Alaska Beacon

The Trump administration plans to create a new designated region for offshore oil leasing in Arctic waters off Alaska, an area where past exploration attempts have failed amid extremely high costs, logistical challenges and safety problems.

The Department of the Interior said it will soon release a new five-year national plan for offshore oil and gas leasing in federal water, and it will include a new High Arctic planning area. Details will be provided in an upcoming notice in the Federal Register and in information posted on the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s website, the department said in its statement.

“Launching the process to develop the 11th National Outer Continental Shelf Program marks a decisive step toward securing American Energy Dominance,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in the statement. “Through a transparent and inclusive public engagement process, we are reinforcing our commitment to responsible offshore energy development—driving job creation, bolstering economic growth and strengthening American energy independence. Under President Donald J. Trump’s leadership, we are unlocking the full potential of our offshore resources to benefit the American people for generations to come.”

Further information was not provided by the department.

Most federal Arctic waters were previously put off-limits to oil leasing by former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

President Trump attempted in his first term to open Arctic areas that Obama had withdrawn from the leasing program, but that attempt was struck down by a federal court.

A more recent Trump attempt to open withdrawn waters to oil leasing is now being challenged, as the first attempt was. A coalition of environmental groups sued the Trump administration in February over his efforts to overturn protections in the Northern Bering Sea and areas of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Environmentalists on Friday criticized the newly announced plans for more offshore oil leasing, including in the Arctic.

“Drilling in the Arctic is a disaster waiting to happen. There’s no way to clean up an oil spill there and it will harm polar bears and bowhead whales. Oil companies should think twice about drilling in the Arctic, as it has been plagued with challenges,” Natalie Jones of the Center for Biological Diversity said by email.

The Center for Biological Diversity is one of the environmental groups that sued the Trump administration in February.

Despite some sporadic attempts to explore for oil in federal Arctic waters off Alaska, there has never been any commercial oil production there or in any federal waters off Alaska, except for a small portion of the Hilcorp-operated Northstar field, which lies mostly on state territory.

The field that was expected to become the first producing site located entirely in federal waters off Alaska, the Liberty project, has languished for decades without development. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. discovered it in the 1990s and drew up two separate development plans but wound up dropping those. Hilcorp acquired full ownership of Liberty in 2020, but its lack of progress on the project led to expiration of the leases earlier this year.

The last oil exploration attempt in federal Arctic waters was a Royal Dutch Shell campaign abandoned in 2015 after the company spent over $7 billion on it.

That campaign was beset with trouble — most notably, the wreck of a mobile drill rig that escaped its tow and grounded during a storm on Dec. 31, 2012. The rig, the Kulluk, had been used for Shell’s exploration in the Beaufort Sea, the portion of the Arctic Ocean east of Point Barrow. Shell used a separate drill ship in the Chukchi Sea, west of Point Barrow and north of the Bering Strait. That ship, the Noble Discoverer, also had numerous operational and environmental problems.

Shell wound up completing just one well, which was in the Chukchi, and the company concluded that it found too little oil there to justify further development.

Alaska’s voter-approved mandate for paid sick leave has not yet gone into effect, but some lawmakers are already trying to reduce the number of workers who would benefit from it.

A bill pending in the Alaska Legislature, House Bill 161, would exempt businesses with fewer than 50 employees, a change from the 15-employee threshold in the labor-rights initiative that voters approved in November. The bill would also drop seasonal workers from the mandate for accrued paid sick leave. The bill was introduced on March 28 by Rep. Justin Ruffridge, R-Soldotna, with Rep. Julie Coulombe, R-Anchorage, as a co-sponsor. Both are members of the House minority. It has the support of a key majority member; House Majority Leader Chuck Kopp, R-Anchorage, signed on as a co-sponsor on April 14.

It addresses Ballot Measure 1, a three-part citizen initiative that will raise Alaska’s minimum wage and protect workers against any employer-imposed political or religious meetings, as well as mandate paid sick leave, based on time accrued over work periods. Voters approved Ballot Measure 1 by a 58-42 percent margin. The new law is set to go into effect on July 1.

