Permitting Policy Tracker

he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a comprehensive revision to its NEPA implementing procedures in 40 CFR Part 6. The proposal updates EPA’s regulations to incorporate statutory amendments enacted through the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA) and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 (OBBBA), remove reliance on the rescinded Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, implement Executive Order 14154 directing agencies to revise their NEPA procedures, reflect the Supreme Court’s decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, and make numerous technical and organizational revisions. EPA states that the objective is to improve consistency, create administrative efficiencies, and harmonize its procedures with those adopted by other federal agencies while retaining EPA-specific requirements where appropriate. Comments are due July 27, 2026.

The proposed rule incorporates virtually all of the major statutory NEPA reforms enacted since 2023 into EPA’s own regulations. Among other changes, EPA would codify the statutory page limits and completion deadlines for environmental assessments (75 pages and one year) and environmental impact statements (150 pages, or 300 pages for unusually complex projects, and two years), establish certification requirements that these limits have been met, authorize adoption of another agency’s categorical exclusions under NEPA Section 109, expand reliance on another agency’s environmental documents, implement procedures for applicant-prepared environmental documents, incorporate the OBBBA project sponsor fee provisions for expedited environmental reviews, and formally recognize legislative categorical exclusions enacted by Congress.

Beyond implementing statutory changes, EPA proposes several substantive procedural revisions intended to streamline environmental reviews. The proposal narrows the scope of analysis to the proposed federal action and its reasonably foreseeable environmental effects consistent with Seven County, removes references to the rescinded CEQ regulations by incorporating key definitions directly into Part 6, expands flexibility regarding public review of draft EAs and FONSIs, revises procedures governing categorical exclusions and extraordinary circumstances, allows broader reliance on applicant-hired contractors, updates mitigation provisions to clarify that NEPA itself does not authorize EPA to require mitigation, removes the requirement that Records of Decision explain why the environmentally preferable alternative was not selected, and eliminates references implementing the rescinded Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 while replacing them with language directing consideration of impacts to all individuals. The proposal also identifies EPA statutory programs that are exempt from NEPA or are considered functionally equivalent to NEPA, providing greater regulatory clarity regarding when Part 6 applies.

This proposed rule is one of the broadest in the package. It would revise FAR Parts 1, 2, 4, 33, 39, 40, 52, and 53 and reflects the core RFO approach: streamline the FAR, rewrite provisions in plain language, move nonessential “how-to” material into non-regulatory guidance, and retain only requirements grounded in statute or considered essential to sound procurement.

For FAR Part 1, the rule would revise the FAR’s guiding principles to emphasize a “mission first” approach, fiscal responsibility, timely delivery, commercial products and services, competition, domestic sourcing, and innovation. It would move FAR forms from Part 53 into a new Part 1 subpart and create a centralized online forms repository. It would also add a new regulatory sunset process, clarify deviation procedures, consolidate contracting officer representative requirements, and remove the Acquisition 360 voluntary survey provision from the FAR.

For FAR Part 2, the rule would delete, revise, add, and relocate numerous definitions. Notably, it proposes to remove terms such as “environmentally preferable,” “sustainable acquisition,” “sustainable products and services,” “virgin material,” and “waste reduction” from FAR 2.101, revise definitions for commercial products and services, and add new definitions for controlled unclassified information, federal information system, information system, and SAM Contract Awards Management.

For FAR Part 4, the rule would move many security-related requirements to FAR Part 40, streamline SAM registration by limiting SAM to entity-level representations and certifications, remove the Annual Representations and Certifications provision, and consolidate multiple entity-identification provisions and clauses. For FAR Part 33, it would add a purpose statement for the bid protest system, streamline GAO protest coverage by pointing to GAO regulations, and revise agency protest procedures to allow fuller disclosure in certain independent reviews. For FAR Part 39, the rule would broaden the part to cover information and communication technology, remove the Privacy or Security Safeguards clause, incorporate cybersecurity workforce and positioning/navigation/timing requirements, and support future emerging technology coverage. For FAR Part 40, it would consolidate several supply-chain, cybersecurity, telecommunications, ByteDance, Kaspersky, drone, FASCSA, and CUI requirements into a more unified security framework

This proposed rule would revise FAR Parts 6, 7, 10, 18, 26, 37, 41, and related Part 52 clauses. It reorganizes and simplifies competition, acquisition planning, market research, emergency acquisition, socioeconomic programs, service contracting, and utility acquisition provisions. The rule follows the broader RFO approach of plain-language drafting, removing duplicative provisions, standardizing clause prescriptions, replacing “shall” with “must,” and moving many process details into non-regulatory guidance.

For FAR Part 6, the rule would streamline competition requirements without changing the basic competition framework. It removes repetitive justification language, simplifies treatment of full and open competition after exclusion of sources, reduces duplicative discussion of competition advocates, and updates justification approval thresholds to align with the FY 2026 NDAA.

For FAR Part 7, the rule would substantially revise acquisition planning. It emphasizes planning based on the complexity and circumstances of each procurement rather than simply producing an acquisition plan document. Agencies would establish procedures for when written or oral plans are needed, and planning must promote commercial solutions, competition, appropriate contract type, and use of existing contracts. The rule also streamlines consolidation and bundling, removes A-76-related contractor-versus-government performance provisions, moves inherently governmental function coverage to FAR Part 37, and relocates market research from FAR Part 10 into FAR Part 7.

For FAR Part 18, emergency acquisition coverage would be moved to FAR Part 26 and a dynamic online emergency procurement list. FAR Part 26 would be streamlined and would incorporate emergency acquisition provisions, simplify Indian Incentive Program coverage, and remove a nonstatutory subcontractor flowdown for excess food donation. FAR Part 37 would be reorganized around service contracting, consolidate performance-based acquisition, remove extraneous definitions, move inherently governmental function coverage into service contracting, and create a clearer structure for other service considerations. FAR Part 41 would streamline utility acquisition rules and more directly route civilian agencies to GSA for utility procurements.

This proposed rule would revise FAR Parts 3, 49, and related Part 52 clauses. FAR Part 3 governs improper business practices and personal conflicts of interest. The rule retains the statutory ethics, procurement integrity, anti-kickback, whistleblower, lobbying, and conflict-of-interest requirements, while removing obsolete, duplicative, or expired provisions, including references to a superseded ethics executive order and Recovery Act whistleblower provisions.

The rule would modernize FAR 3.104-4 procedures for contractor bid or proposal information and source-selection information. It would require contracting officers to notify an offeror or contractor and provide an opportunity to justify markings before disregarding markings that appear improper. It also clarifies that proposals remain protected from disclosure under FOIA-related statutory protections regardless of marking disputes.

For FAR Part 49, the rule retains the statutory termination framework, including the government’s authority to terminate contracts for convenience, determine fair compensation, recover excess costs after default, and administer subcontractor settlements. It removes or streamlines duplicative termination provisions that overlap with other FAR parts, including cost principles, property, inspection, claims, and recovery authorities.

For FAR Part 52, the proposed rule would make conforming revisions to the FAR clauses associated with Parts 3 and 49. These include plain-language edits, replacing “shall” with “must,” and clarifying which clauses apply to commercial products, commercial services, and COTS items. The rule also updates termination clauses to reflect the proposed Part 49 changes, including the shortened deadlines for termination settlement proposals and inventory schedules. The FAR Council also again invites comment on whether all FAR provisions and clauses should be renumbered under a new Part 52 subpart to distinguish post-overhaul clauses from pre-overhaul clauses.

The rule’s most concrete operational changes are in termination administration. It would make audits of termination settlement proposals discretionary and risk-based rather than mandatory based on a cost-or-pricing-data threshold. It would shorten the termination settlement proposal deadline from one year to 90 days, shorten inventory schedule submission from 120 days to 60 days, and revise related extension request deadlines. It also clarifies default termination procedures, including when cure notices and show-cause notices should be used.

This proposed rule would revise FAR Parts 5, 24, 29, and related Part 52 clauses as part of the broader Revolutionary FAR Overhaul. The rule would reorganize FAR Part 5 around the acquisition lifecycle—presolicitation, solicitation, and award—and would replace fragmented public notice requirements with standardized tables for posting content and timing. It retains the statutory public notice framework but removes obsolete or duplicative provisions, including ARRA-related posting requirements and older “synopsis” terminology.

For FAR Part 5, the rule would clarify use of the Governmentwide Point of Entry for public notices, move commercial acquisition-related coverage to FAR Part 12, update certain notice thresholds, and clarify when national security concerns justify withholding a notice. The rule also would make the public announcement of significant awards permissive rather than mandatory and increase the threshold from $4.5 million to $5.5 million.

For FAR Part 24, the rule retains statutory privacy and FOIA-related requirements while removing duplicative privacy training text. For FAR Part 29, it retains statutory and treaty-based tax requirements, removes obsolete Afghanistan-related tax clauses, clarifies federal excise tax references, relocates the definition of state and local taxes into Part 29, and recognizes Government purchase or fleet cards as evidence supporting state or local tax exemption claims.

For Part 52, the rule would make plain-language edits, replace “shall” with “must,” clarify clause applicability to commercial products and services, and invite comment on a possible broader renumbering of FAR clauses.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a public notice on June 16, 2026, announcing the adoption of two U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development categorical exclusions (CEs) under Section 109 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Section 109, enacted as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, allows federal agencies to adopt another agency’s established categorical exclusions following consultation and public notice requirements. The adopted CEs are effective immediately and will be incorporated into DOE’s NEPA procedures.

The first adopted CE, USDA-24-1d-RD(D), applies to small-scale site-specific development activities affecting no more than 10 acres and not resulting in a substantial increase in traffic. DOE states it expects to use this CE for utility-support infrastructure associated with transmission system operations, including maintenance headquarters, equipment and material storage facilities, and related infrastructure improvements. The second adopted CE, USDA-24-3d-RD(B), covers financial assistance for certain small-scale energy projects, including construction of electric transmission lines below specified voltage and mileage thresholds. DOE anticipates using this CE to support funding for electric grid infrastructure improvements and qualifying power line projects.

DOE consulted with USDA and Rural Development in August 2025 regarding the applicability of these exclusions, including discussion of prior agency practice and treatment of extraordinary circumstances. DOE concluded that adoption of the two USDA CEs is appropriate for DOE actions and will document and publicly post future CE determinations relying on these authorities. DOE also stated that use of the adopted CEs will remain subject to its existing NEPA procedures, including review of extraordinary circumstances and other applicable limitations

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation issued an interim final rule removing and reserving its NEPA implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 805. The rule is effective upon Federal Register publication, with comments due 30 days after publication. ACHP explains that its NEPA procedures were adopted in 1980 to supplement CEQ’s NEPA regulations, but CEQ has since rescinded its own NEPA regulations following Executive Order 14154.

ACHP says it rarely undertakes major federal actions requiring NEPA review. The notice states that ACHP’s last NEPA document was an environmental assessment in the late 1990s for its Section 106 rulemaking, which ended in a finding of no significant impact.

The agency’s stated rationale is that Part 805 is now outdated and obsolete because it was built around CEQ regulations that no longer exist, Congress has amended NEPA since 2023, and the Supreme Court’s 2025 Seven County decision would require updates to ACHP’s procedures. ACHP says it may develop internal NEPA procedures later if needed.

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is proposing to rescind 36 CFR Part 801, which contains historic-preservation requirements for HUD’s Urban Development Action Grant program. The notice is a proposed rule, with comments due 30 days after publication. ACHP explains that Part 801 created an expedited Section 106 review process for UDAG-funded projects, with applicants effectively assuming the federal agency role for Section 106 compliance.

ACHP says the UDAG program is obsolete. HUD last received appropriations for the program in fiscal year 1988 and administratively closed out remaining grants in 2021. HUD also told ACHP that any remaining UDAG-related revenues would not be subject to the environmental-review and other cross-cutting requirements in 24 CFR Part 570.

ACHP’s stated rationale is that Part 801 is no longer needed and is outdated. The rule is based on the 1979 version of ACHP’s Section 106 regulations, includes obsolete citations and procedures, and does not include a role for Tribal consultation. If UDAG were funded again in the future, ACHP says applicants would follow HUD’s 24 CFR Part 58 process and ACHP’s current 36 CFR Part 800 Section 106 regulations instead.

USACE published a proposed deauthorization list for water resources development projects and separable project elements under WRDA 2020, as amended by WRDA 2024. The notice opens a 90-day public comment period ending August 19, 2026.

The Corps says the process is intended to identify projects that are no longer viable because of lack of local support, lack of available federal or non-federal resources, or an authorizing purpose that is no longer relevant or feasible.

The proposed list applies to projects authorized for construction before June 10, 2014, that meet statutory inactivity or funding criteria. After the comment period, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works will publish a final list and submit it to Congress.

DOT released the 2026 National Freight Strategic Plan, describing it as a multi-year strategy to modernize the nation’s nearly seven-million-mile freight network. DOT says the network moves more than 54 million tons of goods valued at more than $68 billion daily.

The plan identifies six strategic goals for the next five years: safety, efficiency, security, resiliency, innovation, and workforce capability. DOT specifically links the plan to supply chains, energy movement, national defense, cargo security, and multimodal freight performance.

DOT says the plan updates the 2020 National Freight Strategic Plan and responds to changes including increased domestic energy production and growth in manufacturing facility construction.

The Bureau of Reclamation has issued an internal informational memorandum directing staff to implement the Department of the Interior’s revised National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations and 2026 NEPA Handbook in a manner intended to reduce project costs, accelerate environmental reviews, and improve collaboration with project applicants and partners. The memorandum explains that the guidance is intended to serve as an implementation framework for ongoing planning, design, construction, and environmental compliance activities and is rooted in DOI’s revised NEPA regulations, finalized in February 2026, the updated Departmental NEPA Handbook, and Secretarial Order 3446.

The memorandum directs Reclamation staff to maximize use of streamlined NEPA tools across nearly every stage of the review process. This includes broad use of categorical exclusions established or adopted by any DOI bureau, application of “CE stacking” where appropriate, expanded reliance on applicant-prepared and applicant-directed contractor NEPA documents, and increased use of existing environmental analyses through Determinations of NEPA Adequacy (DNAs) or adoption of another agency’s EA or EIS. The guidance also emphasizes preparing written project scoping agreements with applicants before initiating NEPA, clarifying project purpose and need, schedules, responsibilities, and oversight expectations while reaffirming that Reclamation retains responsibility for the accuracy and adequacy of the final NEPA documents.

The memorandum further instructs staff to narrow environmental analyses consistent with the revised DOI Handbook by focusing only on “reasonably foreseeable” effects, eliminating reliance on the former direct, indirect, and cumulative effects framework, limiting alternatives to those that are technically and economically feasible and within the bureau’s jurisdiction, and relying on the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Seven Counties Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County to exclude effects that are remote in time or place or outside the agency’s regulatory authority. It also encourages limiting discretionary public comment opportunities for draft EAs and EISs, establishing regional escalation procedures for applicant concerns, increasing use of memoranda of understanding with project sponsors, and providing additional implementation training for Reclamation staff and applicants.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued updated guidance on “Establishing, Revising, Adopting, and Applying Categorical Exclusions Under the National Environmental Policy Act,” replacing the existing November 23, 2010 guidance. The guidance is framed as an update and not a substantive reform (i.e., rescission of regulations, elimination of public involvement, etc.).  While framed as incremental guidance, it effectively expands agency flexibility in applying categorical exclusions—particularly through multi-CE application and reliance on mitigation—which has direct implications for project timelines and documentation requirements.

