made to a taxpayer for an excess amount paid in taxes during the year, while a stimulus check is a direct payment from the federal government to households. Tax rebates can be issued at any point during the year. Hawley's news release states that the parameters for the tax rebate would be similar to the stimulus checks issued in 2020 during the economic slowdown caused by the pandemic. When could a tax rebate be implemented? Hawley's bill has until the end of the current congressional calendar to pass through both chambers of Congress, or it will be considered dead and would need to be introduced again if lawmakers want to move forward with it. Michelle Del Rey is a trending news reporter at USA TODAY. Reach her at mdelrey@