Ruffridge and Coulombe, during the bill’s first hearing on Wednesday, described the proposed changes as modifications that fit within the state constitution’s limits. While the constitution forbids sweeping changes within two years to any voter-passed initiatives, the bill “in no way seeks to repeal or change some of the key provisions of Ballot Measure 1,” chiefly the minimum-wage hike that was probably the most popular element, Ruffridge told the House Labor and Commerce Committee.

Coulombe said the changes amounted to a “few tweaks” that are necessary to help small businesses.

“What will happen if we don’t try to amend this a little bit, make the language a little cleaner and make it more adaptable to small businesses, we have small businesses that might actually just go out of business,” she told the committee.

The bill has the enthusiastic backing of the Alaska Chamber, a business group that campaigned against the ballot measure.

In testimony at Wednesday’s hearing of the House Labor and Commerce Committee, Kati Capozzi, the chamber’s president, called it a “vital correction” to a pending mandate that burdens small businesses, especially in the tourism and hospitality sectors.

“Maybe well-intentioned or maybe not, Ballot Measure 1 introduced a one-size-fits-all mandate that failed to account for Alaska’s unique economic landscape,” she said.

Echoing earlier comments by Ruffridge and Coulombe, Capozzi said voters were less aware of Ballot Measure 1’s sick-leave provisions than they were of the wage hike. “It’s become clear that many voters did not understand the true and full implications of the ballot measure,” she said.

One of the leaders of the Ballot Measure 1 campaign vowed to work against House Bill 161.

“For me, it’s really important that the voters will be respected here,” Joelle Hall, president of the Alaska AFL-CIO, said Thursday. “The voters have made this choice. The voters have said, ‘We would like this to happen.’ And whether or not the business groups can use a smaller group of people, the Alaska Legislature, to try to undo their will — that is something we will fight.”

Hall disputed the bill sponsors’ characterization of the changes as minor.

“This, in my mind, is a substantial change. It is repealing the benefit that the voters voted for,” she said.

She also disputed the contention that voters had not paid attention to the sick-leave provisions in the initiative.

“That is just silliness, because we were very clear that it was earned sick leave,” she said. “Almost all of our advertising was about that, so almost every single ad we put out was about somebody’s earned sick-leave benefit.”

She said she was expecting some pushback on the bill’s provisions, but not this soon.

“It’s a little bit shocking to me that it’s such an aggressive overreach of what the voters passed,” she said. “I’m not surprised that they’re going to fight us on this tooth and nail every single session, to try to claw it back. I’m a little surprised they’re starting before it’s even a law.”

Alaska was not the only state where voters in November approved a mandate for paid sick leave. Similar initiatives passed in Missouri and Nebraska.

Several other states already required paid sick leave prior to last year’s election.

For the second year running, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy vetoed an education funding bill on Thursday, citing the state’s current finances and a lack of policy changes he supported.

House Bill 69 would have increased the base student allocation — the core of the state’s per-student funding — by $1,000 in the funding formula. The BSA has not been substantially increased for more than a decade, and public school advocates testified that inflation-driven cost increases have resulted in cuts to programs, school closures, and larger class sizes.

The governor’s veto is subject to a vote of the Alaska Legislature. Under the Alaska Constitution, a vote to confirm or override the vote must be held “immediately,” but multiple lawmakers have said that the bill lacks enough support for a veto override. Votes from 40 of 60 state legislators, meeting in joint session, are needed for an override.

Last year, the education funding bill included a $680 per-student increase. That bill had broad bipartisan support, with only three Republican legislators voting against it. But after Dunleavy vetoed it, 20 Republicans voted to uphold the veto. This year, none of the 25 members of the two Republican minority caucuses voted for the bill. The three co-chairs of the Senate Finance Committee voted against it.

Editor’s note: This is a developing story. 

This story was republished with permission from Alaska Beacon. 

A crowd of over 100 residents gathered in front of the Alaska State Capitol in Juneau on Wednesday, for a “pop-up” protest calling for due process and justice for a Maryland man mistakenly deported and imprisoned in El Salvador.