Updates to the process for establishing and revising CEs
CEQ provides updated direction to agencies on establishing and revising CEs, including the different paths for substantiating the establishment of a new CE. One passage in the guidance is particularly interesting:

“[T]he extent of the agency’s substantiation record should be proportionate with the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the actions covered. For example, actions that inherently have negligible or minimal environmental effects may require only a brief discussion compared to a more extensive discussion for actions that, for example, require mitigation measures to be incorporated into the description and requirements of the categorical exclusion to avoid significant effects.”

As written, this seems to contemplate a mitigated CE, which is a concept that agencies have considered before but that CEQ had not previously acknowledged directly.  The guidance does not provide additional discussion around the use or application of such CEs but it’s acknowledgement in the guidance is notable.

Substantiating CEs

The guidance provides direction on how agencies should substantiate the development of new CEs including the following methods.

Previously completed environmental review — using completed environmental assessments and corresponding findings of no significant impact to justify the creation of a new categorical exclusion. This is the most common approach to substantiation and is how most CEs I’ve been involved in have been substantiated.

Consider another agency’s CE that applies to similar actions — CEQ provides two paths for using the CE of a different agency.  First, is the use of another agency’s CE to substantiate establishing a new CE.  Under this approach, agency “X” would look to sister agency “Y,” which has an established CE for a type of action, and agency “X” would invoke agency Y’s existing CE as substantiation for creating a similar CE covering similar actions under agency X’s authority. CEQ goes on to say that rather than creating a new CE by leveraging agency Y’s existing CE for substantiation, agencies should instead rely on Section 109 of NEPA, which authorizes agency adoption of CEs.

Rely on experience or expertise of staff or outside experts — this substantiation method is somewhat ill-defined and therefore leaves open a number of possible ways to rely on in-house or third-party expertise to support a conclusion that a proposed action will not result in significant effects. This seems aimed at emerging technologies, where an agency would not want to wait to build an administrative record of EA/FONSIs before substantiating the creation and application of a CE.

Revising or removing a CE
There are times when an agency may feel compelled to update an established CE. Such a change may be based on enacted legislation affecting the agency’s implementation of authorized programs, or when an agency determines through experience applying a CE that certain language could be tightened to remove ambiguities, etc. Here, CEQ advises that substantiation for revisions may be necessary, but should be proportionate to the changes proposed (e.g., no substantiation necessary for only editorial changes).

Joint establishment of a CE
The guidance addresses situations where two agencies may frequently have “joint” actions, with each having a separate but related action to take on a proposed activity. The example provided is a funding agency and a permitting agency that may choose to establish a “joint CE” covering both the funding and permitting action.

Adopting a CE from another agency
Section 109 of NEPA is the master key that unlocks NEPA for routine actions. The Fiscal Responsibility Act amended NEPA to add Section 109, authorizing a federal agency to adopt an existing CE from another federal agency, provided that the adopting agency consults with the originating agency and provides public notice. The CEQ guidance provides additional direction on this authority:

• Agencies are discouraged from soliciting public comment on the adoption of another agency’s CE. CEQ reinforces the requirement to provide public notice, but not to seek public comment.
• Agencies do not need to consult with CEQ prior to adopting another agency’s CE.
• Even if an “owning” agency determines to revoke or revise a CE, the “adopting” agency may still rely on the CE as written at the time of adoption.
  “The originating agency’s decision to rescind or modify the categorical exclusion at a later point in time does not preclude the adopting agency from continuing to use it or include it in agency NEPA procedures, as long as the rationale supporting the CE remains valid.”
• The guidance also refers agencies to the updated “Categorical Exclusion Explorer Tool,” an online tool that allows users to “search the entire body of over 2,000 categorical exclusions from over 80 agencies.”

Applying CEs to particular agency actions
The guidance also provides direction on the basics of CE application, paying particular attention to extraordinary circumstances. Specifically, the guidance reiterates that the mere presence of extraordinary circumstances does not necessarily disqualify application of a CE to a particular action. Rather, agencies should

“consider whether the application of the [CE] is still appropriate, notwithstanding the presence of extraordinary circumstances, either because the agency determines that, notwithstanding the extraordinary circumstance, the proposed action is not likely to result in reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects, or because the proposed action is modified to avoid those effects.”

The guidance goes further to describe the application of multiple CEs to a single agency action:

Additionally, agency NEPA procedures may provide for applying multiple categorical exclusions to cover a single agency action. In some circumstances, the combination of categorical exclusions can cover all aspects of the action and support the agency’s determination that the project considered in its entirety is not likely to have a reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effect.

CEQ directs agencies to concisely document—in a single determination applicable to the proposed action in its entirety—the use of multiple categorical exclusions and the consideration of extraordinary circumstances. Here again, CEQ appears to endorse a strategy some may have referred to as “daisy-chaining” or stacking CEs together, which previously was not widely accepted.

Finally, the guidance describes circumstances where there may be multiple federal actions on a proposed project and where one agency has determined that its action relative to the project is covered by a CE. In those circumstances, other agencies can rely on that determination to support their later, subsequent actions on the project, provided there are no extraordinary circumstances or other factors that would take the action out of CE applicability.

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) finalized revisions to its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures as part of a broader federal restructuring of agency NEPA frameworks following the Fiscal Responsibility Act amendments and the withdrawal of CEQ’s longstanding NEPA regulations. USDA stated that the final rule is intended to modernize and streamline environmental review procedures across the Department while maintaining compliance with statutory NEPA requirements. The rule applies across USDA agencies and offices involved in infrastructure, land management, energy, conservation, rural development, forestry, and agricultural programs. ([USDA Press Release, Apr. 7, 2026])

The final rule revises USDA’s departmental NEPA regulations and updates procedures governing environmental assessments (EAs), environmental impact statements (EISs), categorical exclusions (CEs), and related administrative processes. USDA stated that the revisions are designed to reduce procedural duplication, improve interagency coordination, and align departmental procedures with the revised statutory framework established by the Fiscal Responsibility Act. The Department also emphasized implementation of statutory NEPA timelines and page limits, including provisions related to lead agency designation and coordinated environmental review responsibilities.

USDA stated that the final rule provides agencies and subagencies with greater flexibility in administering NEPA reviews and expands the Department’s ability to use categorical exclusions for activities that normally do not result in significant environmental impacts. The Department indicated that revised procedures are intended to support more efficient project delivery and service administration across USDA mission areas, including Rural Development, the Forest Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), and other infrastructure-related programs. USDA also noted that certain procedural details may be implemented through agency manuals, handbooks, or supplemental guidance rather than through departmentwide regulation.

The rule is part of a broader governmentwide effort by federal agencies to revise or replace legacy NEPA implementing regulations after CEQ rescinded its binding governmentwide NEPA regulations. USDA stated that the updated framework is intended to preserve agency discretion and administrative flexibility while continuing to support environmental review requirements for federally funded or federally authorized activities. The Department characterized the final rule as a significant regulatory reform effort intended to improve efficiency in environmental review and permitting processes associated with USDA-administered programs and projects.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) finalized revisions to its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures following broader governmentwide changes to the federal NEPA framework. The rule rescinds most of DOI’s prior NEPA regulations at 43 CFR Part 46 and shifts the Department toward a more streamlined procedural structure centered on an updated Departmental NEPA Handbook and bureau-specific guidance documents. DOI stated that the changes are intended to align departmental procedures with the Fiscal Responsibility Act amendments to NEPA and with the broader restructuring of CEQ’s role in NEPA implementation. ([Federal Register, Feb. 24, 2026])

The final rule removes or substantially revises many provisions that previously codified DOI-specific NEPA procedures, including detailed requirements related to environmental assessments (EAs), findings of no significant impact (FONSIs), cooperating agency coordination, mitigation monitoring, and categorical exclusion administration. DOI stated that many of these topics would instead be addressed through internal guidance or bureau-level procedures rather than departmentwide regulations. The Department retained a narrower set of regulatory provisions where DOI determined formal codification remained necessary, including certain definitions, bureau responsibilities, and categorical exclusion authorities.

DOI stated that the revised framework is intended to provide bureaus greater procedural flexibility and reduce duplication with statutory NEPA requirements and agency guidance. The Department also emphasized that the rule is designed to support more efficient environmental review and permitting processes across DOI agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE). DOI noted that the Department would continue implementing NEPA consistent with the Fiscal Responsibility Act’s statutory amendments, including revised timelines, page limits, and lead agency coordination requirements.

The final rule follows DOI’s earlier proposed rulemaking and broader interagency efforts to revise or rescind NEPA regulations after CEQ withdrew its longstanding governmentwide NEPA implementing regulations. DOI stated that the Departmental Handbook and bureau guidance documents would serve as the primary operational tools for implementing NEPA reviews going forward. The Department indicated that these guidance materials may be updated more frequently than formal regulations in order to adapt to evolving permitting practices, statutory requirements, and judicial developments.

This memo promotes the integration of ship simulation technology into the design of navigation projects to address a recurring issue: infrastructure that is either overdesigned (increasing costs) or underperforms operationally (requiring redesign or modification). Traditional design approaches often rely on conservative assumptions that do not fully account for real-world vessel behavior or pilot decision-making.

The directive requires earlier and more consistent use of simulation tools, combined with input from pilots and maritime operators, to produce designs that are both operationally realistic and cost-efficient. It also emphasizes building institutional capacity through partnerships with external simulation providers. This reflects a broader shift toward data-driven, performance-based design and reducing life-cycle costs through better upfront decision-making.

Key Actions

• Require use of ship simulation early in the design process, unless waived
• Incorporate input from:
  • Maritime pilots
  • Other navigation professionals
• Apply simulation to:
  • Navigation channels
  • Locks and inland waterway infrastructure (as appropriate)
• Establish memoranda of agreement within 60 days with qualified simulation providers
• Leverage both:
  • USACE internal simulation capabilities
  • External institutions with specialized expertise

This memo represents one of the most consequential reforms in the package, targeting the front end of the USACE project pipeline—where studies are initiated, scoped, and justified. The core problem identified is that feasibility studies are too slow, too costly, and often initiated without sufficient discipline, leading to a backlog of studies that consume resources without producing implementable projects. The issue is compounded by WRDA 2024 expanding the number of authorized studies, further straining an already oversubscribed portfolio (page 1).

The directive fundamentally reframes the investigation phase as a screening and scoping function, not an open-ended analytical process. It introduces a formal requirement to determine Federal Interest up front—before a feasibility study is even scoped, budgeted, or scheduled. This is a major shift: historically, federal interest was often refined during the feasibility process; now it becomes a threshold gate that must be cleared quickly and decisively. The memo also explicitly ties federal interest to core mission areas (navigation, flood risk management, ecosystem restoration) and requires confirmation that a viable, cost-justified alternative exists that could ultimately support a Chief’s Report and Congressional authorization (pages 1–2).

A critical addition is the requirement to evaluate non-federal sponsor capability early, including their legal authority, financial capacity, and ability to meet long-term O&M responsibilities. If federal interest is weak, the Corps is directed to steer projects toward technical assistance authorities instead of full feasibility studies, effectively filtering out projects that should not enter the federal pipeline (page 2). This represents a clear shift toward shared responsibility and sponsor readiness as prerequisites, not afterthoughts.

Beyond FID, the memo significantly tightens governance and oversight of the entire investigation phase. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) (OASA(CW)) is positioned as an active gatekeeper, requiring concurrence on study scope before feasibility work begins and at key decision points during PED if scope changes occur (page 2). It also emphasizes that investigations are an enterprise responsibility, directing districts to leverage staff and contracting resources across the Corps rather than operate independently. Hiring is discouraged in favor of enterprise-wide staffing and expanded use of contractors, reinforcing broader workforce efficiency directives.

The memo further introduces active portfolio management tools that were not highlighted previously. These include:

• Line-item portfolio reviews and “investigation reset” authority, allowing studies that exceed time/cost limits or drift from priorities to be rescoped or terminated
• A requirement to review the entire active investigations portfolio and report back by March 31, 2026)
• Direction to reassess and streamline the milestone review process (Alternatives, TSP, Command Validation), which has historically contributed to delays
• A comprehensive review of all internal and external review requirements, including Independent External Peer Review (IEPR), with the goal of eliminating outdated or duplicative steps

Finally, the memo reinforces statutory discipline by reiterating that investigations should adhere to the 3-year / $3M limits, with waivers discouraged and exceptions treated as rare. Studies paused beyond their approved timelines are subject to termination, signaling a much more aggressive approach to managing schedule and cost performance.

Keay actions identified in the memo:

Federal Interest Determination

• Require FID of all new FY26 investigations within 45 days at a cost less than $100K
• FIDs should evaluate:
  • Federal mission alignment
  • Sponsor capability
  • Economic and environmental justification
• Require early confirmation of non-federal sponsor capability (financial, legal, O&M responsibilities)
• Redirect low-federal-interest projects to technical assistance authorities

Governance and Oversight

• Require the Office of the ASA CW to concur on study scope before feasibility begins
• Require concurrence for scope changes during PED
• Escalate policy or controversial issues immediately to ASA CW.
• Reinforce 3-year/$3M study limits
• Strongly discourage wavers for time/cost overruns

Enterprise Resource Management

• Treat investigations as an enterprise-wide responsibility
• Require districts to:
  • Use shared staffing across districts
  • Expand use of contracting support
• Discourage hiring of new staff; prioritize existing workforce optimization

Portfolio Control & Discipline

• Conduct line-item review of al ongoing investigations
• Enable rescoping or termination of non-performing studies
• Terminate studies paused beyond approved timelines
• Deliver portfolio review briefing by March 31, 2026

Process Streamlining

• Reassess and streamline milestone review framework
• Review and eliminate outdated internal/external review requirements
• Evaluate entire lifecycle review process, including:
  • Planning
  • Construction
  • O&M
  • IEPR and safety reviews

Complementing the substantive prioritization framework in other BINP memos, this memo establishes a formalized, bottom-up process for identifying and elevating priority projects within USACE.  It introduces a structured mechanism for districts and divisions to nominate and rank projects, which are then consolidated at headquarters for final decision-making.

This approach institutionalizes portfolio management discipline, ensuring that prioritization is not ad hoc but instead systematically developed and aligned across organizational levels.  It also creates greater transparency into how priorities are determined and advanced.

Key actions described in the memo include:

• Require districts to identify and rank at least five priorities
• Require divisions to consolidate into at least twenty priorities
• Submit prioritized lists to headquarters for final review and approval.

This memo addresses a persistent delivery risk in the Civil Works program: projects that exceed their Section 902 statutory cost limits. Historically, when projects breached these limits, they often stalled—requiring reauthorization, creating uncertainty, and consuming resources without clear resolution. The directive reframes these situations not as isolated compliance issues, but as portfolio and delivery management failures that require active intervention.

The policy introduces a structured, time-bound process for evaluating projects that exceed (or are projected to exceed) the 902 limit, with a focus on maintaining momentum while restoring cost discipline. Notably, it expands the range of management responses beyond simple continuation or delay, explicitly enabling organizational reassignment of project delivery responsibility. This reflects a broader theme across the directives: treating project delivery as an enterprise function, where underperformance can trigger redistribution of work to better-positioned teams.

Section 902 limits refer to a provision in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) that caps the total project cost of a USACE Civil Works project at the amount authorized by Congress, adjusted for inflation. If updated cost estimates exceed this limit, the project cannot proceed without further Congressional action (e.g., reauthorization or modification).

In practice, exceeding the 902 limit triggers a formal reassessment, requiring USACE to evaluate whether to modify, re-scope, reassign, or seek additional authorization for the project—making it a key control on cost growth and project viability.

