Home Policy Trump Energy Policy Actions: 100 Days of Deregulation and Expansion

Trump Energy Policy Actions: 100 Days of Deregulation and Expansion

May 22, 2025

281

trump energy policy actions

Originally published May 22, 2025
Updated by Kym Bolado on December 22, 2025

During his first 100 days, President Donald Trump proactively pushed multiple steps to streamline permitting and return regulatory control to U.S. states in his pursuit of American energy dominance. These plans include a number of executive orders, actions, and regulatory rollbacks aimed at leveling the playing field on the global energy front. President Trump’s first 100 days have been a whirlwind of action.

Here are the essential actions “number 47” has taken to steer his energy initiative.

Emphasis on Carbon Capture Storage

Carbon capture storage (CCS) has become the pivotal point of Trump’s “American Energy Dominance” strategy. CCS went from a regulatory longshot to a prime facet of the administration’s energy advancement plan. By prioritizing American energy production with a significant focus, President Trump accelerated CCS project approvals.

Executive Orders

President Trump has signed multiple executive orders that reframe the U.S. energy landscape. These executive orders include:

Executive Order 14162: Titled “Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements, this executive order was signed by President Trump on January 20th, 2025. The order outlined the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and other related commitments under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Executive Order 14213: The “Establishing the National Energy Dominance Council,” signed on February 14th, 2025, established the council tasked with identifying necessary reforms to support increased domestic energy resources development projects. These projects encompass the areas related to minerals, and coordinated efforts across Federal agencies and private stakeholders.

Federal Support for Critical Minerals Projects

The Secretary of Energy is directed to ensure that federal support is extended to critical mineral projects—ranging from resource development to refining and processing. However, this backing comes with a catch: eligibility hinges on the availability of specifically allocated federal funds. In practice, this means projects tied to America’s vital mineral supply chain can seek financial and regulatory assistance, provided that Congress has set aside the necessary budget.

This approach aims to fast-track investment in the domestic mining and processing of minerals essential for manufacturing, energy, and tech—helping to reduce U.S. reliance on overseas sources while giving American innovators and producers an edge.

Scrutinizing Foreign Influence on U.S. Commerce

To determine how foreign, state-assisted mineral ventures and exploitative practices impact American commerce, the administration has called for a proactive review by the United States Trade Representative. The idea is clear: assess whether these practices are creating unfair trade barriers, distorting markets, or giving international competitors an artificial leg up over U.S. businesses.

This approach involves:

Investigating whether foreign governments are propping up their mineral industries through subsidies or other state-sponsored tactics that undermine free-market competition.
Evaluating if certain practices—think forced technology transfers, heavy-handed regulations, or export restrictions—are tilting the playing field against U.S. producers.
Determining if such international maneuvers directly or indirectly burden American jobs, investment, or mineral sourcing.

By focusing on these issues, the administration aims to counteract any moves abroad that undercut U.S. economic interests or restrict the ability of American businesses to compete fairly in global minerals markets.

Advancing Mineral Development through International Cooperation

Recognizing the importance of securing critical minerals for American industry and national security, the Trump administration also directed U.S. diplomatic efforts to prioritize domestic mineral mining and processing. Specifically, the Secretary of State has been tasked with leveraging forums like the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad)—which includes partners such as Australia, India, and Japan—to foster strategic collaborations.

By working closely with these allies, the administration aims to:

Promote joint ventures that expand U.S. access to vital mineral resources,
Coordinate on technology and best practices to responsibly process minerals within the United States,
Strengthen supply chain resilience by reducing dependence on competing or adversarial nations.

Through these international security dialogues, the U.S. seeks not just to bolster its energy independence, but also to reinforce its manufacturing base and economic security, ensuring that American industries have reliable access to the raw materials essential for innovation and growth.

Executive Order 14260: Titled “Protecting American Energy from State Overreach,” this executive order was issued on April 8th, 2025 and directed the Attorney General to pinpoint and address state and local laws that delay or burden the development of domestic energy resources, with close attention to those involved in Environmental regulations for climate change deemed to overstep authority.

Handling Ongoing Lawsuits: Directives for Agencies

The policy makes it clear: agencies aren’t just sitting idle when it comes to lawsuits stemming from energy regulations. Instead, federal agencies are required to keep the Attorney General in the loop about every action they take under these new executive orders.

