The Rush Beneath the Straits: An Oil Pipeline’s New Lease on Life
Standing on the shores of the Straits of Mackinac, where Lake Michigan meets Lake Huron in a swirl of blue, it’s nearly impossible to ignore what’s at stake. This is the heart of North America’s largest source of surface freshwater—one that supports over 40 million people, thousands of species, and livelihoods from shipping to tourism. Now, in the shadow of these mighty lakes, a high-stakes gamble for the region’s ecological future is underway. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the auspices of a Trump-era emergency order, has granted “fast-track” status to the review process for Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 pipeline tunnel—a $750 million project to entomb a vital but aging pipeline deep beneath the lakebed. The declared aim: ensure uninterrupted delivery of oil and gas through the Upper Midwest and Ontario. The consequence: a brewing storm of regulatory shortcuts, public outrage, and environmental dread.
President Donald Trump’s declaration of a “national energy emergency” might have been forgotten by some, yet its ripples are still being felt. This order directed the Army Corps to expedite energy infrastructure permitting, especially where fossil fuel supply is framed as a national vulnerability. No project better embodies the controversy of these priorities than Line 5. The pipeline, operated by Canadian giant Enbridge, has long been a target for activists, Indigenous nations, and coastal residents alarmed by its aging infrastructure—designed in 1953 and never meant to last more than half a century in the volatile straits.
According to Army Corps officials, the new timeline is “truncated,” but they assured that no procedural steps would be skipped. The Corps’ Detroit District chief insisted that the review remains “very legally defensible” and is leveraging copious data already amassed. At face value, it’s regulatory efficiency. In practice? Critics are raising flags over whether true public input and local environmental concerns will survive the rush.
What Counts as an Emergency? Energy, Politics & Environmental Repercussions
Past energy crises have shaped the American landscape, from the 1970s oil shocks to the policy sprints of the post-9/11 era. Yet the invocation of emergency status today points less to gasoline lines and more to the perceived need to protect the fossil fuel industry’s profits and influence. Enbridge seized upon the opportunity, positioning their tunnel as a solution to safety concerns while arguing that Line 5 is “essential energy” for millions. In their words, the tunnel will “make a safe pipeline safer”—a claim facing intense skepticism from across the Great Lakes region.
Voices from environmental groups, tribal leaders, scientists, and even Lake Michigan business coalitions have converged in opposition. The Sierra Club, Earthjustice, and the Great Lakes Business Network note that the real emergency is not energy scarcity but the existential threat posed by continued investment in dirty fuels. According to Mahyar Sorour of the Sierra Club, “The only energy ’emergency’ the American people face is Trump’s efforts to disregard clean air and water safeguards in order to rush through dirty, dangerous fossil fuel projects.” (Sierra Club)
Even as the Army Corps professes its adherence to statutory review, the context matters. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is supposed to provide rigorous oversight for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Right now, the CEQ is in transition and lacking full leadership, raising worries about whether guidance will be robust—or simply streamlined for convenience. Harvard environmental law professor Wendy Jacobs argued on NPR last year that, “When reviews are fast-tracked, communities lose their ability to vet, to question, and to participate fully in major decisions that shape their futures.”
“The precedent here is deeply troubling. If national emergencies are interpreted to favor fossil fuel buildout every time there’s political pressure, what does that say about the integrity of environmental protection in America?”
History offers sobering parallels. The Dakota Access Pipeline and Keystone XL projects, both expedited by Republican administrations, left swaths of environmental and community concerns unresolved—sometimes permanently. The story now unfolding in the Straits is a familiar script, threatening to sidestep democratic due process in the name of energy dominance.
Great Lakes at Risk: Whose Interests Are Served?
Beneath the technical assurances and press releases, the Line 5 tunnel fight is powerfully personal. The project’s most robust opposition comes from those who have everything to lose: Great Lakes tribes, whose treaty-guaranteed fishing rights are imperiled by a potential spill; coastal communities, whose drinking water would be instantly tainted; and a regional ecology acutely vulnerable to disruption. The vulnerability of the Great Lakes cannot be overstated. According to a 2018 report from the National Wildlife Federation, even a moderate leak from the current pipeline could devastate fisheries, wipe out entire wetland ecosystems, and cost the region billions.
Supporters of the accelerated permit argue that the region’s energy security outweighs environmental risks. They cite critical fuel supplies to midwestern refineries and claim the tunnel will all but eliminate the chance of rupture or anchor strike. But these promises are cold comfort to tribal leaders like Mike Wiggins of the Bad River Band, who told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “This is our homeland. Our wild rice beds, our water—everything we are—rests on the health of these lakes. No technological fix can fully erase that risk.”
Economic, scientific, and social realities intensify the moral stakes. The Army Corps received more than 17,000 public comments—most critical—during its initial review phase. Their voices echo a growing national consensus: Americans want a transition to clean energy, not repeated bets on 20th-century pipelines. According to a 2023 Pew Research survey, nearly two-thirds of the public now favor phasing out oil and gas in favor of renewables. The fossil fuel emergency is rapidly giving way to a climate emergency—one that, so far, has yet to receive the regulatory urgency it deserves.
Interventions from Democratic leaders remain a wildcard. Environmental advocates have urged Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer to halt state-level approvals, citing her previous opposition to Line 5 and the Democratic Party’s broader climate commitments. State action could still force a reassessment or at least slow the breakneck pace of federal permitting.
What Future for the Lakes—and for Us?
Amid dueling narratives of energy “need” versus environmental stewardship, the Line 5 saga has become a national litmus test. Will regulatory agencies uphold science, public input, and precaution? Or will political expediency continue to tip the scales in favor of fossil fuel industry interests? This decision will resonate well beyond Michigan. The fate of the Great Lakes may foretell how America charts its path as a climate crossroads nation—toward clean energy liberation or deeper entanglements with oil and gas.
If the environmental review holds to its scheduled early completion, and federal and state authorities rubber-stamp this plan, the risk calculus will not have changed—only the timeline. It’s not just the fishers, tribes, and lakeside communities who should be paying attention. Anyone who drinks Great Lakes water, who values transparency and democratic oversight, or who hopes for a sustainable future, should be demanding more than a truncated process and recycled justifications from an oil industry clinging to the status quo.