Key actions identified in the memo:

• Require submission of a business case within 60 days of determining a project will exceed the Section 902 limit
• Evaluate three delivery alternatives:
  • Continue with the current project delivery team
  • Reassign to a different team within the district
  • Reassign to a team in another district
• Require analysis of:
  • Cost containment strategies
  • Schedule impacts
  • Risks, including Anti-Deficiency Act compliance
• Require identification of any post-authorization change requirements (PACR) and associated scope

This memo targets one of the more complex and time-consuming aspects of USACE permitting: Section 408 approvals, which are required when activities have the potential to alter Corps projects. Historically, applicants and Congressional oversight reports have criticized the 408 review process for inconsistency, long timelines, and lack of standardized procedures.

The memo directs a shift toward programmatic and rule-based approaches, including the development of categorical permissions and formal regulations.  The goal is to align 408 processing with broader federal efforts to streamline permitting and reduce regulatory friction, particularly for infrastructure and energy projects. Such an approach will transition Section 408 authorizations toward a general permit-style framework analogous to Clean Water Act Section 404, reducing reliance on case-by-case reviews.

Key actions that USACE will undertake as directed in the memo:

• Initiate formal rulemaking for Section 408 procedures
• Develop nationwide categorical permissions
• Allow for regional general permits and programmatic approvals consistent with the approach to Clean Water Act Section 404 permits
• Align 408 reviews with broader permitting reform initiatives.

This memo addresses the long-standing issue of lengthy USACE study timelines that delay delivery of tangible benefits.  The Early Actionable Increments (EAI) concept is designed to break large, complex projects into smaller components that USACE can implement more quickly.  By emphasizing early deliverables and enforcing statutory study limits, the policy seeks to move projects from analysis to execution more rapidly.  It reflects a broader cultural shift toward incremental delivery and practical outcomes, rather than comprehensive but delayed solutions. The approach shifts project development toward modular, phased delivery, which may alter how projects are scoped, authorized and funded.

Key actions identified in the memo:

• Enforce study limits of 3 years/$3 million (the 3×3 framework)
• Identify and advance incremental, implementable components
• Prioritize near-term actions over long-term comprehensive plans
• Limit extensions and exceptions

This memo refines existing federal PLA policy by introducing a clearer framework for evaluating when PLAs support project delivery versus when they may hinder cost efficiency or competition. While PLAs remain an established tool—particularly for large, complex projects requiring coordinated labor across multiple trades—the directive signals a shift away from default application toward conditional use based on measurable criteria.

The policy introduces explicit thresholds and decision triggers, emphasizing cost discipline and competitive procurement outcomes. By elevating approval authority to the Assistant Secretary for certain decisions, the memo also centralizes oversight and ensures that PLA use aligns with broader program priorities, including efficient use of federal funds and maximizing competition.

Key Actions

• Maintain PLA use for projects ≥ $35M, consistent with federal policy
• Require ASA(CW) approval for PLA use on projects below $35M
• Encourage exceptions where:
  • PLA requirements increase costs by ≥10% above government estimates
  • PLA requirements reduce competition or bidder participation
• Reinforce evaluation of cost-effectiveness and practicality in PLA decisions

This memo reflects a structural shift in how environmental mitigation is treated within navigation projects—from a project-specific compliance requirement to a system-level planning and delivery mechanism. Historically, dredging projects have been delayed by the need to design, permit, and implement bespoke mitigation solutions, often creating bottlenecks unrelated to the dredging work itself.

By elevating mitigation banking as the preferred approach and embedding it within Dredged Material Management Plans (DMMPs), the directive effectively aggregates mitigation demand across projects and time. This creates the foundation for a more predictable, scalable, and market-driven approach to environmental compliance. The policy aligns with broader directives emphasizing programmatic solutions, permitting efficiency, and leveraging non-federal capacity.

Key Actions

• Establish mitigation banking as the preferred/default mitigation approach
• Reduce reliance on project-specific mitigation design and delivery
• Streamline approval processes for mitigation banks
• Integrate mitigation banking into DMMPs to align mitigation with long-term sediment management strategies
• Encourage use of pre-approved mitigation credits to support project delivery

This memo signals a deliberate shift from viewing hydropower at Corps facilities as a secondary or opportunistic use toward treating it as a strategic infrastructure priority tied to energy production and revenue generation. Historically, hydropower development at USACE facilities has been constrained by fragmented authorities, unclear processes, and misalignment across regulatory regimes (e.g., FERC licensing, Section 408, and Corps civil works policies). As a result, many viable opportunities have remained underdeveloped despite statutory encouragement under the 2014 Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA).

The directive reframes the Corps’ role from passive asset owner to active facilitator of non-federal investment, with a focus on identifying scalable opportunities and systematically removing institutional and regulatory barriers. Importantly, the memo does not just call for an updated inventory—it directs a process-level integration across multiple regulatory frameworks, which is where most projects currently stall. This aligns with broader themes across the directives emphasizing non-federalization of delivery, interagency coordination, and asset optimization.

Key Actions

• Update WRRDA Section 1008 reporting methodology to better identify and track hydropower opportunities
• Conduct a comprehensive inventory of:
  • Existing Corps facilities with unrealized hydropower potential
  • Opportunities for upgrades or efficiency improvements at existing installations
• Identify and remove barriers related to:
  • FERC licensing processes
  • Section 408 approvals
  • Dam safety requirements
  • Water control manuals and operational constraints
  • Section 10 and Section 404 permitting
• Improve coordination across regulatory and approval processes affecting hydropower development

This memo reflects a broader effort by USACE to actively manage and rationalize its project portfolio as a strategic resource allocation tool, rather than passively carrying forward legacy authorizations.  Over time, the Civil Works program has accumulated a backlog of authorized projects that are inactive, lack local support, or are no longer economically justified.  The memo operationalizes existing Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) authorities by directing districts to identify projects that are effectively dormant or infeasible.  The intent appears to be to free up institutional capacity and signal to Congress which authorizations are no longer viable, enabling a reallocation of resources toward higher-priority infrastructure investments.

Key actions described in the memo include:

• Identifying projects that:
  • Have not started progressed in extended periods
  • Lack funding, support, or economic justification
• Expand and refine the list of candidate projects
• Submit recommendations within 15 days of the date of the memo (March 10) – those recommendations are not publicly available.

This memo establishes a top-down prioritization framework for allocating USACE resources across planning, design, and construction activities.  It reflects a shift toward national-level prioritization criteria, rather than distributing effort evenly across districts or project types.  The intent is to ensure that limited federal capacity – particularly staff and funding – is directed toward projects with the greatest national significance.

The policy reinforces a transition toward a federal “core mission” focus, with lower-priority work increasingly shifted to non-federal sponsors or external delivery mechanisms.  This aligns with broader themes across the directives emphasizing efficiency, prioritization, and leveraging non-federal capabilities. This represents a shift from geographically distributed workload management to a nationally optimized portfolio model.

Key actions described in the memo include:

• Prioritizing work in the following order:

1. 1. Life safety
   2. Nationally significant infrastructure
   3. Navigation and supply chains
   4. Property protection
   5. Ecosystem restoration
   6. State-level infrastructure
   7. Local infrastructure

• Reallocating staff and funding to higher-priority efforts
• Shifting lower-priority work to:
  • Non-federal sponsors
  • Contractors or external delivery

The EPA’s final rule rescinds the agency’s 2009 “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings” for greenhouse gases under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 202(a)(1) and, as a result, repeals all federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and engines that were issued after the 2009 finding. EPA describes the action as returning its vehicle program to what it calls the “best reading” of CAA section 202(a)(1), and it states that—without the 2009 endangerment finding—it lacks statutory authority under section 202(a)(1) to prescribe GHG standards in response to global climate change concerns.

In the rule’s summary, EPA explains that its conclusion rests on multiple stated grounds, including its interpretation of the CAA terms “air pollution,” “cause,” “contribute,” and “reasonably be anticipated to endanger,” and it says that this interpretation is corroborated by application of the major questions doctrine. EPA also states that GHG standards for new motor vehicles and engines “do not impact in any material way” the public health and welfare concerns identified in the prior 2009 findings, and it notes that it is not finalizing additional bases for repeal that had been set out in the proposed rule.

EPA sets an effective date of April 20, 2026, and clarifies that the final action is limited to GHG emissions (it says it does not affect regulations for traditional air pollutants). The rule amends vehicle and engine regulations across multiple CFR parts (including 40 CFR Parts 85, 86, 600, 1036, 1037, and 1039) consistent with removing the GHG standards and related requirements.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has issued a notice of proposed modification regarding the Buy America requirements for electric vehicle (EV) chargers used in Federal-aid highway projects.

The proposal signals a significant shift toward stricter domestic sourcing to bolster U.S. manufacturing and address national security concerns.

Core Proposed Policy Change

The primary objective of this notice is to increase the domestic content threshold for EV charger components.

• Current Requirement: Under the February 2023 waiver, chargers must undergo final assembly in the U.S., and at least 55% of the cost of all components must be manufactured domestically.

• Proposed Requirement: The FHWA is seeking to raise this threshold from 55% to up to 100%.  

• Immediate Effect: If finalized, these new standards would apply immediately to projects obligated after the final notice is published.  

Key Policy Drivers

The FHWA cites several reasons for moving toward a more restrictive waiver:

• Industry Readiness: Data suggests that the supply chain volatility of 2023 has stabilized and that manufacturers now have the capacity to produce chargers almost entirely within U.S. facilities.
• National Security: There is an increased focus on reducing dependency on foreign-produced electronic components to protect domestic infrastructure.

• Executive Policy: The proposal aligns with “Buy American” executive orders intended to ensure federal taxpayer funds support American businesses and workers.

Scope and Exceptions

• Final Assembly: The requirement for chargers to undergo final assembly in the United States remains a mandatory baseline.

• Iron and Steel: The modification does not change existing rules for charger housing; if the housing is predominantly iron or steel, it must still comply with standard Buy America requirements (typically 100% domestic).

• Federal-Aid Projects: This policy specifically impacts EV chargers purchased or installed using funds administered by the FHWA

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) finalized revisions to its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures to establish a new categorical exclusion (CE) for certain advanced nuclear reactor projects. DOE stated that the rule is intended to support more efficient deployment of advanced nuclear technologies by streamlining environmental review requirements for qualifying reactor activities that normally do not individually or cumulatively have significant environmental impacts. The Department characterized the action as part of broader federal efforts to modernize permitting processes for energy infrastructure and advanced energy technologies. ([DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures, Feb. 2026])

The final rule adds a categorical exclusion applicable to specific advanced nuclear reactor demonstration, research, testing, and deployment activities conducted at previously disturbed or developed sites under defined conditions. DOE stated that qualifying projects must meet specified eligibility criteria and remain subject to extraordinary circumstances review and other applicable environmental requirements. The Department indicated that the new CE is intended to apply primarily to smaller-scale advanced reactor technologies and associated supporting infrastructure where environmental effects are expected to be limited and well understood.

DOE stated that the rule is intended to reduce unnecessary procedural burdens and improve permitting predictability for advanced nuclear projects while maintaining compliance with NEPA and related environmental statutes. The Department noted that the revised procedures are designed to support implementation of broader federal energy and grid reliability objectives, including expansion of carbon-free baseload generation, advanced reactor commercialization, domestic fuel cycle capabilities, and energy resilience initiatives. DOE also emphasized that projects not qualifying for the categorical exclusion would continue to undergo environmental assessments (EAs) or environmental impact statements (EISs) as appropriate.

The rule follows ongoing DOE and Administration efforts to accelerate review and deployment of advanced energy infrastructure through expanded use of categorical exclusions and streamlined permitting mechanisms. DOE stated that the action is consistent with broader reforms following the Fiscal Responsibility Act amendments to NEPA and evolving agency approaches to environmental review implementation after changes to CEQ’s governmentwide NEPA framework. The Department indicated that the revised procedures are intended to provide greater regulatory clarity and facilitate more timely project development for advanced nuclear technologies.

The document is a final rule issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that adopts, as final, an interim final rule previously published on February 25, 2025. This rule removes all of CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The effective date of the rule is January 8, 2026, and it reflects CEQ’s conclusion that, in the absence of statutory authority, the implementing regulations are no longer appropriate or necessary.

The preamble provides extensive historical background on NEPA and CEQ’s role in issuing regulations to implement NEPA. It recounts the statute’s purpose to require federal agencies to consider environmental effects in decisionmaking and discusses the evolution of CEQ’s regulations and guidance over decades. The text traces key executive orders and regulatory actions dating back to the 1970s and outlines how various administrations and statutes have influenced NEPA implementation and related procedural requirements.

The final rule also addresses CEQ’s legal authority and precedent for removing the regulations, including references to relevant statutes and case law. It explains that although the NEPA statute remains in force, CEQ no longer asserts independent regulatory authority to issue binding NEPA regulations. The document summarizes public comments received on the interim final rule and confirms that no changes were made from the interim version in adopting it as final.

Nationwide Permits (NWPs) authorize activities under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 that have no more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects. The NWPs help protect the aquatic environment and the public interest by providing incentives to reduce impacts to jurisdictional waters. In this final action, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is reissuing 56 existing nationwide permits (NWPs), general conditions, and definitions, with some modifications. The Corps is also issuing one new NWP.

This executive order (EO 14365) sets a national policy to secure U.S. AI leadership by minimizing regulatory burdens, preempting conflicting state AI laws, and steering toward a uniform federal framework. It criticizes “onerous” state AI regimes—especially those seen as ideologically biased, extraterritorial, or requiring AI systems to alter truthful outputs—and calls for a “minimally burdensome” national standard that still protects children, free expression, copyrights, and community safety.​

The order directs DOJ to establish an AI Litigation Task Force to identify and challenge state AI laws that conflict with federal policy and instructs the Department of Commerce to evaluate state AI laws and flag those that impede innovation or compel unconstitutional disclosures. It also leverages federal funding: Commerce must condition remaining BEAD funds and agencies must review other discretionary grants so that, where legally possible, states with conflicting AI laws may be deemed ineligible or required not to enforce those laws during the grant period.​

Regulatory agencies receive specific assignments: the FCC must initiate a rulemaking to create a federal AI reporting and disclosure standard that would preempt inconsistent state requirements, and the FTC must issue a policy statement clarifying how AI-related practices fit under its unfair or deceptive practices authority, including where state mandates to alter truthful outputs would themselves be treated as deceptive. The President’s AI and science advisors must also draft a legislative proposal for a comprehensive federal AI framework with targeted preemption, while expressly not recommending preemption of certain state laws, including those on child safety, generally applicable permitting for compute and data centers, and state procurement and use of AI.​

The Genesis Mission Executive Order launches a national, DOE‑led initiative to build an integrated AI‑enabled science platform that uses federal data, supercomputing, and automated labs to accelerate research in high‑priority technology and security domains. It explicitly casts AI‑driven science as a Manhattan Project‑scale effort to enhance U.S. technological leadership, national security, and economic competitiveness.​

The EO’s core purpose is to create a unified AI platform that connects federal scientific datasets, high‑performance computing, and advanced instruments so researchers can train scientific foundation models, run AI agents, and automate experiments to “solve the most challenging problems of this century.” It frames Genesis as a strategic bet on AI to revitalize U.S. science, placing AI at the center of long‑term competition over critical technologies and likening the effort to the urgency and ambition of the Manhattan Project.​

The order formally establishes the Genesis Mission as a national effort and designates the Secretary of Energy as the lead, responsible for planning, integrating DOE resources, and potentially appointing a senior official to run day‑to‑day operations. DOE is directed to coordinate with other federal agencies, national laboratories, academia, and industry, using standardized partnership and IP frameworks while maintaining strict security, classification, privacy, and export‑control safeguards.​

DOE must assemble a secure, unified infrastructure that ties together supercomputers, AI and quantum systems, cloud environments, large scientific datasets, domain‑specific foundation models, and robotic or automated laboratories. The EO calls for capabilities such as AI agents, synthetic data generation, secure multi‑tenant AI environments, and automated experimentation, with timelines to inventory compute and data resources and demonstrate an initial operating capability using existing infrastructure.​

The USFWS/NMFS joint Section 7 NPRM revises the interagency cooperation regulations that govern consultation on federal actions, again largely returning to the 2019 framework with adjustments. The proposal clarifies how federal agencies determine whether an action “may affect” listed species or critical habitat, how they define the “action area,” and how they evaluate effects in formal and informal consultation.​

A key element is codification of a more explicit definition and use of the “environmental baseline” in consultations. The baseline is described as the condition of listed species and critical habitat in the action area without the proposed action, including past and present impacts and the effects of other federal actions that are already implemented or reasonably certain to occur, but excluding the effects of the proposed action and unrelated future activities lacking sufficient certainty. The NPRM indicates that jeopardy and adverse‑modification analyses will focus on the incremental effects of the proposed action added to this baseline, rather than revisiting the entire cumulative history of impacts in the action area.​

The proposed rule also addresses procedural aspects of consultation, including definitions and standards for “programmatic” consultations, the use of “expedited” or streamlined consultation approaches, and the documentation required in biological opinions and concurrence letters. It would clarify how reinitiation of consultation is triggered, including when new information or listings arise, and how agencies should consider effects of ongoing actions under previously completed consultations. Overall, the NPRM seeks to provide more predictability around scope of review, treatment of baseline conditions, and the division between effects of the proposed action and broader background impacts.