Once informed, the Attorney General can notify the courts about these changes and, if needed, ask judges to put ongoing cases on hold or seek other legal remedies. This process ensures that any litigation tied to policies targeted by these administrative actions can be paused while the relevant agency work is underway. In short, the administration wants to make sure that regulatory changes aren’t bogged down by court proceedings and that the government has every tool available to delay, pause, or resolve lawsuits while new rules are implemented.

Executive Order 14261: Named “Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry,” this order was signed on April 8th, 2025. Government agencies are to assess and remove barriers to coal mining as well as eliminate regulations that shift U.S. power generation away from coal.
Executive Order 14262: Also signed on April 8th, 2025, “Strengthening the Reliability and Security of the United States Electric Grid” executive order instructed the Department of Energy to take immediate steps to bolster the power grid and ensure a sufficient energy supply in the face of growing demands.

Regulatory Clarity Backed by Law

One of the core pillars of the administration’s new direction is ensuring that every regulation connected to energy is strictly founded on established legal authority. This approach aims to cut through the tangle of ambiguous rules and patchwork policies that have stymied innovation and investment in the past. By rooting all regulatory requirements in clear, existing statutes, the administration seeks to promote certainty for energy developers, mineral extractors, and utilities—reducing costly delays and litigation.

With this legal grounding, agencies are now required to demonstrate that any regulatory demands imposed on energy projects adhere directly to the statutes enacted by Congress, not just agency preference or overreaching interpretations of environmental mandates. This shift is designed to foster confidence among stakeholders, ensuring that the rules of the game remain transparent and predictable as America pursues its energy strategy.

These executive orders paved the way for the President’s energy ambitions within the first few months of his second term.

Recommendations to Streamline Energy Infrastructure

The administration is teeing up further action to clear obstacles for energy projects. The National Economic Council, in tandem with the Office of Legislative Affairs, is drafting a set of recommendations for Congress aimed squarely at untangling the red tape that’s long stalled major infrastructure.

What’s on the table? Expect proposals that will:

Accelerate the permitting process for interstate energy projects—think pipelines and other vital infrastructure, especially in regions that historically missed out on development booms.
Bring more certainty and predictability to federal approvals by setting clearer, faster processes.
Propose changes to judicial reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), tightening timelines and reducing the hurdles faced by project developers.

This effort reflects a broader push to make sure U.S. energy can move swiftly and efficiently across state lines, strengthening the backbone of American energy independence.

Fast-Tracking NEPA Permitting

To further accelerate domestic energy projects, President Trump has set his sights on overhauling the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process. Within his first 30 days, the administration called for new guidance to simplify and streamline NEPA permitting, pushing for quicker and more predictable project approvals.

A dedicated working group, launched by the Council on Environmental Quality, is already underway to bring agency regulations in line with this guidance. The top priority: speed and certainty for applicants, in sync with the deadlines laid out by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. The new approach leaves little room for drawn-out reviews or outside activist challenges that have historically bogged down infrastructure growth. Instead, agencies are now directed to ensure the permitting process does not stray from the administration’s core energy objectives—keeping American projects competitive, efficient, and on schedule.

Refocusing Environmental Reviews on Law and Science

One of the notable shifts in federal permitting under President Trump’s direction is the streamlining of environmental analyses. Federal agencies are now required to limit their reviews strictly to what is mandated by Congress—no more layering on extra, unofficial environmental considerations that tend to prolong and complicate the process unnecessarily.

In practice, this means that every environmental analysis tied to a federal permit or regulatory process must stick to the legislative script. Only those requirements spelled out in law qualify for review; all the additional hoops and hurdles derived from ideology or unofficial policy are on their way out.

To ensure integrity, agencies must lean on the most rigorous, evidence-based assessment tools available. Gone are the days of cherry-picking methods to align with political agendas—now, every environmental impact study must be grounded in proven, robust scientific approaches that stand up to scrutiny, much like standards set by organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences.

These reforms are designed to cut red tape, avoid delays by keeping the focus on primary statutory obligations, and instill a sense of scientific rigor in each review process.