“Protect the Constitution!” the crowd chanted, and demonstrators held hand-made signs reading: “Uphold the rule of law!” “Due process matters,” and “Bring Kilmar home.”

Outrage has grown across the country, with protests and town halls, around 30-year-old Kilmar Abrego Garcia — who was granted asylum in the U.S. due to threats of gang violence in 2019 — his mistaken arrest and deportation to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador, and ensuing court battle to bring him home.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the government must “facilitate” Garcia’s return to the U.S., but stopped short of requiring it. On Tuesday, a federal district court judge in Maryland ordered the Trump administration to show how it has tried to secure the release of Garcia. So far, the judge said the record shows “nothing has been done.”

The White House maintains it has no power to ask El Salvador to release Abrego Garcia from the mega-prison, and that the judge overstepped her authority in ordering the administration to conduct foreign affairs.

At the protest in Juneau, demonstrators gave impromptu speeches denouncing the Trump administration, calling it a violation of due process rights. Speakers called for protection and support for Alaska-based immigrant families, some who received notices to “leave now” and self-deport, some sent in error. They urged Alaskans to continue speaking out, including calling on U.S. Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan to do more in Congress.

“Sending immigrants to an El Salvador prison that is likened to a concentration camp or a gulag, is just reprehensible,” said Mary Hakala, a lifelong Juneau resident in an interview after the protest.

“(For) everyone in the United States, whether they’re an immigrant, a U.S. citizen, due process is what keeps us all safe,” she said. “And so if they are able to throw out and ignore the laws regarding the rights of citizens and immigrants, none of us are safe. It’s a very frightening time.”

El Salvador President Nayib Bukele, a key partner in the Trump administration’s new deportation and imprisonment effort, refused to assist with Garcia’s return in an Oval Office meeting on Monday. “Of course, I’m not going to do it,” he said. “The question is preposterous.”

At that meeting, President Trump expressed openness to deporting U.S. citizens convicted of violent crimes to El Salvador. “If it’s a homegrown criminal, I have no problem,” Trump told reporters. “We’re studying the laws right now… If we can do that, that’s good.”

The U.S. government is paying El Salvador to imprison immigrants, despite a federal law barring it from financially supporting foreign security forces facing credible allegations of gross human rights violations.

This story is republished with permission from the Alaska Beacon.

For the first time in more than 25 years, the Alaska House of Representatives has voted against budget language that seeks to limit Medicaid coverage for abortions.

On Monday, the House failed by a single vote to approve a budget amendment that would forbid the state from spending money on abortions unless they are deemed a “mandatory service” under Medicaid.

The amendment received 20 votes, all from Republicans; 21 votes were needed to approve the amendment, which has been a feature of the state budget since at least 2001.

Hours later, the House approved a different amendment that seeks to adopt a similar approach with regard to gender dysphoria and care for transgender Alaskans.

That amendment passed 21-19 on a strict party-line vote, as both Republican members of the House’s coalition majority joined members of the minority Republican caucus to pass it.

Both actions are not final — they would have to be mirrored by the state Senate — but nonetheless have significant symbolic value.

The Alaska House of Representatives has repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted to restrict abortion access since the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the privacy clause of the state constitution protects abortion rights.

Each year, under an amendment to the state budget, state lawmakers have attempted to restrict abortion under Medicaid by limiting coverage to only what’s deemed medically necessary.

Introducing the abortion amendment was Rep. Sarah Vance, R-Homer.

“The courts have weighed in on this issue, and it is the value and the principle of Alaskans that we preserve life,” she said.

“The executive branch has provided support for this, the Legislature has provided support for this. So this is simply restoring the language that we have previously had,” Vance said.

The budget language has had limited practical effect because doctors need only fill out a form to demonstrate that a procedure is medically necessary, and an attempt to define what’s medically necessary was struck down in court.

The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that using different definitions for abortion and for other cases violated the right to equal protection of the laws under the Alaska Constitution.