A FWS‑only NPRM addresses the agency’s implementation of ESA section 4(b)(2) concerning exclusions from critical habitat based on economic, national security, and other relevant impacts. This proposal focuses on FWS’s exclusion analysis framework and would refine, and in some respects restore, the 2020 exclusion approach that was modified in 2024.​

The rule describes a structured process for identifying “consideration areas” for potential exclusion, assessing the benefits of inclusion in critical habitat, and weighing them against the benefits of exclusion for each particular area. It reiterates that, under section 4(b)(2), FWS must consider economic impacts, national security impacts, and any other relevant impacts of designating an area as critical habitat, and may exclude an area if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, so long as exclusion would not result in extinction. The NPRM sets out how FWS would document its exclusion analyses, including how it considers impacts such as increased consultation costs, impacts to energy or infrastructure projects, or conflicts with military readiness or national security designations.​

The proposal also clarifies FWS’s discretion with respect to federal lands and partnerships such as habitat conservation plans, candidate conservation agreements, or other conservation programs. It indicates that FWS may give significant weight to existing conservation mechanisms and may consider excluding areas where non‑designation would facilitate conservation partnerships or avoid undermining ongoing management, provided the extinction‑risk backstop is met. Overall, the NPRM would make exclusion considerations more explicit and prominent in critical habitat designations by codifying criteria and procedures FWS will apply when weighing inclusion versus exclusion for particular areas.

The joint USFWS/NMFS proposed rule on listing, delisting, and designating critical habitat (50 C.F.R. Part 424) would amend the 2024 revisions and in many respects return to the 2019 regulatory text. The proposal re‑emphasizes that listing determinations must be grounded in the “best scientific and commercial data available,” and that the scope of the “foreseeable future” for threatened species is bounded by what can reasonably be foreseen based on that data.​

For listing and delisting, the rule would reinstate 2019 language clarifying how the Services evaluate the “foreseeable future” and the circumstances under which delisting or down‑listing is appropriate. The proposed foreseeable‑future provision reiterates that the length of the time horizon depends on the species and threats, but must be limited to time frames for which reliable predictions about status can be made from available information. For delisting, the rule would restore text that more explicitly ties delisting to the same five statutory factors used for listing, clarifying that a species may be removed from the lists when it no longer meets the definitions of endangered or threatened based on those factors.​

For critical habitat, the proposed rule would restore a stepwise, “occupied‑first” framework for designating critical habitat and narrow the circumstances under which unoccupied areas may be designated. The Services would be required to designate unoccupied areas only when a designation limited to occupied habitat would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species, and when there is a reasonable certainty that such unoccupied areas will contribute to conservation. The NPRM also reinstates language allowing “not prudent” findings where threats to a species’ habitat stem solely from causes that cannot be addressed through section 7(a)(2) consultations, meaning that in some cases no critical habitat may be designated if doing so would not provide a meaningful conservation benefit

The threatened‑species NPRM revises FWS regulations implementing ESA section 4(d) and would eliminate the ability to rely on a “blanket rule” extending all ESA section 9 prohibitions to threatened species. Historically, FWS had a blanket 4(d) rule that automatically applied most endangered‑species take prohibitions to all threatened species unless a species‑specific 4(d) rule provided otherwise; this was rescinded in 2019, reinstated in 2024, and would now again be removed.​

Under the proposed rule, newly listed threatened species would no longer automatically receive endangered‑level prohibitions; instead, FWS would issue species‑specific 4(d) rules identifying which section 9 prohibitions apply and what exceptions or allowances are justified as “necessary and advisable” for that species’ conservation. The NPRM emphasizes an individualized analysis that considers biological needs of the species, the types of activities causing threats, and the conservation benefits of applying or tailoring particular prohibitions. It also notes that the proposal generally would not change protections for currently listed threatened species already covered by the reinstated blanket rule until those species are reclassified or addressed through new species‑specific rules.​

The proposal outlines how FWS will document “necessary and advisable” determinations, including an assessment of conservation benefits and potential economic or other impacts of different protective configurations. It aligns FWS’s approach more closely with NMFS’s longstanding practice of relying solely on species‑specific 4(d) rules and invokes recent case law (including Loper Bright) as supporting a reading of the statute that does not require the blanket extension of all section 9 prohibitions to threatened species. In practice, this NPRM would shift threatened species protections to a more discretionary, case‑by‑case regime in which protective scope depends on the content and timing of each species‑specific 4(d) rule.

The Secretarial Order establishes a policy to cut red tape and lower costs for Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) water and power users by shifting procurement and construction management responsibilities for federally funded capital improvement and maintenance projects to qualified local government and other partner entities. The objective is to capitalize on evidence that partner-led, non‑federal procurement can deliver similar projects faster and at up to roughly 20 percent lower cost than under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) processes, thereby reducing repayment obligations and downstream costs for farmers, energy users, and consumers. The Order grounds this delegation in existing Reclamation and procurement authorities and positions it as part of the Trump Administration’s broader deregulatory and inflation‑fighting agenda, and consistent with Executive Order 14275 on “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement” and models like Tribal self‑determination contracting.​

Substantively, the Order directs BOR’s regional and area offices to engage partners and modify existing contracts or develop new provisions that allow “qualified entities” with demonstrated financial, technical, management, and engineering capacity to procure and manage construction and maintenance contracts at BOR facilities, subject to federal oversight. BOR is instructed to prioritize use of these partner‑led models when they can clearly reduce costs, accelerate project delivery, and ease financial burdens on both non‑federal beneficiaries and federal taxpayers. The Order also calls for integration with broader “reform” activities, including streamlining environmental and National Historic Preservation Act compliance, revising cost‑share programs and Reclamation Manual provisions, adjusting engineering review processes to project complexity, and exploring additional contracting tools such as potential IDIQs for construction management and testing services.​

The Department is further directed to consider extending similar partner‑driven approaches to other bureaus with construction and maintenance portfolios, emphasizing the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education where Indian Self‑Determination and Education Assistance Act authorities may provide an existing framework. A coordinated communications strategy led by the Office of Communications is required to promote the initiative to internal audiences and external stakeholders such as water user associations, counties, and public power entities, emphasizing anticipated cost savings, expedited infrastructure delivery, and consumer benefits.​

Implementation and safeguards are addressed through required legal review, fiscal controls, and risk management. All new or modified agreements must undergo Office of the Solicitor review to ensure legal sufficiency and adherence to appropriations law, and partners may not obligate federal funds beyond available appropriations. BOR must implement a standardized vetting process to ensure only qualified entities manage federal projects, maintain documentation of due diligence, and retain ultimate oversight with the ability to revoke authorities for non‑performance or non‑compliance. The Assistant Secretary for Water and Science is tasked with issuing detailed implementation guidance tied to future FAR updates under EO 14275, coordinating legal and communications efforts, and reporting within defined timeframes on partner identification, contract modifications, implementation challenges, and recommended improvements.

On November 17, 2025, the EPA and USACE released a notice of proposed rulemaking to update the 2023 definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), the term that sets the outer boundary for federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction and, by extension, a lot of permitting and NEPA activity. The proposal is framed as a comprehensive implementation of the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett decision and an attempt to respond to stakeholder complaints that the 2023 “conforming” rule didn’t go far enough in clarifying the limits of federal authority. The agencies describe this action as protecting vital water resources while cutting red tape, improving predictability for landowners and project sponsors, and reaffirming that states and tribes are best positioned to manage many local waters. The Fact Sheet is available here.

Substantively, the proposal tightens and narrows several core concepts. It would define “relatively permanent” so that only standing or continuously flowing waters, including tributaries and certain lakes and ponds, qualify. It would define “tributary” to capture only those relatively permanent channels that meet specific criteria, and for the first time define “continuous surface connection” as a two-part test: wetlands and certain lakes/ponds must (1) abut a jurisdictional water and (2) have surface water at least during the wet season. The rule would remove interstate waters as a stand-alone jurisdictional category, meaning those waters are only in if they also qualify as a traditional navigable water, a relatively permanent tributary, or a covered lake/pond. On the exclusion side, the proposal would codify more detailed definitions for ditches, prior converted cropland, and waste treatment systems, including an “abandonment” concept for when prior converted cropland loses its exclusion, and would underscore—again—that groundwater is not WOTUS.

The EPA Website with additional materials is here.

The United States Geological Survey published the final 2025 list of critical minerals. The Final 2025 List of Critical Minerals is an official government listing of minerals essential for national security, economic growth, and the reliability of supply chains in the United States. Due to reliance on imports and the risk of disruptions, the US is taking steps to increase domestic production and reduce dependence on foreign sources for these minerals. The updated list for 2025 includes 60 minerals, such as copper, lithium, uranium, and several rare earth elements, reflecting new assessments and public feedback. The list is not static—it will be reviewed and revised regularly to keep up with changing industry needs and global supply trends. This update is part of a broader strategy to protect American industries and infrastructure by ensuring access to the minerals needed to support technology and manufacturing

USDOT issued an interim final rule, effective immediately, modifying the implementation of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport Concession DBE (ACDBE) programs. The DBE and ACDBE programs, run by the USDOT, have for decades used statutory presumptions that certain groups (women, specified racial/ethnic minorities) are “presumed disadvantaged,” simplifying certification under those DBE and ACDBE programs.  A 2024 decision by the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky found that those presumptions likely violate constitutional equal protection principles.  In response, President Trump and Secretary Duffy have issued numerous executive orders or secretarial orders, respectively, that seek to undo that statutory presumption in federal programs.

USDOT issued additional guidance to federal funding recipients as these changes are substantial and summarized below:

• 1. Elimination of Race- and Sex-Based Presumptions. The presumptions that certain classes are automatically presumed socially and economically disadvantaged (based on race or sex) are removed from both DBE and ACDBE programs.

  2. Individualized Demonstration Requirement. All applicants (including those previously certified) must now affirmatively demonstrate social and economic disadvantage without regard to race or sex, using a personal narrative and supporting evidence that shows specific instances of systemic barriers, economic harm, denied opportunities, etc.  Applicants must also submit their current personal wealth statement and relevant financial information.
  3. Reevaluation of All Existing Certifications. The rule mandates that each Unified Certification Program (UCP – the statewide partnership of transportation agencies that jointly administer DBE and ACDBE certification) immediately reevaluate every currently certified DBE and ACDBE firm under the new standards.  Those that no longer meet the new standard must be decertified.  Note: The standard process for decertification does not apply here.  The rule suspends the protections offered by the standard process, meaning that there is no “formal decertification process” with a written notice, opportunity to respond and a right to administrative appeal.
  4. Suspension of DBE/ACDBE Goals During Transition. Until each UCP completes its reevaluations, federal funding recipients may not set new DBE contract goals or ACDBE concession-specific goals and they also cannot count DBE or ACDBE participation towards meeting goals.
  5. Changes to Reporting/Data Collection. The rule removes the requirement to collect and report data about the race or sex of business owners for bidding firms.

This updated guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) provides federal agencies with direction for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) following recent statutory amendments and executive orders. The guidance clarifies NEPA’s procedural requirements, updates agencies on new statutory provisions introduced in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 and in 2025 and incorporates the Supreme Court’s opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado. It instructs agencies to revise or establish NEPA implementing procedures according to new timelines, page limits, expanded definitions (including “major federal action”), and to incorporate clear processes for lead and cooperating agency assignments, reliance on programmatic documents, and categorical exclusions.

CEQ’s memorandum also stresses prioritizing efficiency and certainty in NEPA reviews, urges agencies to consult with CEQ during development or revision of procedures, and provides a template to ensure consistency across government. The guidance recommends that—for the interim—agencies maintain their current NEPA practices but adjust as needed for new statutory, executive, and judicial developments. Agencies are encouraged to voluntarily reference previous CEQ regulations and swiftly update their procedures, using the CEQ template, and to prioritize interagency coordination and timely consultation with CEQ for both rulemaking and non-rulemaking updates

The guidance also includes a new Appendix 1 – Agency NEPA Procedures Template

The Department of Energy released a request for information (RFI) “Accelerating Speed to Power/Winning the Artificial Intelligence Race.” Through the RFI, the Department of Energy” is inviting public input and seeking detailed information…from state energy offices, public utility commissions, electric utilities, regional transmission organizations and independent system operators, transmission and generation developers, large energy users, and other stakeholders on large-scale generation, transmission and grid infrastructure projects that can accelerate speed to power to support manufacturing, industrial, and artificial intelligence/data center demand growth.” (Yes, that is one sentence)

Responses to the RFI are due November 21, 2025 by 5:00 pm Eastern and seeks information on:

• Identifying large-scale generation, transmission, and grid infrastructure projects that would benefit from DOE coordination, technical assistance, and financial support. Specifically, DOE is looking for projects that should be considered and prioritized for siting and permitting support, technical assistance, and/or federal funding.
• Developing and refining federal funding and technical assistance programs to help “state and local governments, utilities, grid operators, large load customers, and other stakeholders address grid infrastructure constraints and meet new demand in a timely and efficient manner.”
• Defining high-priority geographic areas for DOE investments where such investments in transmission, generation, or grid infrastructure could unlock or accelerate large-scale economic activity tied to electrical load growth.

OMB released a memo directed to the heads of executive departments and agencies that directed agencies to follow the July 29, 2025 Department of Justice (DOJ) Memo titled “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination” which is attached.

Key Takeaway: Federal agencies are to stop funding programs deemed discriminatory, including many Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives.

Key requirements of the DOJ memo are listed below

• Agencies must ensure recipients of federal funds comply with civil rights laws (Title VI, Title VII, Title IX, etc.).
• Programs cannot use protected characteristics (race, sex, religion, national origin) in employment, admissions, resource allocation, or benefits—unless meeting strict legal scrutiny.
• Policies mandating shared intimate spaces or athletic competition across sexes are generally unlawful.
• “Proxy discrimination” (criteria like “cultural competence” or “lived experience” used as stand-ins for race/sex) is prohibited.
• Agencies must monitor third-party partners to ensure federal funds don’t support discriminatory activities.
• Individuals are protected from retaliation if they refuse to participate in or object to such programs.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to rescind the Conservation and Landscape Health rule, also known as the Public Lands Rule on the grounds that it exceeded statutory authority and introduced unnecessary complexity into existing land management frameworks. The rule, adopted under the Biden administration, had elevated “conservation leases” and emphasized landscape-level restoration and ecosystem services as co-equal uses alongside traditional multiple-use priorities. Secretary Burgum’s DOI argues that these provisions distorted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act’s (FLPMA) intent, which emphasizes sustained yield and balancing uses such as grazing, energy development, and recreation. BLM also cited concerns about administrative burden and potential conflicts with established planning processes, particularly the introduction of new leasing mechanisms not explicitly authorized by Congress.