Agency Review and Action on Burdensome Regulations

When federal agencies spot regulations or policies that are holding back the development of domestic energy—whether it’s oil, gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical minerals, or nuclear—they’re now on the clock. Within 30 days of the executive order, each agency chief must team up with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the National Economic Council (NEC) to map out a plan for suspending, revising, or scrapping any rules that create unnecessary red tape. This includes rules about consumer choices on vehicles and appliances.

But what if an agency checks its files and finds nothing that fits the bill? In that case, the agency head only needs to notify the OMB in writing—no further action is necessary unless the OMB disagrees.

For agencies that do find outdated or overly strict regulations, they also need to loop in the Attorney General after taking action. This allows the Justice Department to inform any courts dealing with related lawsuits about the regulatory shake-up, possibly asking courts to slow down or pause litigation while changes are underway.

Reevaluating the “Social Cost of Carbon”

In tandem with these sweeping executive orders, the administration has put a spotlight on the “social cost of carbon”—a metric long used in federal decision-making to quantify the climate-related impact of carbon emissions. Critics within the administration argue that this calculation rests on shaky scientific ground, is steeped in politics, and lacks any direct basis in congressional legislation.

More pointedly, the way the metric is applied has sparked frustration. Opponents claim it slows down vital regulatory approvals, putting U.S. energy producers at a disadvantage on the international stage. By making it more cumbersome for American companies to compete, there’s a risk of ceding ground to less efficient foreign energy suppliers—essentially shifting, rather than reducing, global emissions.

In response, the EPA has been tasked with reevaluating how, or even if, the “social cost of carbon” should factor into federal permitting and rulemaking. The administration’s goal: clear away regulatory roadblocks that it believes hinder energy growth and allow American development projects—especially those in oil, gas, and coal—to move forward without what they see as questionable, burdensome calculations standing in the way.

General Provisions and Legal Safeguards

Every executive order comes with some fine print—here’s the gist for these recent actions:

Respect for Existing Authority: Nothing within the order changes or limits the powers already established by law for any federal agency or department. The heads of agencies keep their usual authority, and budget matters still run through the Office of Management and Budget, just like before.
Legal Compliance and Funding: Implementation of the order must always follow existing laws and, importantly, depends on available funding. Congress still holds the purse strings.
No New Legal Rights: For anyone hoping these orders might open a courtroom door for a new legal claim—think again. The directives don’t create any new rights or avenues for legal challenges against federal agencies, their employees, or anyone else.

These ground rules serve as the backstage framework, ensuring the executive orders are interpreted and enforced within established legal boundaries, without rewriting the playbook for government authority.

Interim Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates

While agencies await additional instructions on greenhouse gas evaluations, they’re directed to stick with tried-and-true playbooks—most notably, the cost-benefit guidelines outlined in the classic OMB Circular A-4 from 2003. In practical terms, this means:

Any updates or calculations involving greenhouse gas emissions (think: domestic versus global impact, or picking the right discount rate) must align with OMB Circular A-4 procedures.
Agencies should use the prescribed regulatory analysis framework to inform decisions, ensuring consistency and legality in the interim.

This approach aims to keep regulatory decisions transparent and anchored in long-standing analytical standards until fresh guidance officially lands.

Clear Separation of Global and Domestic Regulatory Impacts

In a notable shift, new guidelines now require that any rule, regulation, or policy action must distinctly separate its global impacts from its domestic costs and benefits. The administration’s intent? To spotlight how each decision directly affects the American people, ensuring international considerations don’t eclipse national priorities.

Whereas past reporting often bundled global and domestic outcomes together—turning decision-making into something of a foggy British morning—Trump’s directive aims for clarifying sunshine. Each new regulation must lay out:

U.S.-specific benefits and costs, detailed front and center
A separate account of projected global impacts, broken out for transparency

This approach strives to promote regulatory decisions rooted in national interest, giving lawmakers, stakeholders, and the ever-curious public a clearer sense of who wins and who pays with every policy move.

Disbanding the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases Working Group

In another sweeping move, the administration has officially dissolved the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. This action scrapped the previous group’s framework, withdrawing all associated guidance and documents from use as federal policy.

