President Trump came into office pledging to speed up federal environmental permitting, and he has issued a series of executive orders that touch on some aspect of expediting environmental reviews. Those executive orders include the following:
- Executive Order 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency (Jan. 20, 2025)
- Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy (Jan. 20, 2025)
- Executive Order 14153, Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential (Jan. 20, 2025)
- Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (Jan. 31, 2025)
- Executive Order 14210, Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Workforce Optimization Initiative (Feb. 11, 2025)
- Executive Order 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (Feb. 19, 2025)
- Presidential Memorandum, Updating Permitting Technology for the 21st Century (Apr. 15, 2025)
These permitting-related executive orders generally mix substantive and procedural goals — for example, seeking to eliminate requirements on the private sector while at the same time accelerating permit reviews. The substantive aspects of these orders are some of the most contentious in the new administration and have driven much of the public discussion. However, the idea that federal environmental reviews should move more quickly (even if all of the substantive requirements are the same) is one that enjoys broad support.
As a group, the Trump administration’s permitting-related orders are an ambitious and concerted effort to speed up federal environmental reviews. Rather than pursuing a single approach to reforming permitting systems, the orders call for a variety of different strategies to deal with the pace of agency permitting. Those strategies include avoiding or eliminating procedural requirements that lengthen permit reviews, decentralizing review procedures among agencies, increasing the use of technology in permit reviews, reducing agency staff and expenditures, and simply ordering agency staff to act more quickly. These strategies could be complementary in some circumstances but contradictory in others.
This paper addresses the permitting-related orders as a group and analyzes them for their likely effect on environmental permit reform, specifically, the speed at which agencies act on applications for permits and approvals. Some of the strategies may speed up environmental reviews by eliminating certain procedures or streamlining the mechanics of agency reviews. Other efforts may slow permit reviews by creating uncertainty and undermining reform efforts through staffing and budget cuts. This paper identifies the various strategies represented in these permitting-related orders and then assesses which ones have the greatest potential to achieve the goal of speeding up federal environmental reviews.[1]
The Deregulation and Decentralization Strategy: Eliminate Governmentwide Regulations So That Agencies Can Follow Different and Simpler Procedures
One of the administration’s most important strategies to speed up permit reviews is to eliminate regulations that require lengthy analyses of environmental effects before the issuance of permits. The prime example of this strategy is Executive Order 14154, “Unleashing American Energy” (Jan. 20, 2025), which orders the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to rescind regulations that provide governmentwide procedures for evaluating environmental impacts pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).[2] In their place, individual agencies must follow their own NEPA regulations, which generally impose fewer procedural requirements.[3] Since individual agencies’ NEPA regulations generally incorporate by reference the now-rescinded CEQ regulations,[4] the agencies have been directed to update their regulations and have been given guidance to reduce the types of effects that are analyzed.[5]
Environmental reviews conducted pursuant to NEPA often are the most time-consuming aspect of federal permit reviews, so speeding up NEPA reviews should shorten the time by which agencies act on permit applications. Executive Order 14154 appears based on the belief that NEPA reviews take a long time due to the detailed procedures established in the CEQ regulations, so eliminating those regulations should make NEPA reviews faster. This strategy also may be based on the belief that it will be harder for third parties to block project approvals based on NEPA if there are fewer requirements for NEPA reviews set forth in regulations.
It remains to be seen whether this strategy will speed or slow NEPA reviews. The CEQ regulations have governed NEPA procedures for decades and have been the basis of many important judicial decisions, so rescinding those regulations creates a great deal of uncertainty regarding how agencies should act moving forward. Historically, legal uncertainty leads to delays while agencies figure out how to proceed or promulgate new regulations or guidance, and while courts evaluate the sufficiency of new procedures. In addition, a decentralized process that has different procedures for different agencies seems destined to delay projects that need approvals from more than one federal agency. This strategy could actually slow down NEPA reviews in the short term, but if the administration is right that most delays are caused by detailed CEQ regulations, then it might speed up NEPA reviews in the long term.
