What is the KXL Pipeline?

The KXL pipeline is a proposed extension of the Keystone Pipeline System, intended to transport crude oil from Alberta, Canada, to be processed in the U.S.. The KXL proposal consists of multiple segments. The existing pipeline, Keystone, goes through Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba in Canada, and North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Texas in the U.S.. The proposed pipeline included Montana in this list. The northern disputed segment was not constructed, and a southern segment, now called the Gulf Coast Pipeline, was built. Presidential and public support for the KXL pipeline has fluctuated ever since its proposal in 2008, causing several abrupt stops and starts to permits for its construction

The Keystone Pipeline System is run by Canadian company TC Energy (formerly TransCanada Energy), one of the largest energy infrastructure companies in North America. TC Energy entirely stopped the construction of the KXL pipeline in June 2021, five months after President Joe Biden revoked the necessary permits for construction and operation on his first day in office. President Barack Obama’s administration had originally denied the permit in 2015, but then President Donald Trump approved the permit during his first term in January 2017.

Now, as of late March 2026, President Donald Trump is once again working on granting the permits to the project. This issue has become increasingly relevant in the face of U.S. military operations in Iran and their effects on oil prices. 

Permits, Jurisdiction, and Legal Controversy

The KXL pipeline is a complex site, with significant activist engagement, decisions affected by politics, transnational agreements with companies, and large financial and environmental consequences. It’s relevant because it generated significant response from governments and the general public, compared to past pipelines, including the Southern Lights (LSr), Keystone, and Alberta Clipper — and involves both Canadian and American support and opposition.

In 2024, TC Energy created South Bow, a spinoff of the oil pipeline part of its business, which includes the existing 622,000 barrels per day of the Keystone pipeline system. The companies now relevant to this Keystone XL project are South Bow and Bridger Pipeline. The new South Bow/Bridger Pipeline is slightly smaller than the KXL, and has advantages including its planned route near existing pipelines, and disadvantages including concerns about health and safety risks related to spills. It is colloquially called “Keystone Light,” or more formally the “Prairie Connector.”

State permits are also an issue — so both federal and state approval would be required. The project is already fully permitted on the Canadian side, and the interest in continuing this project is at least partially motivated by the potential for the U.S. to achieve energy security — as argued by Canada. Canada stands to gain much from this deal, and Prime Minister Mark Carney is at the front of the debates.

The KXL pipeline has been the center of several high-profile legal disputes, including lawsuits between some U.S. States and the Biden Administration, as well as a TC Energy request for arbitration under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), now replaced by the Canadian-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). Arguments in favor of the KXL Pipeline include increased security and diversity of the U.S. petroleum supply, as well as more jobs and other economic benefits tied to U.S. exports. Opposition cites the increased potential for oil spills, loss of land for indigenous groups and farmers, and general damage to the climate. 

One significant legal action was from lawyers for TC Energy, who filed a brief at the Supreme Court in 2020. This brief was filed to argue for overturning the ruling of a district court, which had issued a nationwide injunction against Nationwide Permit 12 (NWP 12), claiming that the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA). TC Energy claimed that this is arbitrary, as other utilities were allowed to run without additional review — and it cited its own extensive environmental research. Beyond this, TC Energy wrote that this district-level decision “inflicts enormous expense and delay on TC Energy and other pipelines” as well as harming “workers, local economies, and local tax revenues.” 

Why Do Proponents Support the KXL Pipeline?

Supporters of the KXL Pipeline being built along its proposed path include a range of stakeholders, from union workers to politicians. 

The Pipeliners Union 798 United Association is the source of a significant push for reinstatement of the construction permits after their revocation in 2021. The main argument came from Jason Jernigan, a member of the union and a “third-generation pipeliner” who wrote an editorial in the Billings Gazette two months after the pipeline was canceled. In this editorial, Jernigan explained that if the pipeline project didn’t continue, he then was losing his job — and the same was true for 11,000 other workers. While workers could theoretically work in solar and wind industries, the pay cut would be significant for workers experienced in pipeline work.