The rescission would re-center BLM planning on traditional multiple-use principles without the overlay of conservation leasing as a formal tool. This will likely streamline near-term planning decisions by removing a contested layer of analysis, but it also narrows the agency’s flexibility to address climate resilience, biodiversity, and large-scale restoration in future land management plans. The shift could accelerate permitting for resource extraction and grazing by reducing procedural requirements, yet it also raises the risk of litigation from stakeholders who saw the Public Lands Rule as a vehicle to balance ecological values more robustly.

Comments are due November 10, 2025.

Secretary’s Order 3442, refocuses implementation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) on expanding outdoor recreation access and conservation while reducing bureaucratic hurdles. It provides updated guidance for how state LWCF grants should be awarded, clarifies permissible uses of funding, and reaffirms a national allocation of over $437 million to states and territories.

However, the Order also reverses prior restrictions preventing states from using LWCF grants to purchase federal conservation lands slated for sale, effectively opening a path for states to buy public lands back with LWCF funds. Critics argue this change could facilitate land disposals and undercut protections under the Great American Outdoors Act.

The President issued a memorandum to the Attorney General, directing her office to coordinate with federal agency leadership to “investigate whether federal grant funds are being used to illegally support lobbying activities.” This investigation is prompted by findings from “[f]ederal funding reviews by [the] Administration [which] have revealed that taxpayer funds are being spent on grants with highly political overtones.”

The Attorney General is directed to report back on findings of the investigation within 180 days.

Signed on August 21, 2025, this order launches the “America by Design” initiative, targeting the design and usability of federal services—both online and physical—to make them more intuitive, efficient, and aesthetically pleasing. It establishes a National Design Studio (NDS) within the White House, led by an Administrator reporting to the Chief of Staff, and creates a new position of Chief Design Officer to coordinate efforts across agencies.

Under the order, the NDS and the Chief Design Officer are tasked with reducing redundant design costs, standardizing design across federal touchpoints, bolstering public trust in government services, and significantly improving user experiences. The NDS includes a temporary organizational arm, set to expire three years from the order date—but the broader authorities and policies of the initiative remain intact beyond that sunset.

Implementation is driven by agency heads collaborating with the Chief Design Officer and must deliver initial results by July 4, 2026. Key deliverables include prioritizing improvement of high-impact digital and physical service interfaces, updating the United States Web Design System (USWDS), and ensuring compliance with the 21st Century Integrated Digital Experience Act (IDEA).

The EPA acknowledges the value of BESS in enhancing grid reliability, while recognizing elevated concerns about lithium-ion battery fires. The guidance offers comprehensive, though non-exhaustive, safety recommendations to assist communities and first responders in planning, designing, and responding to BESS installations. Encouragingly, the guidance notes a decline in BESS failure incidents relative to deployment rates.

Key Recommendations for Installation
For new BESS projects, the EPA underscores the importance of aligning with state and local land-use, permitting, and siting requirements. Safety-first design considerations include selecting dependable battery chemistries, ensuring manufacturing quality, integrating advanced battery management systems, and deploying remote monitoring tools (e.g. infrared, thermal, fire detection). Early and proactive collaboration with local emergency responders is strongly encouraged to solidify effective incident response planning.

Incident Response & Emergency Management Best Practices
In the event of a BESS incident, responders should use full personal protective equipment (PPE), including breathing apparatuses. Establish isolation zones of at least 330 feet and position teams upwind and uphill from a fire. The recommended strategy prioritizes containment over extinguishment—allowing a battery fire to burn itself out while containing its spread. Additional actions include monitoring for toxic emissions (such as hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen gas, carbon monoxide, and others), managing contaminated runoff, and packaging damaged batteries for safe disposal in accordance with EPA and DOT regulations.

This Secretarial Order (SO) implements Executive Orders 14156 “Declaring a National Energy Emergency” and EO 14315 “Ending Market Distorting Subsidies for Unreliable, Foreign-Controlled Energy Sources” and directs the Forest Service to prioritize energy projects on national forest lands that maximize energy output per acre while balancing multiple-use and environmental stewardship.

The SO directs the Forest Service to:

• develop screening criteria for permit applications that measure land-use efficiency (megawatts per acre)
• Prioritize projects with higher efficiency and lower land disturbance.
• Consider generation type impacts (e.g., solar, wind, gas) since they vary widely in land needs and environmental footprint.
• Require analysis of whether alternative technologies could deliver equivalent power with a smaller footprint and less habitat  disruption.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is proposing to update its environmental review rules to reflect recent changes to federal law and policy. Congress amended NEPA in 2023 to narrow what counts as a “major federal action” (MFA), and President Trump’s 2025 executive order directed agencies to emphasize speed, efficiency, and certainty when applying NEPA. The FCC’s proposal aims to align its regulations with this new framework while encouraging faster deployment of communications infrastructure.

The rulemaking asks whether some FCC activities—such as issuing geographic area wireless licenses or certain tower registrations—should continue to trigger environmental reviews, or whether they fall outside NEPA’s scope under the new definition of MFA. The FCC is also considering whether to eliminate or revise parts of its rules that may now be unnecessary, including those tied to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether projects like non-registered towers or space-based operations (satellites) should be categorically excluded from NEPA review.

Industry groups, led by CTIA and supported by major carriers, argue for streamlined rules and exemptions for many wireless deployments, saying this will accelerate broadband buildout. In contrast, Tribal Nations, historic preservation officials, and conservation advocates have raised concerns about weakening protections for cultural resources, historic sites, and wildlife. The FCC acknowledges these differing perspectives and is asking for broad public input before finalizing changes.

This executive order directs the federal government to accelerate U.S. leadership in the commercial space sector by removing regulatory barriers and streamlining approvals. The goal is to create a competitive launch marketplace, expand spaceport infrastructure, and ensure that American companies—not foreign competitors—pioneer new space activities. By 2030, the administration seeks to substantially increase the cadence of commercial space launches and novel missions.

To achieve this, the Department of Transportation is instructed to revise or eliminate regulatory requirements that slow down launch and reentry licensing, including redefining which activities require environmental review under NEPA. Agencies such as the Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, and NASA are tasked with aligning and expediting reviews for spaceport development, establishing new categorical exclusions where appropriate, and ensuring that federal processes do not duplicate or delay projects. The order also calls for a clear framework for authorizing “novel space activities” not covered by existing rules, such as certain nontraditional missions governed by the Outer Space Treaty.

Finally, the order reorganizes federal oversight to improve accountability. The FAA will appoint a senior executive to lead commercial space transportation, and the Office of Space Commerce will be elevated within the Department of Commerce. These changes are designed to strengthen regulatory leadership while fostering innovation, reducing delays, and supporting both economic growth and national security priorities in space.

USDOT has issued interim Final Guidance on the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) formula program authorized in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.  The USDOT press release summarizes the updated guidance here:

Updated Language:

Per Executive Order 14154 “Unleashing American Energy”, this new guidance document would eliminate previous mandates for EVs and potential burdens. In addition, it would rescind previous guidance documents and policies that are not required by clear and express statutory language, per the January 29, 2025, memorandum from the Secretary of Transportation on the Implementation of Executive Orders Addressing Energy, Climate Change, Diversity, and Gender.

Summary of Changes:

• Minimizes the content in state plans to statutory and regulatory requirements.
• Simplifies the state plan approval process.
• Aligns community engagement with regulatory requirements and reduces consultation requirements to advance projects.
• Provides states with flexibility to determine the appropriate distance between stations along alternative fuel corridors to allow for reasonable travel.
• Minimizes requirements for states to consider electric grid integration and renewable energy
• Accelerates project delivery by encouraging selection of charging locations where station owners are also the site host.
• Eliminates requirements for states to address consumer protections, emergency evacuation plans, environmental siting, resilience and terrain considerations.
• Provides states with more flexibility to determine when their system is built out allowing NEVI funds to be used on public roads statewide.

Examples of Rescinded Language:

• Plans should be developed and updated through engagement with rural, underserved, and disadvantaged communities to ensure that diverse views are heard and considered throughout the planning process, and to ensure that the deployment, installation, operation, and use of EV charging infrastructure achieves equitable and fair distribution of benefits and services.
• Plans should explain how the State will deliver projects under the NEVI Formula Program that, consistent with Executive Order (E.O) 14008 and the Interim Justice40 Guidance issued by the White House and USDOT, target at least 40 percent of the benefits towards disadvantaged communities.
• The Plan should also demonstrate how the implementation will promote strong labor, safety, training, and installation standards as well as opportunities for the participation of small businesses, including minority-owned and women-owned small businesses.
• The Plan should also address emergency and evacuation needs, snow removal and seasonal needs, and ways for EV charging to support those needs. The Plan should also describe strategies for resilience for operation during emergencies and extreme weather.

The executive order establishes as its purpose, the increased oversight of federal discretionary funding decisions due to alleged past deficiencies in oversight resulting in problematic grant awards of questionable value.  To address these challenges, the President directs each agency to designate a senior appointee responsible for creating a (new) process to review notices of funding opportunities (NOFOs) and discretionary grant selections to ensure consistency with agency priorities and national interest.  The executive order then goes on to pause any new NOFOs from any agency until this new review process is in place.

The executive order goes on to direct the senior agency officials with using their independent judgment in determining whether to approve a NOFO or discretionary award based on:

• discretionary awards that demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities
• discretionary awards that do not fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate:
  • racial preference or other racial discrimination by the grant recipient
  • denial by the grant recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is chosen or mutable
  • illegal immigration
  • any other initiatives that compromise public safety or promote anti-American values

The executive order goes further to state that discretionary awards should go towards recipients with lower indirect costs, provided to a broad range of recipients, with preference to those applicants who commit to complying with Administration policies, procedures, and guidance respecting Gold Standard Science.

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, a component of the White House, is further directed to revise the Uniform Guidance and other relevant guidance to streamline grant application requirements and further clarify the government’s ability to terminate a grant agreement for convenience.  Within 30 days of the order (Friday, September 5), agencies must review existing standard terms and conditions and report back to the OMB Director regarding the ability of the agency to terminate existing grants for convenience, and take steps as necessary to ensure that all existing and future grant agreements have language that authorizes the agency to terminate for convenience – including when the awarded project no longer aligns with the Administration’s priorities.  Finally, the executive order directs agencies to withhold funding drawdowns from grant agreements until the recipient provides written justification (which is not too different than the status quo).

This Secretarial Order (SO) directs departmental bureaus to optimize federal land use (including outer-continental shelf) by evaluating eenrgy projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) using the concept of energy capacity (defined as nameplate generation capacity X projected capacity factor) /(total project area)).  The SO requires that alternatives considered meet or exceed the proposed project’s capacity density which the SO asserts will better align with the Federal Land Protection and Management Act’s (FLPMA) multiple-use mandate, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and NEPA’s alternative analysis requirement.

Key provisions:

1. Capacity Density as Decision Criterion

   • Applied to all energy project reviews.

   • Higher capacity density = greater generation per acre, less environmental impact, more land available for other uses.

2. Statutory Considerations

   • FLPMA: Optimize land use for diverse resources while protecting long-term needs.

   • OCSLA: Ensure safety, environmental protection, resource conservation, coordination with other agencies, protection of national security, and prevention of interference with other uses (e.g., fishing, navigation).

3. Technology-Neutral but Impact-Focused

   • Cites data showing wind and solar have far lower capacity densities than nuclear, gas, or coal (e.g., offshore wind ≈ 0.006 MW/acre vs. nuclear ≈ 33.17 MW/acre).

   • When higher-density, technically/economically feasible alternatives exist, wind and solar may be inconsistent with statutory mandates.

4. Directive

   • Permit only those projects representing the most appropriate land use when compared to a reasonable range of alternatives.

   • Revise regulations, guidance, and policies as needed to implement this standard.

5. Reporting Requirements

   • 30 days: Assistant Secretaries report actions taken/to be taken to implement the directive.

   • 60 days: Office of the Secretary submits consolidated report to the Secretary.

6. Implementation

   • Led by Office of the Secretary in coordination with Deputy Secretary, Solicitor, and Assistant Secretaries.

7. Effect & Duration

   • Effective immediately; remains in force until amended, superseded, or revoked.

   • Intended for internal management; does not create enforceable legal rights.

Appendix

• Provides comparative capacity density table for multiple energy technologies.

Issued in response to EO 14315 “Ending Market Distorting Subsidies for Unreliable, Foreign-Controlled Energy Sources” this Secretarial Order directs the Interior Bureaus to conduct a review of existing policies and guidance to identify any preferential treatment toward wind and solar facilities and eliminate such preferences.  Other key provisions of the SO include:

• Ceasing offshore wind expansion – implements a halt on new offshore wind lease sales, limits onshore wind development of certain federal lands, and terminates previously designated Wind Energy Areas – over 3.5 million offshore acres.
• Stakeholder Engagement and Environmental Considerations – Strengthens consultation requirements with Tribes, local communities and the fishing industry in offshore wind planning and initiates a review of impacts on migratory birds from wind turbines.

Ensures U.S. leadership in AI by promoting adoption of American AI technologies, standards, and governance globally to bolster economic growth, national security, and competitiveness . Aims to preserve and extend U.S. AI leadership while reducing global reliance on adversary-developed AI.  Key provisions:

American AI Exports Program (Sec. 3)

• Establishment: Within 90 days, the Secretary of Commerce—with State and OSTP—must create the “American AI Exports Program” to support full‑stack U.S. AI export packages 

• **Proposals must include:**
  a. Full‑stack technology package (hardware, data pipelines, models, cybersecurity, applications; must note U.S. manufacturing origins)
  b. Target countries or regions
  c. Business/operational model (who builds, operates infrastructure)
  d. Requested federal incentives/support
  e. Compliance with export controls and end‑user rules 

• Timeline & Selection: Proposals due within 90 days of public call; evaluated by Commerce with State, Defense, Energy, and OSTP. Selected proposals become priority AI export packages, qualifying them for access to transport and support tools 

Mobilization of Federal Financing Tools (Sec. 4)

• EDAG Coordination: The Economic Diplomacy Action Group (EDAG) coordinates financing and support for selected export packages 

• Debt & Risk Tools: Agencies (e.g., SBA, OSTP) appoint officials to EDAG. EDAG mobilizes federal tools like loans, guarantees, equity investments, political risk insurance, and technical assistance 

Following the release of the AI Action Plan, the President issued three separate EOs, with EO 14318 targeting the environmental permitting for data centers and supporting infrastructure. The EO focuses on new data center projects that support AI and require greater than 100 megawatts (MW) of new energy which would capture the largest AI data campuses and hyperscaler facilities. To supply that new energy demand, the EO again focuses on energy sources it considers “dispatchable baseload” sources, such as: natural gas; coal power; nuclear power; geothermal power equipment. Notably it does call out “backup power supply” which would seem to capture battery storage, but not if tied to wind or solar.