Key reversals include:

Revocation of prior instructions and scientific recommendations, such as the memorandum aimed at restoring trust through scientific integrity.
The shelving of the comprehensive national greenhouse gas monitoring strategy released in late 2023.
Withdrawal of earlier technical estimates for the social costs of carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide that were used to shape regulatory review.
Rolling back reliance on social cost calculations generated during the group’s tenure—none of these estimates will guide current federal energy or environmental decisions.

With these measures in place, the administration cleared the deck of lingering social cost metrics, signaling a new direction for how greenhouse gases are weighed in U.S. policy.

Public Comment and Scientific Review

To ensure energy decisions reflect both expertise and public interest, all executive agencies are now required to open the floor for public comment and subject their findings to thorough, peer-reviewed scientific evaluation. This twin-track approach means new measures—whether a regulation or a policy tweak—must be weighed not just internally but also in the light of transparent, data-driven feedback from American citizens and qualified experts.

What does this look like in practice? Before final rules are made, agencies must publish proposals, inviting groups from Wyoming ranchers to academic researchers, environmental organizations, and business associations like the American Petroleum Institute to offer input. Simultaneously, proposed policies will undergo rigorous scientific review, with outside researchers providing independent, peer-reviewed assessments. This layer of transparency aims to keep policy grounded in analyzed evidence and public accountability—no more regulatory black boxes or backroom deals.

By blending open comment periods and robust scientific scrutiny, the administration signals a commitment to both democratic participation and fact-based decision-making—hallmarks of any good energy policy framework.

Agency Reviews and Reporting Protocols

To bring federal funding processes in line with the administration’s updated energy policy, agencies have been directed to hit pause on allocations under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act—think anything from charging station build-outs to discretionary clean energy grants. Instead of business as usual, agencies are now tasked with conducting a top-to-bottom review of all grant, loan, and contract approval pathways.

Here’s what’s expected:

Immediate Freeze: No new distributions go out the door until each agency confirms a clean bill of policy health.
Comprehensive Audit: Agencies must comb through their current procedures—scrutinizing everything from funding criteria to application processes—to ensure full alignment with the newest presidential directives.
Reporting Deadline: Within 90 days, every agency head must submit a detailed report to the National Economic Council and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These reports should outline:
Findings from their process reviews
Gaps or inconsistencies with the administration’s objectives
Concrete recommendations to improve compliance and streamline future approvals

Only after review recommendations are vetted and approved at the highest levels will any paused funds be released. This measure ensures that federal dollars are marching in lockstep with the administration’s American energy vision.

Federal Funding Restrictions

To further reinforce these sweeping changes, new directives have been implemented around federal funding. Specifically, federal dollars are now barred from supporting programs or activities that conflict with the administration’s defined energy priorities—unless there’s a clear legal requirement to do so. This move is designed to ensure that all government-backed efforts align with the broader vision of American energy dominance and avoid inadvertently propping up initiatives that run counter to the new agenda.

Disbursement Pause and Conditional Review

As part of the administration’s regulatory overhaul, the distribution of funds earmarked under both the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act has been put on hold. This freeze isn’t just a bureaucratic speed bump—it applies specifically to programs like the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program and the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program, among others.

Before any dollars can start flowing again, each federal agency must take a comprehensive look at their handling of grants, loans, and other financial tools tied to these Acts. Within 90 days, agency heads are required to present a detailed report with their findings and recommendations, aiming to ensure that all spending lines up with the president’s newly outlined policies.

Only after this internal review wraps up, and once top White House economic and budget officials approve the process and sign off that all recommendations have been thoroughly addressed, may any funds start moving again. Essentially, the doors to these funding streams remain closed until every recommended change, as selected by key decision-makers, is fully adopted and certified.

Regulation Rollback

The Trump Administration has outlined several policy rollbacks throughout the first 100 days in office, including ending reduced fees on renewable projects on federal lands, suspending state electric vehicle infrastructure plans, and reviewing and addressing the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.

A key focus has also been re-examining the so-called “electric vehicle (EV) mandate.” The Administration has prioritized expanding consumer choice by eliminating regulatory barriers that restrict access to traditional gasoline-powered vehicles and by seeking a level playing field for all vehicle types. This includes considering the removal of state emissions waivers that limit gasoline vehicle sales and a review of subsidies and market interventions that give EVs an upper hand—ensuring that consumers, businesses, and government agencies aren’t pushed toward one technology due to policy-driven cost distortions.

