Download a PDF of the paper here.
Introduction
“America will be a manufacturing nation once again.” This is the promise that President Trump made in his second inaugural address. It is a promise that should be taken seriously. After years of outsourcing physical industry, America must ensure that the newest foundational technologies, from semiconductors to batteries, are made at home. But manufacturing requires building, and building requires environmental review—a process so burdensome that the prospect of it often ends projects before they begin. For just one example of how long and easy to abuse the permitting process is, a single environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) takes, on average, 4.5 years to complete and costs taxpayers millions. Even with a complete statement, courts may still deem the review inadequate and enjoin the project. Without significant reform, the administration’s efforts to reshore manufacturing will be severely limited. Fortunately, recent legislation and judicial decisions have created an opportunity for the executive to establish faster, legally durable reviews.
In 2023, the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) made substantial modifications to NEPA’s text, redefining key terms in permitting-friendly ways. Then, two important cases, Marin Audubon v. Federal Aviation Administration and Iowa v. Council on Envtl. Quality, ruled that CEQ’s regulations were non-binding, contrary to 48 years of practice and case law. President Trump cemented these rulings in January with Executive Order 14154, titled “Unleashing American Energy,” which revoked the 1977 executive order that originally gave CEQ binding authority. More changes are still to come with the currently pending Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado Supreme Court case, which will redefine which effects NEPA review must consider.
This rapid sequence of changes has created regulatory confusion across the government. Agencies are taking the first steps to develop their own individual NEPA review frameworks in the absence of guidance from CEQ. If they follow through, the effect could worsen the permitting status quo, as differing legal interpretations may invite litigation targeting inconsistencies, leading to more judicial intervention, and ultimately more delays—precisely the outcome permitting reform aims to prevent.
However, the current uncertainty also provides a significant opportunity. While environmental review remains statutorily mandated, its exact requirements are up to the courts to interpret. If agencies continue developing divergent procedures, courts may add years to the review process by preserving the most restrictive interpretations. If CEQ can provide a legally defensible alternative that shrinks timelines, they may not.
CEQ possesses significant powers to pursue this alternative interpretation. The original NEPA statute establishing CEQ; Nixon's Executive Order 11514, which expanded its remit; and the new, FRA-modified NEPA statute all grant CEQ substantial authority to shape the NEPA process. Supreme Court precedent also continues to accord "substantial deference" to CEQ’s interpretations, even with Chevron deference gone. To buttress its legal arguments, CEQ should work with the Permitting Council to embed its interpretation in agency practice. Their combined authorities are sufficient to pursue reform—if decisive action is taken.
Pursuing said reform will require CEQ to adopt four key roles. As a legal advisor, CEQ should issue clear interpretive guidance clarifying FRA amendments such as the redefinition of “major federal actions” that agencies can rely on as they reform their policies. As a data repository, CEQ should partner with the Permitting Council to track timeline adherence, environmental outcomes, and litigation bottlenecks. As an agency coordinator, CEQ should launch a streamlined approval framework, train agency field staff to use it, and form “strike forces” to tackle high-impact projects that demonstrate the framework’s worth. Finally, as an executive publicist, CEQ should secure White House and public backing for reform by promoting stories on projects completed, lawsuits prevented, and environmental standards upheld.
None of this requires an act of Congress. CEQ can work with the Permitting Council to use the remainder of the funds earmarked under the Inflation Reduction Act to support these actions, without seeking additional appropriations. The goal should be twofold: first, create a new, sturdy legal framework for environmental review; and second, cut average federal environmental permit timelines by more than 50 percent by the end of the administration.
The following sections detail CEQ’s existing authorities and describe how these authorities fit into its four-role framework.
