As of February 10, 2025, President Trump has signed 53 executive orders (EOs) since taking office, and it can seem like a daunting task to make sense of them all. With many affecting environmental policies, I focused on those most relevant to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). EO 14154, Unleashing American Energy, has been a key topic in many of our Scout projects since its release on January 20, 2025.
While this article focuses on the NEPA-specific implications of EO 14154, the executive order also introduces significant changes to broader energy policies. Future discussions may explore how these regulatory shifts impact energy production, infrastructure, and industry stakeholders.
In this article, I take a deep dive into its implications for NEPA.
1. The EO in a Nutshell:
Unleashing American Energy aims to
• remove regulatory barriers to American energy production,
• expand access to federal lands and waters for energy exploration,
• streamline environmental permitting processes,
• eliminate policies favoring renewable energy and electric vehicles,
• revoke previous climate-related executive orders,
• prioritize energy infrastructure development, particularly for fossil fuels and critical minerals, and
• revise NEPA regulations to expedite permitting and limit environmental considerations in regulatory decision-making.
2. What it says about CEQ:
The EO further adds to the recent scrutiny and uncertainty surrounding the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
• Section 5(b) of EO 14154 directs the Chairman of the CEQ to rescind the existing NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500 et seq.) and provide guidance on implementing NEPA by February 19, 2025.
• Recent legal challenges (State of Iowa v. CEQ and Marin Audubon Society v. FAA) have cast doubt on CEQ’s authority to issue binding NEPA rules. The Marin decision included a statement suggesting the CEQ overstepped its legal authority, and Trump’s EO appears to embrace this reasoning by revoking Jimmy Carter’s 1977 EO 11991 and directing CEQ to rescind its current regulations. On January 31, 2025, the D.C. Circuit denied rehearing Marin, reinforcing the panel’s view without making it binding.
• On February 3, 2025, the North Dakota federal district court invalidated and vacated CEQ’s NEPA regulations in State of Iowa v. CEQ, aligning with Marin. This decision will likely be appealed, and other courts may rule differently, creating regulatory uncertainty across states until CEQ formally rescinds its rules.
3. If CEQ’s NEPA regulations are struck down
If CEQ’s regulations are struck down, agency-specific NEPA rules will govern permitting. Trump’s EO directs CEQ to coordinate a working group to align agency-level NEPA rules with the EO’s policy goals—prioritizing efficiency and expediting permits over environmental review concerns. The EO explicitly instructs agencies to reject priorities that conflict with its deregulatory approach, limiting considerations pushed by environmental groups. This has created a sort of limbo situation for NEPA as we await the new guidance expected on February 19th.
While we await the new CEQ guidance, here are some anticipated impacts of the EO for NEPA:
1) Rescinding and revising NEPA regulations
• Section 5(a) revokes Jimmy Carter’s 1977 EO 11991, which directed and empowered the CEQ to adopt regulations implementing NEPA.
• Section 5(b) requires the CEQ to issue new guidance on implementing NEPA and proposes rescinding the long standing CEQ NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500 et. seq).
2) Prioritizing Efficiency over Environmental Considerations
• Section 5(c) directs agencies to adhere to the statutory NEPA deadlines in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (1 year for Environmental Assessments [EAs] and 2 years for Environmental Impact Statements [EISs]) by directing agencies to “prioritize efficiency and certainty over any other objectives…”
√ Key Takeaway: Although federal agencies have been working under the NEPA deadlines for about a year and a half, this EO impels agencies to prioritize the efficiency of NEPA reviews over any other objectives, making it more difficult to extend review times and may inhibit meaningful public review.
• Sections 5(c) and 5(e)(ii) require agencies to eliminate all delays within their permitting processes and to streamline the judicial review of the application of NEPA.
√ Key Takeaway: The emphasis on eliminating delays and streamlining may lead to an increase in the use of programmatic and supplemental NEPA analyses. Additionally, streamlining judicial reviews of NEPA may reduce legal challenges and public scrutiny of NEPA reviews.