This effort to revise agency NEPA regulations also may be affected by other strategies of the administration. In its first few months, the administration has prioritized reducing agency staff and cutting budgets. Revising regulations is a time-consuming process that requires significant investment in staff time, so this process may take even longer if there are fewer people available to work on it.
The Short Cut Strategy: Permit Projects Using Alternative Procedures Provided in Existing Regulations
Another primary strategy pursued in the executive orders is to direct agency staff to use alternative procedures provided for in existing regulations to fast-track permit reviews. The best example of this strategy is Executive Order 14156, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency” (Jan. 20, 2025), which declares an emergency related to energy projects and orders agencies to use fast-track procedures to quickly approve certain energy projects.[6] This strategy is founded on the belief that permit approvals take so long because typical environmental review procedures are too time-consuming.
This strategy relies on existing regulations to allow permit approvals before all environmental analysis is complete. Several regulations have provisions that allow agencies to act quickly on permit applications in emergencies, including Clean Water Act section 404 permitting regulations, Endangered Species Act consultation regulations, and NEPA regulations.[7] These regulations generally define “emergency” to be some exigent circumstance that requires action prior to the time necessary to comply with normal review procedures, and then allow agencies to use nonstandard procedures to review the project.[8] In practice, this means that agencies shorten time frames for some steps of the permit review (e.g., public notice and comment), and conduct other steps of the environmental review after the project has been approved (e.g., full analysis of environmental impacts).[9]
The logic behind this strategy appears to be to bypass the most time-consuming permit procedures by using the emergency authorities found in the regulations. The administration also may believe that the president’s finding of a national energy emergency may be effectively unreviewable in court challenges, because it is not an agency action.[10]
This strategy likely will speed up permit approvals for a group of permit applicants. However, on its face it will not speed reviews of all permit applications because it only applies to certain energy projects. This strategy also only speeds up permit reviews as long as there is an emergency (which presumably is not forever), so its effect will be time-limited. It also makes no fundamental improvements to permitting procedures to speed the process across the board. Projects approved based on emergency procedures also may be vulnerable to lawsuits claiming that the presidential declaration does not meet the definition of an emergency in the regulations. For the agencies, there also may be a long-term risk that courts will question the legality of using nonstandard emergency procedures on a regular basis, which could make these authorities less effective in real emergencies in the future. Taken together, this approach may yield short-term results for some projects but will result in no lasting changes that would speed up environmental reviews in general.
The Technology Strategy: Use Computer Software to Simplify and Speed Reviews
Another strategy being pursued by the administration is to require agencies to update their software and technology to speed up the consideration of permit applications. In 2023, Congress directed CEQ to submit a report “on the potential for online and digital technologies to address delays in reviews” under NEPA.[11] CEQ under the Biden administration submitted the report to Congress last year that recommended “taking interim steps to improve existing [agency] systems and enable interoperability of those systems,” with the ultimate plan to develop “a unified NEPA and permitting experience.”[12]
The Trump administration has now taken the next step and issued the presidential memorandum, “Updating Permitting Technology for the 21st Century” (Apr. 15, 2025). This memorandum requires federal agencies to “make maximum use of technology in environmental review and permitting processes,” by (among other things) “eliminat[ing] the use of paper-based application and review processes,” “modernizing the technology used for Federal permitting and environmental review processes for infrastructure projects,” creating “an initial data and technology standard for permit applications and reviews,” and “creating a unified interagency permitting and environmental review data system.”[13] Perhaps more importantly, the memorandum requires CEQ to “establish and lead an interagency Permitting Innovation Center that will design and test prototype tools that could be implemented pursuant to the Permitting Technology Action Plan for NEPA reviews and other environmental permits and authorizations.”[14]
A technology-based strategy is based on the reality that the process by which agencies review permit applications is heavily based on individual staff review of papers and documents. Since the regulatory requirements are complex, and projects themselves can be technically complex, it is hard for individual permit reviewers to quickly determine and focus on the issues that matter. Better use of software and technology, and standardization of systems to review permit applications, has the potential to greatly speed up the mechanics of environmental reviews, which could accelerate the time at which agencies act on permit applications. In addition, since agencies often conduct the same type of reviews in different ways, adopting a single technical standard could make permitting processes much faster. The creation of the Permitting Innovation Center also could result in major long-term improvements, because there may need to be substantial trial-and-error efforts to actually speed up permit reviews.