In sum, these early moves collectively signal a shift toward reducing government intervention and promoting open competition in the automotive and energy sectors.

Expansions in Fossil Fuel & Critical Mineral

The 47th president hit the ground running, opening the floodgates for fossil fuel expansion, including repeals of Biden-era LNG export restrictions, lithium mining ventures, and other critical mineral resources. The administration’s early actions also set the stage for the U.S. to establish its position as the leading producer and processor of non-fuel minerals, such as rare earth elements—an effort touted as a job creator at home, a supply chain strengthener for America and its allies, and a direct challenge to the global influence of adversarial nations.

Evaluating Public Interest in Energy Export Projects

When it comes to reviewing new or expanded liquefied natural gas (LNG) export proposals, the Trump Administration has signaled that it will weigh more than just the environmental angle. The Department of Energy is now tasked with taking a broader look at what “public interest” really means for the United States.

Economic Growth: Every application will be measured for its potential to spur jobs—not only at LNG facilities themselves but also across related sectors, from steel suppliers in Pittsburgh to shipping companies in Houston.
Employment Impact: A key focus will be how these projects can boost wages and employment opportunities in local communities, particularly in key energy hubs like Texas, Louisiana, and the Dakotas.
National and Allied Security: The Administration underscores that LNG exports do more than help the U.S.; they also strengthen the energy security of American allies. Supporting partners in Europe and Asia with a reliable American energy lifeline is seen as a strategic asset, especially amidst global uncertainties.

Taken together, these criteria reflect a holistic approach—one that puts American jobs, prosperity, and leadership at the forefront of export decisions.

Fast-Tracking LNG Export Applications

One key policy now in motion is the immediate resumption of reviews for liquefied natural gas (LNG) export applications. Instructed by the Secretary of Energy, these reviews are being prioritized to move as swiftly as possible, but always in line with existing legal frameworks.

When considering whether to green-light an LNG export project, officials must weigh several important factors. Chief among these are:

The projected economic benefits for American workers and industries,
How the project is expected to affect job growth and regional economies,
The implications for U.S. national security, especially in providing steady energy supplies to allies and trading partners.

By streamlining the review process and focusing on both domestic and international impacts, the administration aims to not only bolster energy sector jobs at home but also help secure strategic advantages for the U.S. and its partners abroad.

Weighing National Security Risks of Mineral Dependence

Another pressing issue comes from America’s growing reliance on imported minerals—especially essential resources like lithium, rare earth elements, and copper. Minerals aren’t just the building blocks for smartphones, EVs, and modern military hardware; they’re an increasingly strategic asset. Heavy dependence on foreign sources, particularly those controlled by less predictable regimes, can create significant vulnerabilities in supply chains.

This mineral reliance risks supply disruptions during global tensions or trade disputes, threatening everything from advanced manufacturing to national defense readiness. To address these risks, trade measures—such as tariffs, quotas, or strategic alliances with friendlier nations—can help safeguard critical mineral supply. Proactive trade policy, coupled with ramped-up domestic mining initiatives, aims to ensure that American industries and defense systems remain secure and resilient no matter how the global landscape shifts.

Restoring and Enhancing Domestic Mining of Non-Fuel Minerals

To sharpen America’s competitive edge and secure critical mineral supply chains, a comprehensive set of steps is now underway across multiple agencies.