3) Changes to analysis techniques
• Section 6(a) directs agencies to adhere only to legislated environmental considerations, eliminating any methodologies considered “arbitrary or ideologically motivated.”
√ Key Takeaway: This could restrict how agencies evaluate climate change, cumulative impacts, and ecosystem-wide effects under NEPA.
• Section 6(b-d) disbands the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, which was established under EO 13990. The EO does away with the “social cost of carbon” concept, and requires that agencies simply assess the value of changes in greenhouse gas emissions resulting agency actions.
√ Key Takeaway: The impacts of increasing greenhouse gases may no longer be directly analyzed in NEPA documents.
• Section 6(e) requires the EPA to issue recommendations on the legality and applicability of the “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” Final Rule, 74 FR 66496. This 2009 Final Rule determined that GHGs endanger public health and welfare and triggered the EPA to regulate GHG emissions from vehicles and other sectors under the Clean Air Act.
√ Key Takeaway: The applicability of the Clean Air Act is being called into question. The anticipated EPA recommendation could have major impacts to air quality analysis under NEPA.
4) Reducing NEPA requirements for energy and mining projects
• Section 8(b) limits additional environmental review for liquified natural gas export projects that have previously issued a favorable record of decision. Additionally, Section 9 (a) advises agencies, including the CEQ, to identify and take steps to rectify any agency actions that inhibit American mining operations.
√ Key takeaway: This further exemplifies the streamlined NEPA process by bypassing or weakening NEPA’s requirements for considering project modifications and new environmental risks.
5) Notable EOs revoked by EO 14154 Unleashing American Energy that may impact NEPA
• EO 13990, Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis
√ EO 13990 reinstated science-based federal decision-making and emphasized prioritizing environmental justice.
√ Key takeaway: The revocation of EO 13990 could reduce climate science and environmental considerations in NEPA reviews.
• EO 14096, Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
√ EO 14096 reinforced environmental considerations in federal decision-making, requiring agencies to assess and mitigate disproportionate environmental and health impacts on disadvantaged communities.
√ Key takeaway: While NEPA itself remains unchanged, how agencies interpret and implement NEPA, especially regarding environmental justice, may shift away from priorities outlined in EO 14096. Revocation of EO 14096 weakens the federal emphasis on environmental justice, potentially reducing the depth of environmental justice analysis in NEPA documents. Federal agencies may withdraw or revise NEPA guidance documents developed to comply with EO 14096, leading to less consistency in how environmental justice issues are addressed across agencies.
Notably, EPA’s EJScreen tool and CEQ’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool were recently taken offline, raising further uncertainty about how agencies will assess environmental justice moving forward. State-level tools, such as CalEnviroScreen, remain available, but the absence of these federal resources may impact the consistency of environmental justice evaluations across agencies.
As we await the February 19th CEQ guidance on NEPA implementation, additional changes to environmental review processes are expected. The revocation of key climate and environmental justice executive orders, along with the directive to rescind existing NEPA regulations, signals a shift toward expedited permitting and reduced environmental considerations. Navigating these changes can be complex, making it essential for anyone involved in project development and environmental planning to stay informed and adapt to evolving requirements. We’ll continue to track policy developments and provide insights to help make sense of the shifting NEPA landscape.
Need guidance on integrating these changes into your projects? The Scout team specializes in leading NEPA documents from start to finish—reach out to us at hello@scoutenv.com!
About the Author: Kari McCollum is an environmental planner and project manager with multiple years of experience in CEQA/NEPA planning, specializing in baseline assessments, impact analysis, and public outreach for environmental documentation. She has extensive expertise in environmental compliance and conducting audits on hazardous materials management and pollution control. When she’s not helping to prepare NEPA documents or ensuring successful communication between the public and agency contacts, you might find her setting another Guinness World Record in water skiing!
Headquarters: San Diego
Staff Nationwide and in Hawaii