Of all the Trump administration’s actions that touch on permit reform, this presidential memorandum seems most likely to speed up agency reviews in general over the long term. It is the only strategy that is based on bipartisan direction from Congress, and therefore it likely will have the most staying power in a future presidential administration. It also attempts to institutionalize innovation related to permitting, which should allow for new ideas to be tried in the future. The devil is in the details, however, so success will turn on how effectively agencies design and use the new software and technology. The administration will have to maintain a sustained focus on making the nuts and bolts of permit reviews more efficient and speedier, and it remains to be seen whether the administration will see these efforts through.
The implementation of the presidential memorandum will be undercut to some extent by some of the other executive orders. Designing and implementing new software and technology requires staff time and money, so the administration’s staff reductions and budget cuts may starve this initiative of the resources that it needs to succeed. Also, the goal to standardize the technology used for permit reviews across agencies runs counter to the decentralization of the most important component of permit reviews, NEPA. There is an irony that CEQ is being tasked with coordinating and speeding environmental permit reviews among all federal agencies at the same time that its authority to bind agencies through regulations has been taken away.
The DOGE Strategy: Reduce Agency Staff and Funding, and Demand More From Employees
Perhaps the highest profile administration strategy to date related to regulatory agencies has been to reduce the number of agency employees, demand more of the remaining employees, and to cut budgets and contracts. The highest profile effort in this vein has been the work of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has gone into agencies and cut as many employees as possible and frozen many contracts with third parties.[15] There have been other similar efforts since then, with agencies now proposing staff and program cuts in their budgets for the next fiscal year.[16] Some new agency leaders have also asked their staff to move more quickly in their environmental reviews.[17]
These efforts to cut agency staff and funding are at least in part a strategy related to permit reform. Trump has described the problem of slow environmental reviews to be the fault of government “bureaucrats,” and getting rid of the bureaucrats is a way to get rid of the problem.
The administration may believe that shaking up the agencies may motivate staff to move more quickly on permit reviews and make people more open to changing how they do business. However, these disruptive efforts likely will have a broad negative effect on permit reform efforts. All of the other reform strategies rely on having agency staff and funding available to revise regulations, conduct faster environmental reviews, and design and implement new software and technology. The lack of staff can also be a direct roadblock to some permits being issued: for example, if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service no longer has enough employees to consult with action agencies when required by the Endangered Species Act, then action agencies are limited in their ability to issue permits. Moreover, many federal environmental permits are issued by state agencies pursuant to delegation, and cuts to the federal grants that pay for this work by state agencies will only slow down permitting more. The DOGE strategy therefore is likely to be a net negative for efforts to speed up federal environmental reviews and approvals.
The Traditional Strategy: Revise Regulations and Propose Statutory Changes to Speed Permit Review
The most obvious way to achieve lasting improvements in federal environmental permitting is to revise the regulations that establish review procedures and to recommend statutory changes to Congress. The reason that federal agencies issue permits and conduct environmental reviews is because Congress passed laws that require the agencies to do so. If the permitting process is not working, then Congress in theory can change the laws. Until that happens, the administration can try to streamline the regulations that implement those statutes. The process of revising regulations takes time, but once they are implemented, the changes stay in place for at least some period of time until a subsequent administration makes further revisions.
So far, the administration has proposed no changes to the environmental laws, leaving the debate about permit reform to Congress. The administration also has proposed few changes to the regulations that establish permit review procedures (the primary exception being the changes to NEPA regulations). These proposals may come eventually, but until they do, there will be little fundamental improvement in the federal environmental permitting process.
