Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The bill (Stop Arctic Ocean Drilling Act of 2025) amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to add a new subsection that defines “Arctic” by reference to the Arctic Research and Policy Act and prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from issuing or extending any lease or authorization for exploration, development, or production of oil, natural gas, or any other mineral on Arctic areas of the outer Continental Shelf. The prohibition applies notwithstanding other laws and covers issuance and extension of leases and any other authorizations.
Environmental/climate protection versus jobs and state revenue
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly and directly accomplishes a substantive statutory prohibition by amending the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to bar issuance or extension of leases and authorizations for oil, gas, or other minerals in Arctic OCS areas.
The bill (Stop Arctic Ocean Drilling Act of 2025) amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to add a new subsection that defines “Arctic” by reference to the Arctic Research and Policy Act and prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from issuing or extending any lease or authorization for exploration, development, or production of oil, natural gas, or any other mineral on Arctic areas of the outer Continental Shelf.
The prohibition applies notwithstanding other laws and covers issuance and extension of leases and any other authorizations.
High controversy, significant fiscal/regulatory impact, and no built-in compromise make enactment unlikely absent broad political alignment or major amendments.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly and directly accomplishes a substantive statutory prohibition by amending the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to bar issuance or extension of leases and authorizations for oil, gas, or other minerals in Arctic OCS areas. It is concise and legally targeted, referencing an existing statutory definition of 'Arctic.'
Environmental/climate protection versus jobs and state revenue
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Environmental/climate protection versus jobs and state revenue
Likely strongly supportive.
Views the bill as a clear, preventive measure to protect Arctic ecosystems and reduce future greenhouse gas emissions.
Would emphasize protections for Indigenous subsistence, biodiversity, and climate mitigation.
Cautiously favorable but pragmatic.
Sees environmental and spill-risk reduction benefits, but worries about economic impacts on Alaska, legal clarity for existing contracts, and national security implications.
Would seek transitional measures and clearer statutory language.
Likely opposed.
Views the measure as federal overreach that eliminates economic opportunities, reduces energy security options, and infringes on state and private interests.
Emphasizes job losses, revenue decline, and contractual/legal problems.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
High controversy, significant fiscal/regulatory impact, and no built-in compromise make enactment unlikely absent broad political alignment or major amendments.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Environmental/climate protection versus jobs and state revenue
High controversy, significant fiscal/regulatory impact, and no built-in compromise make enactment unlikely absent broad political alignment…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly and directly accomplishes a substantive statutory prohibition by amending the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to bar issuance or extension of leases and aut…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.