Fact Sheet: President Trump Brings Permitting Technology Into the 21st Century for Government Efficiency

TLDR

This executive order directs federal agencies to modernize environmental review and permitting processes through technology adoption. It mandates digitizing applications, automating reviews, and improving coordination. The CEQ will create a Permitting Technology Action Plan and Innovation Center. The order also rescinds NEPA regulations. While presented as dramatically accelerating permitting and removing barriers to economic growth, research suggests technology alone won’t resolve core delay sources (complexity, insufficient resources, multi-agency coordination). The rescission of CEQ regulations may create uncertainty and inconsistency. Evidence doesn’t support claims this will be the “greatest and fastest permitting reform ever,” and environmental standards and public engagement may be at risk.

This is a “fact” sheet for an executive order that directs federal agencies to modernize the environmental review and permitting process for infrastructure projects by leveraging technology. Key provisions include:

• Mandating agencies to digitize permit applications, automate reviews, and improve interagency coordination.
• The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) will issue a Permitting Technology Action Plan and establish a Permitting Innovation Center to facilitate technology adoption.
• The EO claims these changes will eliminate inefficiencies, reduce delays, and enhance transparency and predictability for project sponsors.
• The fact sheet also highlights the rescission of CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, asserting this will remove bureaucracy and accelerate permitting.

Claim: Modernizing Technology Will Dramatically Accelerate Permitting

• While digitizing and automating permitting processes can streamline some administrative tasks and improve transparency, technology alone cannot resolve the core sources of delay in federal permitting. Most delays stem from project complexity, insufficient agency resources, and the need for coordination among multiple laws and stakeholders—not just paperwork or outdated technology.
• Studies show that increasing agency capacity (funding, staffing, training) and early public engagement are more effective at reducing delays than simply digitizing processes. NEPA’s procedural requirements often coordinate compliance with other laws, so delays are frequently due to substantive environmental reviews, not the NEPA process itself.

Claim: The Existing Process Is the Main Barrier to Economic Growth

• The fact sheet frames environmental review as a primary obstacle to infrastructure and economic growth. However, empirical research indicates that NEPA and related reviews are not the main cause of project failures or delays. Many projects are delayed by factors such as funding, local opposition, engineering challenges, or changing market conditions.
• The average completion time for Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) is about 4.5 years, with a median of 3.5 years, but these are typically for the most complex projects. Most federal actions proceed under faster categorical exclusions or environmental assessments.

Claim: Rescinding CEQ NEPA Regulations Removes Bureaucratic Barriers

• The EO’s rescission of CEQ’s NEPA regulations is presented as eliminating a “burdensome layer of bureaucracy.” In fact, this move creates significant uncertainty and potential for inconsistency. Without a uniform regulatory framework, each agency must now develop its own NEPA procedures, which may lead to confusion, legal challenges, and longer timelines as agencies and courts navigate divergent approaches.
• Legal experts warn that the lack of centralized CEQ guidance could increase litigation risk and slow down projects, as there is no longer a consistent standard for courts to apply when reviewing agency NEPA compliance.

Claim: The EO Will Lead to the “Greatest and Fastest Permitting Reform Ever”

• There is no evidence to support the assertion that these changes will result in unprecedented permitting speed. In fact, the abrupt regulatory shift may cause delays as agencies scramble to revise procedures and as stakeholders challenge new, untested processes in court.
• The Permitting Council (created under FAST-41) has demonstrated that improved coordination and project management can speed up permitting, but this is achieved through focused oversight and resource allocation—not deregulation or technology alone.

Claim: Environmental Standards and Public Engagement Are Not at Risk

• The fact sheet does not address the risk that accelerating permitting by narrowing review requirements or reducing public input could undermine environmental protections and public trust. NEPA was designed to ensure informed decision-making and public participation; weakening these aspects may result in poorer project outcomes and increased conflict.

While technology can certainly assist with permitting reform, it is not a cure-all; true reform requires sufficient resources for agencies, effective interagency coordination, and meaningful public engagement, not just the adoption of digital tools. Moreover, rescinding the Council on Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations is likely to increase uncertainty, potentially leading to inconsistent implementation, legal challenges, and project delays—outcomes at odds with the Executive Order’s goals of efficiency. It’s important to recognize that most permitting delays stem not from NEPA itself, but from the inherent complexity of projects, funding issues, and compliance with a broad array of other regulatory requirements. Finally, while the Executive Order emphasizes speed, this focus may come at the cost of environmental safeguards and transparency, risking the marginalization of substantive environmental reviews and public participation that are crucial for building sustainable infrastructure.