In fairness to the administration, changes to environmental regulations usually are challenged and sometimes are overturned by courts. Even those regulations that survive legal challenge may be repealed by the next administration, which is what happened to many of the regulatory changes enacted in the first Trump administration. However, that does not change the fact that the best way to reform a statutory and regulatory process is to fix the statutes and regulations themselves. For all of the effort and discussion about environmental permit reform, it is notable that this effort has barely even started.
Conclusion
Never in modern times has one administration initiated so many efforts in such a short time aimed at speeding up federal environmental reviews and permits. Some of the highest profile efforts may only have limited, short-term effect, because they target only certain types of projects and are dependent on a declaration of an emergency. The efforts with the most potential for far-reaching effects (e.g., improving the use of technology and revisions to statutes and regulations) will need time to implement and evaluate. Given the variety of different strategies being followed by this administration at the same time, in several years we may look back at these various efforts as a grand experiment to determine which strategies are most effective and the wisdom of trying everything all at once.
[1] There is no doubt that the administration is also pursuing other goals with these executive orders, such as trying to eliminate substantive requirements, reduce the ability of project opponents to prevail in court challenges, and de-emphasize environmental protections. This paper does not address those goals, but only the effect of the administration’s early directives on the speed at which permits are issued.
[2] Exec. Order No. 14154, Unleashing American Energy, § 5(a) (Jan. 20, 2025). The CEQ regulations were rescinded on April 11, 2025. CEQ, Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations, 90 Fed. Reg. 10610 (Feb. 25, 2025).
[3] See, e.g., 33 C.F.R. pt. 230 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers NEPA regulations for civil works program).
[4] See, e.g., id. § 230.1 (Corps NEPA regulations stating that “[i]t supplements Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations” and “[w]henever the guidance in this regulation is unclear or not specific the reader is referred to the CEQ regulations”).
[5] Exec. Order No. 14154, Unleashing American Energy, § 5(c)-(d).
[6] Exec. Order No. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency (Jan. 20, 2025).
[7] See, e.g., 33 C.F.R. § 325.2(e)(4) (Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting regulations); 50 C.F.R. § 402.05 (Endangered Species Act interagency consultation procedures); 33 C.F.R. § 230.8 (Corps NEPA procedures for emergency actions).
[8] See, e.g., 33 C.F.R. § 230.8 (“In responding to emergency situations to prevent or reduce imminent risk of life, health, property, or severe economic losses, district commanders may proceed without the specific documentation and procedural requirements of other sections of this regulation.”).
[9] See, e.g., Corps Louisville District, Special Emergency Processing Procedures for Energy-Related Activities in Kentucky under Executive Order (E.O.) 14156 (March 2025); Corps Detroit District, Special Public Notice, Emergency Permit Application Processing Procedures for Activities Subject to Executive Order 154156 (National Energy Emergency) (Apr. 15, 2025); Ctr. For Envtl. Sc., Accuracy & Reliability v. Cowin, No. 1:15-cv-00884, 2015 WL 3797693 (E.D. Cal. June 18, 2015) (challenge to use of emergency procedures under Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act).
[10] See Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 800-01 (1992); Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (1994).
[11] Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, Pub. L. 118-5, § 321 (June 3, 2023) (promulgating 42 U.S.C. § 4336d).
[12] CEQ Report to Congress on the Potential for Online and Digital Technologies to Address Delays in Reviews and Improve Public Accessibility and Transparency under 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) (2024), https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-reports/CEQ-E-NEPA-Report-to-Congress_Final-(508).pdf.
[13] Presidential Memorandum, Updating Permitting Technology for the 21st Century (Apr. 15, 2025).
[14] Id. § 3(a).
[15] Exec. Order No.14210, Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Workforce Optimization Initiative § 3 (Feb. 11, 2025).
[16] See, e.g., EPA’s Zeldin Defends Deep Cuts in State Program Funds at Hearing, Bloomberg Law (May 15, 2025), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/epas-zeldin-defends-deep-cuts-in-state-program-funds-at-hearing.
[17] U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Alternative Arrangements for NEPA Compliance, at 2 (Apr. 23, 2025) (directing staff to complete Environmental Assessments of energy projects within 14 days and complete Environmental Impact Statements within 28 days).