Cutting Bureaucratic Barriers: Relevant departments—including Interior, Agriculture, and the EPA—are re-examining existing regulations that slow or complicate domestic mining and mineral processing. The aim: streamline or scrap rules that create unnecessary hurdles, ensuring projects can move from permitting to production faster than a Tesla in ludicrous mode.
Reassessing Public Lands: Key agencies are actively reviewing prior land withdrawals, opening the door for strategic revision. This means previously restricted areas could see responsible resource development in regions abundant with lithium, rare earths, or even uranium.
Updating the Critical Minerals List: In a move toward agility, geological authorities are revisiting the nation’s roster of critical minerals. This keeps the U.S. ahead of the curve by adapting rapidly to evolving technological and national security demands.
Accelerating Geological Survey Work: Fast-tracking detailed geological mapping is high-priority, aiming to pinpoint untapped or unknown reserves. Discovering new deposits not only supports economic growth but also shields the supply chain from foreign shocks.
Boosting Federal Support for Projects: Mineral extraction and processing ventures may see ramped-up access to federal resources—when appropriations allow—so that ambitious projects can get off the ground without getting mired in red tape or waiting on Wall Street.
Cracking Down on Unfair Foreign Competition: The U.S. Trade Representative is scrutinizing state-backed foreign mining practices for evidence of unfair competition. If other nations play dirty, expect pushback from Washington.
Assessing National Security Risks: Commerce and Homeland Security are digging into the implications of relying on imported minerals, with special attention paid to security risks and the potential inflow of minerals tainted by forced labor. Recommendations from these assessments will feed directly into shaping future policies.
Shoring Up the National Defense Stockpile: The Pentagon is auditing its mineral reserves, reviewing statutory obligations, and preparing to ramp up the National Defense Stockpile as needed to weather any future supply chain crises.
Fostering International Competitiveness: Multiple agencies are collaborating to submit fresh recommendations that make American miners and refiners more competitive abroad, eyeing mineral-rich countries such as Australia and Canada for potential partnerships.
Forging Strategic Alliances: Diplomatic channels, like the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) which includes Australia, India, and Japan, are being leveraged to support domestic mineral development and processing—laying the groundwork for supply security well into the future.

Taken together, these steps represent a national push toward mineral independence, aiming to put the U.S. back in the driver’s seat of the global minerals race.

Advancing U.S. Mining and Refining Competitiveness

To sharpen the competitive edge of American mining and refining companies on the global stage, the administration has directed key federal agencies to develop actionable recommendations. Their focus? Removing obstacles and fostering conditions where U.S. businesses can thrive both domestically and abroad.

These strategies are expected to include:

Streamlining export procedures and international permitting so U.S. companies can move faster than rivals like BHP or Rio Tinto.
Encouraging partnerships and technology-sharing agreements, especially with trusted allies involved in frameworks such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue.
Bolstering workforce skills through new training initiatives, aimed at ensuring American miners and refiners are equipped for high-tech operations.
Identifying diplomatic levers and trade agreements that open up access to foreign mineral markets, reduce tariffs, and lower other international barriers.

Together, these efforts are designed not only to foster homegrown development of critical minerals—from lithium to rare earth elements—but to enable American firms to compete more effectively in resource-rich regions worldwide.

Broadening Clean Energy Efforts

Despite his emphasis on oil, gas, and other fossil fuel resources, President Trump also made great strides in clean energy projects, such as resuming the Empire Wind Project and liquid natural gas export approvals.

Targeted Geological Mapping for Critical Minerals

To pinpoint additional critical mineral deposits across the U.S., the Department of the Interior has been directed to ramp up and sharpen its geologic mapping initiatives. This renewed focus means:

Prioritizing mapping in regions with untapped mineral potential, especially those areas previously overlooked or underexplored.
Utilizing cutting-edge geological survey techniques, such as advanced satellite imagery and geochemical analysis, to reveal hidden resources.
Coordinating with state agencies and private sector experts to ensure efforts are both comprehensive and strategically aimed at bolstering domestic mineral supplies.

By taking a data-driven approach and leveraging modern mapping technologies, the administration aims to increase the nation’s self-sufficiency in sourcing key minerals critical to energy, manufacturing, and national security.

Reviewing Public Land Withdrawals for Mineral Access

As part of the administration’s push to accelerate energy and resource development, federal agencies have been tasked with taking a closer look at public land withdrawals. Specifically, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture are directed to revisit areas previously taken off the table for development. The goal: to determine if those restrictions still make sense, or if opening select areas could strengthen access to vital minerals, like lithium or rare earths, needed for everything from batteries to the next wave of American tech and manufacturing.

This kind of review doesn’t automatically mean every withdrawal will be reversed. Instead, it’s about weighing national interests—energy security and economic growth—against conservation priorities. Public comment, environmental safety, and the potential for job creation all get a seat at the table.

Ultimately, the reassessment aims to ensure that America’s mineral-rich lands aren’t locked away without good reason, while still maintaining the checks needed to protect cherished public spaces.