Definitions:

Data Center Project – AI focused facility requiring greater than 100 MW of new load

Covered Components – Energy Infrastructure, Natural gas turbines, coal power equipment, nuclear power equipment, geothermal power equipment, and any other dispatchable baseload energy sources, including electrical infrastructure (including backup power supply); Semiconductors and related materials; networking equipment and related materials; Data storage

Covered Component Project – Infrastructure comprising covered components or a facility with the primary purposes of manufacturing or otherwise producing Covered Components

Qualifying Project – at least $500M of project sponsor financial commitment; Requires an incremental load increase of greater than 100 MW; Protects national security; or so designated by the Secretary of Defense, Interior, Commerce or Energy

The EO directs agencies to coordinate and identify relevant discretionary funding or financial assistance programs that can leveraged to invest in domestic AI development and deployment. With those funding sources identified, the EO goes on to direct specific actions to facilitate efficient environmental reviews:

• Directs the agencies and the Council on Environmental Quality to create new categorical exclusions for data center projects for qualifying projects
• Establishes policy that, for the purposes of qualifying projects under the EO, federal financial assistance that comprises less than 50% of the total project costs “shall presumed not to constitute substantial federal control and responsibility” and is therefore not a “major federal action” which triggers evaluation under NEPA.

.

One strategy captured by the EO may help ameliorate the coordination issues is the emphasis on using the FAST-41 process for a qualifying project. Administered by the Permitting Council, the FAST-41 program requires agencies to commit to a permitting timetable and holds agencies accountable to meeting those agreed-upon dates. The EO instructs the Permitting Council Executive Director to add Qualifying Projects to the Permitting Dashboard as “transparency projects” and then work with the project sponsor to “cover” those projects under FAST-41. In its most basic terms, a transparency project has a project schedule but is not accountable to that schedule. Once covered under FAST-41, the Permitting Council has tools to encourage timely decision making in line with the permitting timetable.

Consistent with Pillar II of the Plan, the EO goes on to direct:

• Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to identify brownfield and superfund sites suitable for use by Qualifying Projects and develop guidance to help expedite permitting of eligible reuse of contaminated sites.
• Secretary of the Army to explore new Nationwide Permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
• Departments of Interior, Energy, and Defense to identify compatible federal lands under their jurisdiction for siting Qualifying Projects.
• Department of Interior and Commerce to develop programmatic approaches to compliance with the Endangered Species Act for construction of Qualifying Projects on federal lands previously identified in response to the EO.

This executive order states that federal procurement of large language models (LLMs) must prioritize truthfulness and ideological neutrality, disallowing outputs influenced by diversity, equity, and inclusion ideologies that could distort factual accuracy.  The EO promotes two “unbiased AI principles:

• Truth-Seeking: LLMs must prioritize objective, historically and scientifically accurate responses, and acknowledge uncertainty when knowledge is incomplete

• Ideological Neutrality: LLMs must avoid embedding partisan or ideological perspectives (including DEI-related concepts) unless explicitly prompted by the user

Implementation

1. OMB Guidance (within 120 days):

   • Provide instructions for agencies to apply the Unbiased AI Principles.

   • Allow vendor transparency (e.g., system prompts) without needing to disclose proprietary model details.

   • Provide flexibility for innovation and specify applicability to non‑LLM AI and national security exceptions .

2. Federal Procurement:

   • New LLM contracts must include compliance with Unbiased AI Principles and vendor accountability (decommissioning costs if non‑compliant).

   • Agencies should revise existing LLM contracts accordingly, and within 90 days of the OMB guidance, adopt compliance procedures

The Department of Interior recently announced a new policy that “end[s] preferential treatment for unreliable, subsidy-dependent wind and solar energy.”  The memo requires that “[a]ll Department-related decisions and actions concerning wind and solar energy will undergo elevated review by the Office of the Secretary, including leases, rights-of-way, construction and operations plans, grants, consultations, and biological opinions.”  In other words, all decisions that may have previously been delegated down to regional and field offices are now required to funnel through headquarters in Washington D.C.

US DOT Secretary Duffy sent a letter to all federal grantees informing them that “the Trump Administration will not enforce Biden-era DEI and Green New Scam policies or requirements.”

DOT Press Release

Establishes the policy of the United States to:

• Rapidly eliminate market distortions and costs imposed on taxpayers by so call “green” energy subsidies
• Build upon and strengthen the repeal of, and modifications to, wind, solar, and other “green” energy tax credits in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act; and
• End taxpayer support for unaffordable and unreliable “green” energy sources and supply chains built in, and controlled by, foreign adversaries.

To accomplish this, the President directs the Secretary of Treasury to take what actions are necessary to strictly enforce the termination of the clean energy tax credits by ensuring that project sponsors do not manipulate reporting on construction dates or “in service” dates as required under the Bill. The EO goes on to direct the Secretary of Interior to review policies, regulations, guidance and other administrative direction to determine whether any provide preferential treatment to wind and solar facilities, compared to “dispatchable energy sources.” If found, the Secretary is further directed to revise the policy/plan/guidance to eliminate any such preference.

USACE Interim Final Rule – Updated NEPA Procedures

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) undertook a rulemaking in 2025 to remove most of the DOE regulations that contain its procedures implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from the Code of Federal Regulations. DOE revised 10 CFR part 1021 to contain only administrative and routine actions excepted from NEPA review in appendix A, its existing categorical exclusions in appendix B, related requirements, and a provision for emergency circumstances.

The interim final rule can be found here.

USDA updated NEPA Procedures.  Summary in progress.

USDOT has updated its Department-wide NEPA order 5610.1D.  Summary in progress.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) is updating and partially rescinding its regulations on implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). DOI will now maintain the majority of its NEPA procedures in a handbook separate from the Code of Federal Regulations. DOI is issuing an interim final rule requesting comments on these actions.

DOI Interim Final Rule

Regulatory Impact Analysis

DOI Handbook of NEPA Implementing Procedures and its appendices:

Appendix 1 Actions Normally Requiring an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix 2 Bureau Categorical Exclusions

Appendix 3 Implementation Guidance to Bureaus

White House Fact Sheet 

DOI Press Release

DOD NEPA Procedures – Summary in progress

FAA has updated its NEPA procedures in FAA Order 1050.1G.  Summary in progress.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued updated guidance on NEPA implementation.

The press release is available here.

FHWA, FTA, and FRA have issued an interim final rule updating the NEPA procedures at 23 CFR 771.

Aims to overhaul federal wildfire policy in response to the devastating January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires and what the President perceives as obstacles to quickly respond to fires due to unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy. It criticizes “reckless management” by state and local governments, specifically targeting California, for inadequate wildfire preparedness. In response to these observations, the President directs:

• The Departments of Interior and Agriculture to consolidate their wildland fire programs to improve efficiency in budgeting, procurement, research, and coordination.
• Expanded partnerships and mutual aid agreements with state, tribal and local governments.
• Promoting incentives for responsible land management, including prescribed burns and fuel reduction (and directing EPA to ensure that Clean Air Act regulations do not prohibit or constrain such strategies)
• The development of a comprehensive technology roadmap to:
  • Use AI, data sharing, and satellite imagery for fire detection and prediction
  • Improve weather forecasting and evacuation planning
  • Declassify historical satellite data to enhance wildfire modeling
• The Department of Defense to prioritize the sale of excess aircraft and parts to support firefighting efforts.

The President issued the Presidential Memorandum (PM) that reverses Biden-era policies established in a similar PM regarding the restoration of salmon and other native fish populations in the Columbia River Basin.  The Trump PM criticizes the Biden PM for being part of a “radical green agenda” placing fish over people because of the possibility of removing up to four hydropower dams in the region to support native fish habitat and species survival.  The Department of Energy and the Department of Interior released statements applauding the President in rescinding the prior policies – pointing again to the energy needs of the region and discounting the benefit to the fish populations as part of a “radical” agenda.

Specifically, the Trump PM directs agencies to:

• Within 15 days (by Friday, June 27) to withdraw from the 2023 Memorandum of Understanding reached in the Columbia River System litigation, National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service.
• Rescind the Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Columbia River Systems Operations and, as appropriate, create a new schedule to complete the Supplemental EIS consistent with current NEPA policy and procedures.
• Within 30 days, report to CEQ on:
  • All actions taken in response to the Biden PM.
  • Status of all Federal commitments made in response to the Biden PM
  • Any steps taken to rescind or recoup federal costs associated with implementing the Biden PM
  • Any actions taken and future steps necessary to withdraw from the MOU.

On June 11, 2025, the National Park Service (a bureau of the Department of the Interior) provided that it has identified 33 categorical exclusions (CEs) for adoption per section 109 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Categorical exclusions are a category of actions that, under normal circumstances, do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment (42 U.S.C. 4336(e)(1)). If a CE covers a proposed action, and the agency determines no extraordinary circumstances exist, the CE may replace the need for preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Additionally, as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, section 109 of NEPA enables Federal agencies to adopt a listed CE from another agency.

This EO launches a national initiative to restore U.S. leadership in high-speed aviation by removing regulatory barriers and promoting innovation in supersonic flight. Specifically, the EO directs:

• Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to repeal the prohibition on civilian overland supersonic flight (14 CFR 91.817) and establish an interim noise-based certification standard within 180 days (December 3, 2025)
• FAA Administrator to repeal 14 CFR 91.819 and 821 which deal with civil supersonic noise limits.
• FAA Administrator to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to establish a standard for supersonic aircraft noise certification.
• Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to coordinate with appropriate agencies to advance supersonic research and development focusing on:
  • Noise reduction
  • Fuel efficiency
  • Safety
  • Commercial viability

DOI issued guidance in the form of FAQs to support implementation of emergency procedures on certain energy projects in response to the National Energy Emergency.  The document is brief (5 pages) and does not provide any new information from prior guidance documents.

Orders the fiscal year 2026 budgetary resources for each non-exempt account be reduced by the amount calculated by the Office of Management and Budget in its May 30, 2025 report to Congress.  The report provides specific amounts to be sequestered or cut for each account.

A Permitting Technology Action Plan to modernize Federal environmental review and permitting processes for infrastructure projects involving roads, bridges, mines, factories, power plants, and more (see White House Press release). The Action Plan is issued in response to an April 15, 2025 Presidential Memorandum “Updating Permitting Technology for the 21st Century” issued to “address the lack of transparency, fragmented data management, and outdated technology in the Federal environmental review and permitting process.” (See introduction to Action Plan).  The release of the plan also coincided with the launch of permitting.innovation.gov where CEQ will post information about the implementation of the Action Plan and other initiatives.

The Permitting Technology Action Plan contains:

• Minimum functional requirements for environmental review and permitting systems;
• An initial NEPA and permitting data and technology standard
• A 90-day timeline and implementation roadmap for agencies represented on the Permitting Council to adopt and begin implementation of the data and technology standard and minimum functional requirements
• A governance structure for implementation

The Action Plan prioritizes innovation in four key areas:

1. Business Process Modernization
2. Workflow Automation
3. Digital-First Documents
4. Minimizing Timeline Uncertainty

In order to accomplish the priorities above, the action plan goes on to encourage agencies to develop and implement the following ten fundamental capabilities:

1. Implement data standards
2. Application data sharing
3. Automated project screening
4. Access to screening criteria
5. Automated case management tools
6. Integrated GIS analysis tools
7. Improved document management
8. Automated comment compilation and analysis
9. Administrative record management
10. Adopt common or interoperable agency services.

Defines the mandatory reductions in discretionary spending that will apply for fiscal year 2026 should Congress fail to pass annual appropriations.  The sequestration percentages for non-exempt direct spending are: 2% for Medicare, 5.7% for other non-exempt nondefense mandatory programs, and 8.3% for non-exempt defense mandatory programs.  Under current law, these sequestration percentages will be applied in each fiscal year through 2031.

This Executive Order targets the “politicization” of science and advancing a policy to restore “a gold standard for science to ensure that federally funded research is transparent, rigorous, and impactful and that Federal decisions are informed by the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available.”  The executive order uses as examples of the politicization of science the Maine Lobsterman Association vs. National Marine Fisheries that found that NMFS had erred in using a worst-case scenario to predict effects on the North Atlantic Right Whale which would have, in turn, severely hindered the ability of the Lobstermen to continue with their harvesting activities.  It also points to the polarizing discussions around COVID as an example to avoid repeating as well as targeting the consideration of climate change impacts in a “higher” warming scenario as evidence of the weaponization of science to score political points.

The thrust of the Executive Order is as follows:

• Within 30 days (June 22), the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP – a component of the White House) shall issue guidance for agencies on the implementation of “Gold Standard Science.” Without irony, the EO lays out what framework of Gold Standard Science as:
  • Reproducible
  • Transparent
  • Communicative of error and uncertainty
  • Collaborative and interdisciplinary
  • Skeptical of its findings and assumptions
  • Structured for falsifiability of hypotheses
  • Subject to unbiased peer review
  • Accepting of negative results as positive outcomes; and
  • Without conflicts of interest.
• Upon issuance of the guidance, agency heads are to update applicable policies
• Directs agency heads, within 30 days (June 22), to:
  • Make publicly available the data, analysis, conclusions, models and other inputs to inform scientific findings
  • Transparently acknowledge and document uncertainties
  • Use science that comports with legal standards
  • Be transparent about likelihood of assumptions and scenarios
  • Apply a “weight of scientific evidence” approach to decision-making
• Make any necessary organizational or operational changes necessary to return agency workflows to their condition before President Biden’s Presidential Memorandum of January 27, 2021 “Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-based Policymaking” which President Trump revoked on January 20, 2025.

Establishes policy of the US to “expedite and promote to the fullest possible extent the production and operation of nuclear energy to provide affordable, reliable, safe, and secure energy to the American people, to power advanced nuclear reactor technologies, and to build associated supply chains that secure our global industrial digital dominance, achieve our energy independence, protect or national security, and maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of nuclear fuel through recycling, reprocessing, and reinvigorating the commercial sector.”

Within 240 days, requires the Secretary of Energy to prepare and submit to the President a report that:

• recommends national policy to support the management of spent nuclear fuel
• reviews relevant statutory authorities to identify necessary legislative changes to achieve the national policy set forth in the EO
• evaluates the reprocessing and recycling of spent nuclear fuel
• analyzes legal, budgetary, and policy considerations relevant to transferring spent nuclear fuel from reactors to government-owned reprocessing and recycling facilities.
• recommends efficient use of products recovered through recycling and reprocessing
• recommends efficient disposal of waste generated through recycling and reprocessing
• reevaluates nuclear facilities slated for decommissioning
• proposes a program to develop means and methods to transport nuclear fuels domestically and overseas.

Within 120 days, requires the Secretary of Energy to develop a plan to expand domestic uranium conversion capacity and expand enrichment capabilities.

Directs the Secretary of Energy to halt the surplus plutonium dilute and dispose program and establish a new program to dispose of surplus plutonium by processing and making it available to industry.

Within 90 days, directs the Secretary of Energy to update the Department’s excess uranium management policy to align with the policy objectives in the EO.

Within 30 days, directs the Secretary of Energy to seek voluntary agreements pursuant to section 708 of the Defense Production Act with domestic nuclear energy companies.

Directs the Department of Energy to prioritize work with the nuclear energy industry to facilitate 5 gigawatts of power uprates to existing nuclear reactors and have 10 new large reactors with complete designs under construction by 2030.  To accomplish this, the Department shall prioritize funding activities that support nuclear energy.

Establishes policy of the Department of Energy to “ensure that financial assistance award recipients and the individual projects are…financially sound and economically viable, aligned with national and economic security interests, and consistent with Federal law.”  The policy further states DOE’s intention to conduct focused reviews of awards to ensure consistency with that stated policy.  DOE will request information and financial assistance recipients must provide written responses with supporting documentation within established timeframes.  If DOE determines that a project does not meet its standards, DOE may modify or terminate the project, based on the outcome of DOE’s evaluation.  If a grant recipient fails to respond to DOE’s requests or provides incomplete information, “DOE may treat as the recipient’s refusal to cooperate as grounds for termination of the award or withholding of funding.”

This Executive Order seeks to address the issue of federal regulations that impose criminal penalties without clear standards for public awareness.

