Republicans in the House of Representatives are advancing legislation that would dramatically expand fossil fuel extraction, logging, and mining on public lands, while weakening core environmental protections and accelerating permitting processes for industry. The House Natural Resources Committee approved the measure early Wednesday morning as part of a broader GOP budget package aimed at offsetting the costs of a proposed $4.5 trillion tax cut.
The legislation would mandate new lease sales in protected areas, reduce fees and royalty rates for oil, gas, and coal companies, and allow corporations to pay to expedite environmental impact assessments—many of which would be shielded from legal challenges. Climate and Indigenous rights groups, environmental advocates, and Democratic lawmakers have condemned the bill as a corporate giveaway that prioritizes private profit over public resources, clean air, and environmental integrity.
“If Big Oil, Wall Street, and MAGA cultists locked themselves in a room to write a wish list, this bill would be it,” said Rep. Jared Huffman, a Democrat from California and the ranking member on the Natural Resources Committee.
The bill, part of what Republicans have called their “big, beautiful bill” to implement Donald Trump’s economic agenda, passed by a 26-17 mostly party-line vote, with California Democrat Adam Gray casting the only Democratic vote in support. Gray said he disagreed with many provisions but supported $2 billion in water storage funding for his Central Valley district.
“While there were several items I disagreed with, this bill included $2 billion in funding for California water storage projects,” Gray said in a statement. “The Central Valley is in desperate need of increased water access. It was my belief last night that something is better than nothing… I also warned my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that… if the Natural Resources Committee’s proposal is tied to Medicaid cuts or nutrition assistance cuts on the House Floor, I will not support the final package.”
Among its many provisions, the bill would force the Department of the Interior to offer new oil and gas lease sales in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Cook Inlet, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska—regions that have faced longstanding opposition from Indigenous groups, conservationists, and local communities. It also requires the reinstatement of previously canceled drilling leases and mandates four new lease auctions in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
In addition to oil and gas extraction, the legislation directs federal agencies to increase logging in U.S. forests by 25 percent, rescinds protections for old growth forests, and requires the U.S. Forest Service to sign long-term agreements with timber companies. It would also permit more coal mining on federal lands and prohibit any action that could restrict the federal coal leasing program.
The bill reduces royalty rates for oil and gas companies from 16.67 percent to 12.5 percent, and cuts coal royalties from 12.5 percent to 7 percent. It also imposes fees on individuals and groups who file objections to lease sales—a move environmental advocates argue is designed to discourage public participation.
Perhaps most controversially, the proposal rewrites environmental review processes required under federal law. Companies would be allowed to pay a fee for expedited reviews of their projects, which could be conducted either by federal agencies or by contractors hired directly by the companies themselves. These reviews would be exempt from judicial review, preventing courts from hearing legal challenges filed by affected communities or environmental organizations.
According to the Center for American Progress, these changes would overwhelm already understaffed federal agencies and make it harder to assess the environmental and health impacts of proposed industrial projects. Environmentalists have called the system a “pay-to-play” scheme that removes critical safeguards.
“It would require the government to lease public lands whenever an oil and gas company demands them,” said Mike Freeman, an attorney for Earthjustice. “Such a step would effectively put the oil and gas industry in charge of resources that belong to all of the American people.”
Proponents of the bill argue that it would create jobs, reduce dependence on foreign energy, and generate $18.5 billion in revenue for the federal government over 15 years—largely by increasing the number of resource extraction lease sales. Natural Resources Committee Chair Bruce Westerman praised the bill as a way to strengthen U.S. energy independence.
“No one innovates or harnesses natural resources better than we do here in the United States,” Westerman said. “We’re working to bring production back to America, where we do it more safely, cleanly and efficiently than anywhere else in the world.”
But critics argue that the economic logic behind the bill is deeply flawed and fails to account for current market conditions. Alan Zibel, research director at Public Citizen, warned that oil prices remain too low for companies to invest in new drilling, even with increased access to public lands.
“Trump can open up all the public lands he wants, but if the price is not high enough, it’s not going to make economic sense,” Zibel said. “If oil is below $65 or $60 a barrel, they are not making money.”
Oil prices have dropped by 25 percent since January. Recent data from the Dallas Federal Reserve shows that West Texas oil producers expect U.S. crude to average $68 per barrel by the end of the year—barely high enough to maintain existing wells. Diamondback Energy and Occidental Petroleum have both signaled that U.S. production has peaked or will peak within five years. Tariffs on steel and other imported inputs for fracking and refining, many of them imposed under Trump, have further raised costs and injected uncertainty into long-term investment planning.
“In addition to being climate denialists, Republicans seem to be geology denialists, as they believe that we can drill onshore forever in the U.S. when that’s not really how it works,” Zibel said.
Democratic members of the Natural Resources Committee spent hours during the Tuesday markup introducing amendments and attempting to highlight what they called the bill’s extreme and unpopular provisions. Many of their proposals were rejected by the Republican majority. Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, whose state contains vast public lands, noted the silence from Republicans throughout the markup.
“None of this is budgetary and this is why they aren’t opening their mouths today,” Stansbury said.
Huffman offered a blunt summary of what he described as the bill’s true intent. “It’s breathtakingly reckless, gutting bedrock environmental protections, condemning vulnerable communities to long term pollution impacts, turning public lands and waters into industrial sacrifice zones, just to finance a tiny portion of your giveaway to billionaires,” he said. “The Trump Tax Scam forces oil and gas lease sales—no matter the cost—even on lands tribes, ranchers, and local communities have fought to protect.”
COMMENTS