Streamlined Approach for Deepwater LNG Export Terminals

When it comes to giving the green light—or a second look—to deepwater ports for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, the process under recent executive direction has been sharpened to avoid unnecessary back-and-forth.

Here’s how it works:

Initial Review: If a deepwater port project has already cleared the major federal checkpoint (a favorable Record of Decision under the Deepwater Port Act), the Maritime Administration (MARAD) now has 30 days to assess whether any changes made to the project since then could trigger new, significant environmental impacts that are substantially different from what was originally expected.
Quick Determination: MARAD completes a qualitative review, comparing the updated project to the original, focusing on whether there are any new, serious adverse environmental consequences not previously addressed in the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Any such review moves forward under the environmental rules in place at the time the original EIS was finished.
If No Big Surprises: If MARAD finds no major new environmental impacts, they update the project record, and within another 30 days, a license to proceed under the Deepwater Port Act must be issued.
If New Issues Surface: Should MARAD spot big environmental changes, it has 60 days to prepare a focused Environmental Assessment (EA) on those new issues, while reaffirming what’s already been addressed. After releasing the EA, MARAD updates the project record if needed, then has another 30 days to finalize the necessary license.

This process, in essence, aims to cut unnecessary delays for LNG export projects—ensuring that approvals or reassessments focus only on genuinely new or different environmental consequences, so projects aren’t sent in endless regulatory circles.

How the Critical Minerals List Gets Updated

The process of updating the nation’s list of critical minerals is anything but static. The Secretary of the Interior directs the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to regularly review and assess the list, taking into account emerging needs and strategic considerations. This can include evaluating new scientific data, domestic supply chains, and evolving industry requirements.

For example, as demand surges or geopolitical concerns shift, the USGS may recommend adding minerals such as uranium to the official roster. This involves coordination among federal departments, expert analysis of resource availability, and input from industry stakeholders to ensure the list stays current and aligned with national interests.

Ensuring a Resilient National Defense Stockpile

Staying ahead of potential shortfalls in critical minerals is pivotal for both national security and energy independence. To shore up the National Defense Stockpile, the Secretary of Defense is directed to:

Assess Strategic Needs: Regularly evaluate which minerals are most vital to our defense and infrastructure—think lithium, cobalt, and rare earths needed for batteries, electronics, and advanced manufacturing.
Close Legal Loopholes: Review current laws and regulations to identify gaps or outdated requirements that might hinder responsive stockpile management.
Bolster Supply Chains: Strengthen partnerships with domestic miners and allied nations such as Australia and Canada, reducing reliance on unpredictable sources.
Plan for Flexibility: Establish contingency protocols so that, if supply disruptions loom, the stockpile can efficiently allocate resources to critical sectors.
Continuous Monitoring: Implement robust tracking systems—keeping an eye on global supply trends and market vulnerabilities to anticipate future shortages before they arise.

Together, these proactive steps aim to keep America’s critical mineral resources stable and ready—no matter what lies ahead.

Addressing Forced Labor in Mineral Supply Chains

A critical component of the administration’s energy and mineral strategy involves scrutinizing the origins of imported minerals. Recognizing both national security and ethical concerns, the Department of Homeland Security has been tasked with examining the flow of minerals entering U.S. borders—specifically, those that may be sourced using forced labor.

This assessment calls for:

Thorough Supply Chain Audits: Government agencies, in coordination with industry leaders and watchdogs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, are set to trace the origins of key minerals. By leveraging third-party certifications and independent verifications, the goal is to flag and deter high-risk materials before they reach American manufacturers.
Risk Evaluation and Reporting: Within a tight 90-day window, findings on potential threats to security and ethical sourcing will be reported for further policy action. Expect data-driven recommendations to tighten import controls and align U.S. markets with international standards focused on transparency and fair labor practices.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation efforts may include increased scrutiny at ports of entry, stricter penalties for violations, and incentives for companies investing in clean, responsibly produced minerals.

By shining a spotlight on supply chain integrity, the administration signals both a commitment to ethical sourcing and a practical approach to securing America’s critical mineral needs—aligning economic growth with national values.