1. Purpose: The order seeks to reduce the regulatory burden on Americans, prevent unjust criminalization for unknowingly violating regulations, and promote fairness by discouraging strict liability offenses (crimes without requiring proof of intent).​
2. Policy:  The EO establishes of policy that criminal enforcement of regulatory offenses is disfavored. Prosecutions should focus on cases where individuals knowingly violate regulations, causing or risking harm and agencies are encouraged to use civil or administrative enforcement for strict liability offenses.​
3. Transparency:
   • Agencies must explicitly define criminal regulatory offenses, their penalties, and applicable mens rea (state of mind) standards.​
   • Future regulations with criminal consequences must clearly state mens rea requirements and authorizing statutes.​
4. Reporting Requirements:
   • Agencies must submit annual reports listing all criminal regulatory offenses, penalties, and mens rea standards, and make these reports publicly available.
   • Criminal enforcement of offenses not listed in these reports is discouraged.​
5. Mens Rea Standards:
   • Agencies are tasked with reviewing and potentially adopting default mens rea standards for criminal regulatory offenses to ensure fairness.​
6. Referral Guidelines:
   • Agencies must publish guidance on factors to consider before referring alleged violations for criminal enforcement, such as harm caused, defendant’s knowledge, and awareness of the regulation.
7. Exemptions:
   • The order does not apply to immigration enforcement or regulations related to national security or defense.​
8. Implementation:
   • The order must be implemented in accordance with existing laws and available resources, and it does not create enforceable legal rights for individuals.​

Executive Order seeks to increase efficiency at the Federal Register to support the deregulatory initiative and reduce costs.  The President directs the Archivist of the United States to work with the Office of Federal Register and the Government Publishing Office to modernize systems and reduce bureaucracy.  The President further directs the agencies to prepare reports on average publication times and fee schedules and submit those reports to the Office of Management and Budget.  Deadlines for reports are:

• within 15 days of the Executive Order (May 24) for the average publication time
• Within 45 days (June 23) for fees schedule
• August 22, 2025 for second report capturing timelines for publication between July 15 and August 15

Executive Order establishes a policy of the United States to streamline the regulation of manufacturing of pharmaceutical products in the US to facilitate the restoration of a “robust domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing base.”  Much of the EO is focused on reviews of regulations by the Food and Drug Administration as it relates to pharmaceutical manufacturing approvals.  However, Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the EO focus on permitting of such facilities:

Section 5 directs the EPA, within 180 days (November 4) to update regulations and guidance that apply to the inspection and approval of new and expanded manufacturing capacity of pharmaceutical products, active pharmaceutical ingredients, and other inputs.

Section 6 identifies the EPA as the lead agency under FAST-41 for the permitting of pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities, unless that role is assumed by another agency.

Section 7 directs the US Army Corps of Engineers, within 180 days (November 4) to review nationwide permits issued under Clean Water Act Section 404 and Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 to determine whether an activity-specific nationwide permit is needed to facilitate permitting of pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities.

OMB Memorandum providing guidance to agencies on implementing the Presidential Memorandum (PM) “Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations” (April 9, 2025).

Section 2(c) of the EO directed agencies to produce and provide to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) with a list of all regulations determined to be unlawful or potentially unlawful, by April 21, 2025.  By May 21, 2025, the PM requires that agencies submit to OIRA a one-page summary of each regulation identified as unlawful but which has not yet been targeted for repeal.  The guidance in this OMB memorandum provides additional direction to agencies when determining which regulations should be repealed or not.

1. General Requirements:
   • Agencies must assess whether there are legitimate reliance interests on regulations under review, but these interests are generally outweighed by the need to repeal unlawful regulations.​
   • Repeals should be published in the Federal Register, detailing legal insufficiencies and addressing whether the repeal qualifies for the Administrative Procedure Act’s good-cause exception.​
2. Compliance Factors: Agencies are instructed to evaluate regulations based on legal precedents and specific factors, including:
   • Alignment with statutory authority (e.g., Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo). ​
   • Implications of the major question doctrine (e.g., West Virginia v. EPA). ​
   • Constitutionality of enforcement mechanisms (e.g., SEC v. Jarkesy).​
   • Cost-benefit analysis (e.g., Michigan v. EPA, Ohio v. EPA).​
   • Federal jurisdiction over state authority (e.g., Sackett v. EPA). ​Consistency with the Takings Clause (e.g., Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid).
   • *Elimination of racial discrimination (e.g., Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard).
   • Equal treatment of religious institutions (e.g., Carson v. Makin, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo). ​

Agencies are required to coordinate with OIRA to repeal unlawful regulations or justify their retention through one-page summaries. ​

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance, in form of a memorandum (M-25-27), implementing Section 6 of EO 14154 “Unleashing American Energy.” The guidance directs agencies to “review their various statutory, regulatory, and other policy requirements that govern regulatory and permitting decisions, and limit their analysis and consideration of greenhouse gas emissions only to that plainly required in their governing statutes.”  It reaffirms that “it is no longer Federal government policy to maintain a uniform estimate of the monetized impacts of greenhouse gas emissions.”

The guidance enumerates eight items for agencies to consider when evaluating the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions in policy or permitting decisions which focus on the agency’s statutory responsibility to evaluate and consider greenhouse gas emissions in their decision making process.  If existing policy, guidance or regulations require GHG analysis but are unsupported by explicit requirements in statute, the agency is directed to update or rescind those policy/guidance/regulations and remove any requirement associated with GHG evaluation that is not substantiated.  For those agencies engaging in GHG quantification consistent with case law, the agencies are further directed to not monetize the impacts.

OMB Guidance that outlines the overhaul of the Federal Acquisition Regulation to streamline procurement processes and reduce unnecessary regulations in accordance with Executive Order 14275 “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement” which aims to eliminate excessive acquisition regulations and focus on reducing transaction costs and improving efficiency in federal procurement. ​

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Changes

• Nearly 3,000 directives in FAR to be streamlined.
• Non-statutory regulations will be replaced with buying guides.​
• Emphasis on simplicity, usability, and national security interests.

Implementation Actions

• Establishment of a dedicated FAR Oversight website on Acquisition.gov. ​
• Agencies must identify senior procurement officials by May 1, 2025. ​
• Agencies to issue deviations to align with FAR Council guidance within 30 days.​

Training and Testing

• Federal Acquisition Institute and Defense Acquisition University to modernize training.​
• Agencies encouraged to test new strategies and share results.​
• Buying guides will be updated as best practices evolve.

Establishes policy of the US to advance leadership in seabed mineral development by:

• rapidly developing domestic capabilities and supporting investment in deep sea science, mapping and technology
• creating a robust domestic supply chain for critical minerals extracted from the seabed
• strengthening partnerships with allies to counter China’s influence

The Executive Order directs that within 60 days of issuance:

• The Secretary of Commerce shall expedite the process for reviewing and issuing seabed mineral exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resouces Act (30 U.S.C. 1401) and prepare a report that describes private sector interest in seabed mineral mining in the Outer Continental Shelf as well as private sector interest for polymetallic nodule and other seabed mineral resource processing capacity; develop a plan to map priority areas of the seabed with abundant undersea resources
• The Secretary of the Interior shall establish an expedited permitting process for prospecting and granting leases for seabed mineral resources in the Outer Continental Shelf; identify which critical minerals can be derived from seabed resources
• Secretaries of Defense and Energy shall provide a report that addresses the feasibility of using the National Defense Stockpile for storing materials derived from seabed polymetallic modules and explore the use of grant and loan authorities and the Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. 4501)

Secretary Duffy issued a reminder to federal aid/grant recipients that emphasized the Department’s focus on ensuring that project sponsors “follow the law.” The letter calls out diversity, equity, and inclusion programs which violate the Equal Protection principles of the constitution and substantiates their position by citing recent Supreme Court decision Students for Fair Admission, Inc. v. Harvard which found that “[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.” The letter goes on to cite the Civil Rights Act and applicable non-discrimination clauses in the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973 and the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. The thrust of the argument is that USDOT will potentially withhold funding or seek other remedies against federal funding recipients who engage in “illegal” DEI initiatives. In addition to focusing on DEI, the letter also reaffirms the legal obligation of grantees to cooperate “with Federal authorities in the enforcement of Federal law, including cooperating with and not impeding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” The press release is available to read here.

The Department has provided notice to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), all State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs), and Indian tribes that the Department will rely on emergency provisions set forth in 36 CFR 800.12(b)(2).  Those emergency procedures require that for each project/undertaking that seeks to use the alternative procedures that the Department will notify the ACHP and relevant SHPOs and THPOs and Indian Tribes of the specific energy project for which they intend to use the emergency section 106 alternative procedures and seek comment within 7 days of the notice.

In response to the President’s declaration of an energy emergency, the Department has developed alternative procedures for informal, expedited consultation to comply with Section in accordance with 50 CFR 402.05.  The alternative procedures require that:

• The federal action agency inform US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) about the proposed action and decision to use the alternative consultation procedures
• The federal action agency coordinated with FWS in accordance with 50 CFR 402.05(a) and proceeds with the proposed action if the necessary requirements of other departments and agencies are met.
• As soon as practicable after the termination of the energy emergency, the federal action agency will follow 50 CFR 402.05(b) and provide information necessary to initiate consultation. At that time, FWS will deliver either a biological opinion or letter of concurrence as appropriate.

In order for these alternative procedures to apply, the project must:

• seek to identify, lease, develop, produce, transport, refine, or generate energy resources as defined in Section 8(a) of EO 14156; and
• have an active application for a plan of operations, permits to drill or other applications

Further, the applicant must affirm in writing that they wish to have their project covered by the alternative procedures.

Leveraging authority in 43 CFR §46.150, the Department, in coordination with CEQ, has established alternative procedures to satisfy the requirements of NEPA.

Notably, the project sponsor must affirm in writing that they want the Department to leverage the emergency procedures to satisfy NEPA for their project.

For projects likely to require an environmental assessment, the Department will develop a focused, concise and timely environmental assessment that addresses the purpose and need, alternatives, mitigation measures, and a brief description of environmental effects within approximately 14 days of receiving a complete application.  If the EA supports a Finding of No Significant Impact, such documentation should be prepared concurrently within the same period of approximately 14 days.  Both the EA and FONSI will be published on a public website, however there is no requirement for public comment.

For projects likely to have significant environmental impacts, the Department will:

• Publish a notice of intent on a public website soliciting written comments and announcing a public meeting (in person or virtual) to be held during the preparation of the EIS
• Public comment duration is subject to Departmental discretion and will be based on the nature of the action and the urgency of the emergency response but most comment periods are expected to be approximately 10 days.
• The EIS will be focused, concise, and timely – addressing the purpose and need for the proposed action, alternatives, and a brief description of environmental effects and prepared within 28 days of publishing the NOI.
• The EIS will be published on a public website but there is no requirement to publish a draft EIS before finalizing and issuing a record of decision.

DOI Press Release here.

The purpose of this deregulatory action is to repeal the requirement that State DOTs and MPOs assess the performance of the National Highway System (NHS) under the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) by establishing declining CO₂ emissions targets and measuring and reporting on the percent change in tailpipe CO₂ emissions on the NHS from the calendar year 2022 (also referred to as the Greenhouse Gas or GHG measure). This repeal will alleviate a burden on State DOTs and MPOs that, had it been implemented, would have imposed costs with no predictable level of benefits and without clear legal authority. This final rule does not prohibit State DOTs and MPOs from choosing voluntarily to measure and assess CO₂ on the NHS or other roads.

This final rule repeals the GHG measure. By repealing this measure, FHWA will remove regulations that, if they had been implemented, would have required State DOTs and MPOs to undertake administrative activities to establish declining GHG targets, calculate their progress toward their selected targets, report to FHWA, and determine a plan of action to make progress toward their selected targets if they fail to make significant progress during a performance period.

USDOT Press Release.

This joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) between the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service proposes to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” in the Endangered Species Act regulations.  The existing regulatory definition of “harm” includes habitat modification is seen as running contrary to the best meaning of the statutory term “take.”

Presidential Memorandum that extends the hiring freeze initial directed in the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2025 (Hiring Freeze) through July 15, 2025.  The freeze applies to all executive departments and agencies with the exception of military personnel of the Armed Forces or positions related to immigration enforcement, national security, or public safety and does not apply to the Executive Office of the President or its components.

The Acting Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management issued a stop work order to Empire Wind to “allow time for it [BOEM] to address feedback it has received, including from the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration about the environmental analyses for that project.”  The Director took the action in response to the Department of Interior’s review of offshore wind directed by the President’s January 20, 2025, Memorandum.  BOEM specifically cited the need to ensure compliance with 30 CFR 585.102(a) and applicable law.

The President issued a Presidential Memorandum to the heads of agencies directing the agencies to “make maximum use of technology in environmental review and permitting processes for infrastructure projects of all kinds.” The memo seeks to improve data sharing, reduce duplicative processes, accelerate timelines and other lofty goals. It also directs, within 90 days, the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (note: there currently is no Chair and no nominee to become Chair) to issue a Permitting Technology Action Plan that provides:

• Initial data and technology standard for permit applications and NEPA
• Minimum functional requirements for NEPA and permitting-related software systems
• Roadmap for creating a unified interagency permitting and environmental review system
• Interagency governance structure
• Timeline for completing activities described in the Permitting Technology Action Plan)

The memo goes on to direct the Permitting Council members to begin implementing the actions in the Permitting Technology Action Plan within 90 days of the plan’s issuance. Finally, the memo directs the CEQ chair to establish a “Permitting Innovation Center” that will design and test prototype tools that could support implementation of the Permitting Technology Action Plan.

The Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy executive order directs agencies to establish “sunset” dates that would, in theory, force agencies to regularly review and update regulations to ensure that they are meeting their intended purpose. The order is particularly prescriptive on which agencies and which statutes are subject to the requirement to establish such sunset dates:

• Department of Energy
  • Atomic Energy Act of 1954
  • National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987
  • Energy Policy Act of 1992
  • Energy Policy Act of 2005
  • Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
  • Federal Power Act of 1935
  • Natural Gas Act of 1938
  • Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  • Atomic Energy Act of 1954
  • Energy Reorganization Act of 1974
  • Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
• Department of Interior Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
  • Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
• Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management
  • The Mining Act of 1872
  • Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976
  • Energy Policy Act of 2005
• Department of Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
  • Outer Continental Shelf Act of 1953
  • Energy Policy Act of 2005
• Department of Interior Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
  • Outer Continental Shelf Act of 1953
• Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
  • Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
  • Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918
  • Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934
  • Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965
  • Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
  • Endangered Species Act of 1973
  • Magnuson-Steves Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976
  • Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982
• Environmental Protection Agency and US Army Corps of Engineers are directed to work with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to develop a list of statutes vesting EPA and USACE with regulatory authority that should be subject to the order.

The executive order directs the above agencies to issue a “sunset rule” for relevant regulations currently in place, effective no later than September 30, 2025, that inserts a “Conditional Sunset Date” into each of the covered regulations (i.e. regulations implementing the statutes listed above). With this conditional sunset date, each regulation would effectively cease to be in effect one year after the effective date of the sunset rule (i.e., a rule with a conditional sunset date effective September 30, 2025, would no longer be in effect as of September 30, 2026). For any new covered regulation, the executive order directs agencies to include a sunset date no more than five years in the future (with a carve out for the OMB Director to determine that a rule has a net deregulatory effect, in which case no sunset date is required).

The executive order does provide for agencies to offer the public an opportunity to comment on the costs and benefits of each regulation set for sunset, prior to a rule’s expiration and following that comment period, the sunset date may be extended.

This executive order seeks to restore American leadership in ship building and associated maritime industries.

The executive order is expansive, covering domestic ship building, Chinese market share of commercial vessels, defense procurement and more. Relevant to ESA’s markets are the sections of the EO focused on domestic manufacturing and maritime communities.