Nevertheless, the amendment has turned into an annual statement of intent. In 2019, the state Senate initially failed to adopt the amendment, though the final budget included language from the House. Until this year, the House had never failed to adopt the amendment.

This year’s amendment came down to Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak, who initially voted in favor of the amendment but changed her mind before voting closed.

“I’m just trying to do the right thing, and putting it in the budget is the wrong thing,” Stutes said afterward. “Aside from the fact that I believe the state doesn’t belong between a woman and her doctor — and our state constitution protects that — I think the intent language, if it were enforced, it’s unconstitutional. So it’s kind of meaningless to put it in the budget.”

Hours later, Stutes and Rep. Chuck Kopp, R-Anchorage, the majority leader, joined 19 members of the House’s Republican minority to add similar language regarding gender dysphoria to the state budget.

If adopted by the Senate and Gov. Mike Dunleavy, it’s unclear what effect the amendment would have. Although a 2021 lawsuit resulted in a federal ruling that requires Alaska’s Medicaid program to cover gender-affirming care, the Alaska Supreme Court has not considered the issue, and the case law around the topic is not established as well as it is for abortion, experts said.

“We’re grateful that for the first time in recent memory, the House did not insert the harmful and performative amendment aimed at stripping patients with low incomes access to coverage for abortion. Unfortunately, the same body adopted an equally harmful and performative amendment attacking gender affirming health care,” said Rose O’Hara-Jolley, Alaska State Director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates. “We urge the body not to adopt either amendment in its final version — we’re relying on them to stand with all Alaskans, regardless of their income or gender identity.”

Debate continued Tuesday on more amendments to the House’s version of the state operating budget.

As Alaska legislators confront a major state budget deficit, the state Senate on Tuesday voted unanimously to approve a “bare bones” $162 million capital budget to pay for construction and renovation projects across the state.

The spending plan, which would take effect July 1, remains a draft subject to approval by the House. Gov. Mike Dunleavy may also make line-item vetoes.

The budget bill passed by the Senate is almost entirely limited to the minimum needed to unlock more than $2.5 billion in federal grants for road maintenance and other priorities.

With oil revenue down and costs up — including the Permanent Fund dividend — analysts are projecting a significant budget deficit for the coming year. On Friday, the House voted to reduce the proposed 2025 dividend, but not enough to erase the deficit.

To help the issue, members of the Senate Finance Committee clawed back millions of dollars previously allocated to construction projects, reducing the need for new state revenue to pay for the capital budget.

Among the clawbacks: $37 million set aside for the Juneau Access Project, an effort to improve road and ferry service to the capital city.

“To even get to the bare-bones capital budget, my district ended up contributing half a dozen ribs and a femur. … I’m not pleased,” said Sen. Jesse Kiehl, D-Juneau and a member of the Senate Finance Committee.

Other notable clawbacks included $10 million for a proposed deep-draft port in Nome, and $138,611 remaining in an account to be used for Ketchikan’s proposed Gravina Island Bridge, once dubbed the “bridge to nowhere.”

Members of the finance committee also turned to the state-owned investment bank, the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, for an additional $12.5 million above the $20 million already pledged by the bank to the state treasury.

Budgeters rejected some of Dunleavy’s budget requests: $2.5 million for a proposed road in the western portion of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, $4.2 million for development of the trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline, $2.5 million for firefighting aircraft, and $6.5 million for a new state plane to be used for emergency response.

They also rejected all $3.2 billion in requests from individual legislators for their specific districts.

Senate Minority Leader Mike Shower, R-Wasilla, called the result “a fair and balanced approach” in a statement released after the vote.

Some projects saw reduced funding: A $6.5 million request to expand the Bradley Lake hydroelectric project’s capacity was cut to $6 million. Bradley Lake is among the cheapest sources of electricity on the Railbelt.

The Senate’s biggest addition was $19 million for major maintenance at public schools — the governor had proposed no funding for the major maintenance list.

“This is just the beginning of many tough decisions you’re going to see over the next few weeks, between now and the end of May, and I don’t think some of the folks in the building have quite grasped that yet,” said Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka and co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee in charge of the capital budget.