Broadening Clean Energy Efforts

Cutting the Red Tape is a Team Effort

The 47th president has been able to move quickly to unleash American energy dominance, thanks to a unified effort with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Department of the Interior. The combined efforts of these agencies forged a clear path for President Trump to fast-track energy permissions, minimizing friction points and unending delays to new and ongoing energy efforts. Sweeping changes included revoking decades-old executive orders and retooling long-standing environmental review processes, all aimed at getting shovels in the ground faster. Within just 30 days, the Council on Environmental Quality was tasked with issuing new guidance to accelerate the notoriously slow permitting gauntlet under NEPA, while agency chiefs across the board were instructed to prioritize efficiency and certainty over drawn-out deliberation or outside activism.

To make this more than a paper promise, a cross-agency working group was convened to synchronize and streamline permitting rules, ensuring every department—from Interior and Energy to Transportation and beyond—eliminated unnecessary holdups. For projects deemed vital to national security or the economy, leaders were empowered to use every available tool, including emergency authorities, to move approvals forward at record speed. The new approach also emphasized close coordination with project sponsors, transforming the permitting process from a bureaucratic maze into a collaborative sprint.

By focusing on interstate pipelines, critical minerals, and energy infrastructure—especially in regions that had lagged behind—these reforms were designed to deliver both certainty and speed, with recommendations set to further streamline judicial reviews and cut through red tape. The result: a regulatory environment built to match the urgency and ambition of America’s energy sector.

Leveraging Enforcement Flexibility to Meet New Goals

To align with the administration’s updated policy objectives, federal agencies are encouraged to review their current enforcement practices with an eye toward flexibility. In simple terms, each agency is asked to look at where rules might be enforced less stringently—or adapted—to better support the administration’s energy goals. This means taking a proactive approach: if a regulation is standing in the way of progress, agencies should consider using their discretion to ease the bottleneck, provided it doesn’t compromise safety or core statutory requirements.

Within a month of receiving these marching orders, every agency is expected to report back to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), highlighting exactly where and how they’ll be using this enforcement latitude. The aim is clear—minimize unnecessary delays, streamline approvals, and keep American energy projects powering forward.

Federal Procurement Priorities: Putting Americans & Taxpayers First

When federal agencies open up the government checkbook—whether for leases, major purchases, or routine services—the marching orders are clear: prioritize the American workforce, back homegrown businesses, and stretch taxpayer dollars as far as they’ll go. From choosing construction firms to leasing office spaces, the focus is all about cost-effectiveness and common sense.

Key points agencies must follow include:

Maximizing value for money: Every contract or deal should deliver strong results without wasteful spending.
Supporting U.S. jobs and businesses: Whenever possible, agencies are directed to opt for American labor and companies like Caterpillar, Union Pacific, or locally owned suppliers—not just the global giants.
Practical Stewardship: Taxpayer funds should be used wisely, avoiding unnecessary frills or questionable expenses.

The Office of Management and Budget is rolling out additional guidelines to make sure these priorities are more than just talking points—they’re the law of the land.

Immediate Pause on Climate and Infrastructure Funds

As part of this broad interagency approach, federal agencies have received clear marching orders: hit pause on releasing funds tied to the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act—including grants for electric vehicle charging stations and related infrastructure. This means programs like the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program and the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program are all on hold while the government reexamines how these resources are being allocated.

Within the next 90 days, agency leaders must conduct a thorough review of their funding procedures, from grants and loans to contracts and other types of support. They must then report their findings—plus recommendations to ensure all future disbursements line up with new policy goals—to high-level White House officials. Importantly, until this internal audit is complete and any needed changes are approved, not a single dollar will go out the door. This swift shakeup is designed to guarantee that public funds are funneled into projects that fit the administration’s objectives and eliminate any red tape that could stifle its energy agenda.

Stay In The Know with Shale

While the world transitions, you can count on Shale Magazine to bring me the latest intel and insight. Our reporters uncover the sources and stories you need to know in the worlds of finance, sustainability, and investment.

Subscribe to Shale Magazine to stay informed about the happenings that impact your world. Or listen to our critically acclaimed podcast, Energy Mixx Radio Show, where we interview some of the most interesting people, thought leaders, and influencers in the wide world of energy.

Subscribe to get more posts from Amanda Jenkins