The executive order establishes “the policy of the United States to revitalize and rebuild domestic maritime industries and workforce to promote national security and prosperity.” To accomplish this, the executive order directs the following:

• Within 210 days (November 5, 2025) Secretaries of State, Defense, Commerce, Labor, Homeland Security, and others as appropriate, are to submit a Maritime Action Plan (MAP) that details the strategies and actions necessary to achieve the stated policy. The MAP will include administrative as well as legislative strategies to include steps defined in following sections (I’ve pulled only the most relevant):
• Section 6 of the order directs enhanced enforcement of harbor maintenance fee The harbor maintenance fee is assessed by the Customs and Border Protection and is used to fund maintenance and improvements of US harbors and ports (i.e., funds for capital improvement projects at ports)
• Section 9 directs the Secretary of Transportation to develop a legislative proposal to create a Maritime Security Trust Fund so support implementation of MAP programs.
• Section 10 creates a shipbuilding incentives program, developed in conjunction with the President’s Budget through a legislative proposal that “establishes a financial incentives program with broad flexibility to incentivize private investment in the construction of commercial components, parts, and vessels; capital improvements to commercial vessel shipyards, capital improvements to commercial vessel repair facilities and drydocks through grants…loans and loan guarantees.”
• Section 11 directs the development of a plan to identify opportunities to incentivize and facilitate domestic and allied investment in the US maritime industries and waterfront communities through the establishment of prosperity zones (as defined in Section 13823 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017).
• Section 20 directs the Secretaries of Defense, Transportation, and Homeland Security to complete a review of existing regulations pertaining to the domestic commercial maritime fleet and maritime port access to determine where the agency may be able to deregulate to support the policy of the executive order.

This Presidential Memorandum directs agencies, during their regulatory review under Executive Order 14219 “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’, to prioritize the evaluation of regulations under recent Supreme Court decisions:

1. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024);
2. West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022);
3. SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024);
4. Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015);
5. Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023);
6. Ohio v. EPA, 603 U.S. 279 (2024);
7. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021);
8. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023);
9. Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022); and
10. Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14 (2020)

Should the agency determine that exiting regulations are “illegal” after reviewing them in light of the above decisions, the agencies are further directed to repeal such regulations without notice and comment, consistent with the “good cause” exception in the Administrative Procedures Act.  That exception allows agencies to dispense with notice-and-comment rulemaking when that process would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”  The Memorandum directs that agencies immediately take steps to “effectuate the repeal of any regulation, or portion of any regulation, that clearly exceeds the agency’s authority and is unlawful.”

The purpose of the executive order is to increase domestic production of coal by establishing the policy of the US that coal is essential to national and economic security. It establishes as a national priority the need to support the domesctic coal industry by removing federal regulatory barriers that undermine coal production. The EO directs the Chair of the National Energy Dominance Council to designate coal as a “mineral” as defined in EO 14241 “Immediate Measures to Increase Mineral Production” and entitle coal to all of the benefits of a “mineral” under that order. The EO further directs agencies to create a report that identifies coal resources and reserves on Federal lands and assesses impediments to mining those resources, and proposes policies to address such impediments to enable mining by public or private actors.

Directs the Attorney General to identify all State and local laws, regulations, causes of action, policies, and practices burdening the identification, development, siting, production, or use of domestic energy resources that are or may be unconstitutional, preempted by Federal law, or otherwise unenforceable. The Attorney General is further directed to prioritize the identification of any such law purporting to address “climate change” or involving “environmental, social, and governance” initiatives, “environmental justice,” carbon or “greenhouse gas” emissions and funds to collect carbon penalties or carbon taxes. The AG is directed to take appropriate action to stop the enforcement of such laws that the AG determines to be illegal. Within 60 days, the AG is to provide a report to the President detailing actions taken to identify and challenge state laws deemed illegal by the AG.

Provides a two year exemption for compliance with the final rule National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unites Review of the Residual Risk and Technology Review 89 FR 38508. The proclamation states that the technology to implement the Rule is not commercially viable to meet the compliance date of July 8, 2027 and that it is in the national security interests of the US to issue the Exemption.

Order immediately cancels the Departmental Sustainability Order issued 4/25/23 and the Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity Program, issued 1/14/21.

Implementing EO 14225 Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production, the memo makes an Emergency Situation Determination encompassing 112,646,000 acres of National Forest System Lands. Forest or Grassland Supervisors may authorize emergency actions to reduce wildfire risk, support durability and resilience of forests and grasslands including actions such as removing hazardous fuels, replacing underground cables, reconstructing existing utility lines, etc.  The Emergency Declaration authorizes emergency procedures to comply with environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Clean Water Act.

Establishes the United States Investment Accelerator in the Department of Commerce to “facilitate and accelerate investments above $1 billion by assisting investors as they navigate USG regulatory processes efficiently, reduce regulatory burdens where consistent with applicable law, increase access to and use of our national resources where appropriate, facilitate research collaborations with national labs and work with state governments to reduce regulatory barriers to, and increase, domestic and foreign investment in the US. Also places the CHIPs office under the newly formed Investment Accelerator office.

OMB issued guidance on implementing Executive Order 14192 “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”  in the form of questions and answers for agencies in their implementation of Section 3 of the EO.

Key points from the EO reaffirmed in the guidance:

• 10-for-1 Requirement: whenever an agency proposes a new regulation, the agency should identify at least 10 existing regulations to be repealed
• Incremental Cost  Significantly Less Than Zero: For FY 2025, the heads of all agencies are directed to ensure that the total incremental costs of all new regulations is significantly less than zero.
• Offsetting Incremental Cost Increases: Any new incremental costs from new regulations should be offset by the recission of at least 10 prior regulations

The remaining guidance, in Q&A form, provides additional context and instruction on how to comply with the requirements of the EO.

Presidential Memorandum that establishes policy to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who bring “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States or in matters before executive departments and agencies of the United States. Directs the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to prioritize enforcement of their respective regulations governing attorney conduct and discipline. Further directs the Attorney General to take all appropriate action to refer to disciplinary action any attorney whose conduct in Federal court or before any component of the Federal Government appears to violate professional conduct rule, including rules governing meritorious claims and contentions, and particularly in cases that implicate national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity.

Establishes the policy of consolidating domestic federal procurement in the General Services Administration (GSA). Within 60 days of the order (Tues, May 19) all agency heads are to submit proposals to the Administrator of GSA that would transfer all procurement responsibilities to the GSA, with respect to “common goods and services” (link redirects to Acquisition.gov which defines 10 government-wide categories that make up the common goods and services.) Within 90 days (Wed. June 18), the GSA Administrator is to submit a plan to the OMB Director that would allow the GSA to procure common goods and services across the domestic components of the Government. The executive order also directs the GSA Administrator to assume responsibility for all information technology contracts and perform an analysis to determine where there may be redundancies with indefinite deliverable indefinite quantity information technology contracts.

Directs agencies to ensure full and prompt access to unclassified agency records, data, software systems, and information technology systems for the purposes of identifying and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. Directs agency heads to rescind or modify all agency guidance that serves as a barrier to inter- or intra-agency sharing of unclassified information. Directs agency heads to ensure unfettered access to comprehensive data from all sate programs that recieve federal funding. Directs the Secretary of Labor to recive unfettered access to all unemployment data and related payment records.

Authorizes the Deirector of the Office of Personnel Management to make final suitability determinations and take suitabilty actions regarding employees in the executive branch based on post-appointment conduct, consistent with applicable law. Directs the Director of OPM to issue regulations to implement appropriate rules and procedures regarding suitability determinations and suitability actions based on post-appointment conduct . New regulations should include ability for OPM Director to issue specific instructions on separation or other corrective actions and the head of the agency concerned shall comply within 5 days.

1. National Resilience Strategy
2. National Critical Infrastructure Policy
3. National Continuity Policy
4. Preparedness and Response Policies
5. National Risk Register
6. Federal National Functions Constructs

1. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
2. The United States Agency for Global Media
3. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in the Smithsonian Institution
4. The Institute of Museum and Library Services
5. The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
6. The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund: and
7. The Minority Business Development Agency.

Rescinds numerous Biden executive actions, implementing direction provided in EO 14148 where White House components were advised to identify additional orders, memoranda, and proclamations issued by the prior administration that should be rescinded.

Rescinds prior memoranda titled “Policy on Using Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Resources to Build a Better America.” Memo characterizes the prior memos as “impermissibly impos[ing] misguided policy mandates and other requirements that had no basis in statute.

Directs USDA and USDOI to issue guidance to facilitate increased timber production, identify legislative solutions to further increase timber production, explore accelerated approval under the Endangered Species Act. White House Fact Sheet

Designates English as the official language of the US. Notably does not direct agencies to stop producing materials in other languages but it does rescind EO 13166.

Directs agencies to develop Phase 1 Agency RIF and Reorganization Plans by March 13, 2025 and Phase II ARRPs by April 14, 2025. These plans should focus on reducing the government workforce and restructuring agencies and programs to optimize efficiency.

Directs agencies to review existing contracts/grants/awards to ensure maximum government efficiency and consistency with the Administration’s priorities. Agencies are directed to terminate or modify existing agreements to reduce overall Federal spending or reallocate spending to promote greater efficiency. Agency heads are to prepare guidance on contracting applicable to new gov’t contracts. Freezes gov’t credit cards and increases scrutiny on non-essential travel.

Rule removes existing CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1500 – 1508 as directed by EO 14154.

Aims to significantly reduce the size of the federal government by eliminating non-statutory components and functions of certain governmental entities, including:

• the Presidio Trust;
• the Inter-American Foundation;
• the United States African Development Foundation; and
• the United States Institute of Peace

Also directs OMB to reject funding requests from these agencies if they are not statutorily required.

Directs agencies to review existing regulations within 60-days to ensure they align with constitutional principles and the administration’s policy goals. Review is to focus on identifying regulations that are unconstitutional, based on unlawful delegations of legislative power, or not grounded in the best interpretation of the underlying statute.

See ESA’s thorough summary here.

Mandates that independent agencies must regularly consult with the WH and submit significant regulations for review before publication. Directs all executive branch officials to follow legal interpretations issued by the president or attorney general. Increases oversight of independent agencies.

Establishes National Energy Dominance Council taked with advising the President on strategies to expand domestic energy production and eliminate red tape, among other things. The Council is chaired by Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Energy is vice chair. Tasked with reporting to the President within 100 days on ways to expand energy production.

Pursuant to Executive Order 14192 of January 31, 2025 (Unleashing Prosperity Tlu·ough Deregulation), revokes Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4 ofNovember 9, 2023 (Regulatory Analysis), and all accompanying appendices, guidelines, and documents. Reinstate Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4 of September 17, 2003 (Regulatory Analysis).

White House Fact Sheet

Directs the Board on Geographic Names to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of Merica and mandates updates to the Geographic Names Information System to reflect this change.

Informs State Department of Transportation Directors that “[t]he new leadership of the Department of Transportation has decided to review the policies underlying the implementation of the NEVI Formula Program.” Accordingly, the memo rescinds NEVI Formula Program Guidance and pauses the approval of all state Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plans for all fiscal years.

Directs all agencies to review funding provided to NGOs and align future funding decisions with the goals and priorities of the administration.

Implements EO 14148 which revoked Biden-era withdrawal of the Outer Continential Shelf from Oil and Gas leasing. SO aims to expedite oil and gas leasing on the OCS and advance energy exploration and production on federal lands and waters, supporting the administration’s energy policies.

Implements EO 14192 and aims to reduce regulatory burdens and romote economic prosperity. Department will identify at least 10 existing regulations to eliminate for every new regulation proposed; ensure that the cost of new regulations is offset by the elmination of existing regulatory costs, and prioritizing deregulation to support financial management and alleviate unnecessary burdens on the American people.

Implements Presidential Memorandum targeting cost-of-living. Directs review and modification of policies, procedures, practices to align with goals of reducing living expenses.

Implements provisions of EO 14154, focuses on advancing energy and critical minerals development, including exploration, permitting, leasing, production, and distribution. Encourages energy development of federal lands and waters.

Implements provisions of EO 14156 and aims to enhance energy production and distribution to address the energy emergency by streamlining regulatory processes and expediting energy projects.

The Order requires that whenever an agency promulgates a new rule, regulation, or guidance, it must identify at least 10 existing rules, regulations, or guidance documents to be repealed.

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget will ensure standardized measurement and estimation of regulatory costs. It requires that for fiscal year 2025, the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, be significantly less than zero.

White House Fact Sheet

Implements EO 14151 and aims to eliminate DEI programs and gender ideology initiatves within DOI. Specifically excludes Tribal nations from the DEI EO’s implementation.

Directs the Departments of Commerce and Interior to work together to route more water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to other parts of the state.

DOT order that affirms the Departmental policy that benefts of projects muct exceed their costs, but also establishes policy that DOT-supported State contracts shall prioritize projects and goals that direct funding to local opportunity zones, give preference to communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national average, prohibit recipients from establishing and enforcing mask or vaccine mandates and require local compliance and cooperation with immigration enforcement.

Rescinds OMB Memo M-25-13 which directed agencies to puase funding pending a review for consistency with Administration priorities.

Secretarial Order directing USDOT operating administrations to review programs for consistency with Trump Executive Orders. Rescinds Departmental Orders on DOT Equity Council, Climate Change Adaptation and Resiliency Policy, Actions to Address EJ

Directs agencies to pause distribution of all federal financial assistance and orders a review of all programs and supporting activities consistent with the President’s policies and requirements.

This order establishes the policy of the United States to “sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance in order to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security.”  It directs the development of an Artificial Intelligence Action Plan within 180 days of the order (est. July 19, 2025) as well as a review of all policies, actions, and directives taken pursuant to EO 14110 “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence” (which has been revoked).  Further, agencies are to identify barriers to achieving the policy established by the EO and take actions to rescind or otherwise negate those obstacles.

Clarifies that pause directed in EO only applies to funds supporting programs, projects, or activities that may be implicated by the policy established in Section 2 of the order.

Provides additional direction to agencies in implementing the Presidential Memorandum of Jan 20, 2025 “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.”

Aims to eliminate race- and sex-based preferences in federal policies and programs – specifically terminating DEIA policies and programs.

Withdraws from the Paris Agreement and other internatioal climate agreements. Terminates all US financial comitments under the UNCCC, including the International Climate Finance Plan.

Establishes the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to modernize federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.

Declares a national energy emergency, seeks to address the urgent need for reliable, diversified, and affordable energy. Mandates federal agencies to expedite completion of energy and infrastructure projects. Directs agencies to leverage emergency authorities to accomplish this. Directs USACE and Endangered Species Act Committee to seek emergency procedures to expedite energy project delivery.

• Establishes policy to encourage domestic energy exploration and production; elimate EV mandate and promote consumer choice; distinguish global effects of rules from domestic effects; ensure that no federal funding is ditributed inconsistent with the policies therein.
• Revokes numerous prior EOs
• Dismisses Climate Corps;
• Revokes EO 11991 directing CEQ to issue NEPA regulations; directs CEQ to issue NEPA guidance within 30 days; directs the creation of IWG to update agency NEPA procedures; OMB and NEC to recommend permitting reform; Eliminates Social Cost of Carbon IWG;
• Places pause on IIJA and IRA funding
• Directs agencies to pursue accelerated mining permits

Establishes policy of US to fully avail itself of Alaska’s land and resources and expedite permitting and leasing of energy and natural resource projects in AK.

Directs agency heads to ensure all agency policies are consisent with that policy; prioritize development of AK’s LNG potential – including permitting of all necessary pipelines and supporting infrastructure related to the Alaska LNG project; withdraw Secretarial Order 3401 which stopped development in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and rescind the cancellation of any leases in ANWR and other actions to spur development in ANWR.