Kevin Cramer, a U.S. Senator, a strong proponent of fossil fuel development in general, was an outspoken advocate supporting the construction of the KXL pipeline even after its cancellation. One main argument from him, and other aligned senators, was on lost jobs due to cancellation of the project. This was publicly shared in 2022, when President Biden had once again revoked the necessary permits.

Jernigan notes that while oil pipelines are often cited as being bad for the environment, energy product transfer via other methods, such as railroads or in trucks, is worse for the environment, and the potential for oil spills or accidents would be higher. TC Energy’s Supreme Court brief in 2020 was also cited as support for those who argued that the cancellation of the pipeline would mean the loss of jobs.

Beyond this, the KXL pipeline represents a significant economic opportunity for Canada, as it would allow for the export of oil from the third-largest oil reserves in the world. The government of Alberta, Canada has stood strongly behind the project, investing  $1.5 billion in the pipeline’s construction in 2020. In response to the potential cancellation by President Biden, TC Energy added renewable energy and zero-emission aspects to its pipeline proposal, as well as promising union-only hiring. Further, Jason Kenney, Alberta’s former premier, made efforts to convince President Biden to listen to the Canadian side of the debate, and also proposed legal action as a potential response. Economic incentives have been low for the project, as discussed in the Arguments Against section, but currently, oil prices are projected to rise quickly given the conflict in Iran, though they are right now around $60 per barrel. For those who might support the project for its contributions to the U.S. economy, the large increase in oil prices would render this a priority project. It is important to note that as the U.S. and Iran hold talks, oil prices have remained mixed, despite these projections.

Why Do Critics Oppose the KXL Pipeline?

Opponents of the KXL pipeline also include a range of representatives, including indigenous leaders and climate movement activists. Beyond this, the non-profit National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) calls out the Gulf Coast Pipeline, the southern segment of the proposed KXL, which it says may have been constructed with the use of “legal loopholes” to gain permits that skirted public input.

First, the economic incentives for building the pipeline are unclear. In 2021, the Department of Energy’s office of research and statistics stated that oil prices remained too low for the U.S. to profit from Canadian tar sands. For there to be profits, oil prices would have to be around $65-100 per barrel. For context, they sat at $40 per barrel in 2020, prior to the project’s cancellation. 

Many arguments opposing the pipeline related to its adverse impacts on the environment and loss of or damage to land belonging to indigenous groups and individuals. Many activists played roles in acting on these concerns.

Activists working to fight against the KXL Pipeline included Faith Spotted Eagle, who spent ten years, starting in 2007, combating the construction of the pipeline on Treaty Territory. In 2016, she was an elder leader working to protect the Horn of the Oceti Sakowin Camp at Standing Rock. She worked to fight against the KXL extension through motivation to protect her land and community, and to “call home the spirit of her culture.” Her past experience of having the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers enter her community to build the Fort Randall Dam on the Missouri River was foundational to her work.

Other activism resulted in a lawsuit against the Trump Administration in 2018, initiated by the Rosebud Sioux Tribe (Sicangu Lakota Oyate) and the Fort Belknap Indian Community (Assiniboine (Nakoda) and Gros Ventre (Aaniiih) Tribes), working with the Native American Rights Fund. This lawsuit was successful in dictating the terms of the pipeline permits in 2020, and was considered a success when the project was canceled in 2021. Beyond this, Bill McKibben and 350.org contributed significantly to advocacy efforts as the organization originally grew. This advocacy was generated by a motivation to protect the natural environment, including areas of land that were sacred to and used by indigenous groups. 

Beyond this, individuals played a role in activism against the pipeline, namely David Daniel, a Texas farmer who faced threats about losing his land. He eventually built a network of treehouses in trees on that land, but his efforts were unsuccessful. Daniel eventually lost his land, and the trees on it were cut down — though, according to National Public Radio (NPR), he played a role in raising awareness and pushing companies to have a lower carbon footprint. 

Future Outlook and Implications

U.S. and Canadian involvement in cross-border extractives projects invokes debates about permits and land use in both countries, as well as engagement from an external company, in this case TC Energy. The back-and-forth nature of this project raises issues from proponents and opponents, as the case has remained tensely debated. The pipeline remains contentious and relevant in large-scale geopolitical agreements, such as the CUSMA, signaling effects on trade. 

Frequently Asked Questions