The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has been one of the nation’s bedrock environmental laws since its enactment on January 1, 1970. Last year, an “interim final rule” was put into effect that rescinded all White House regulations related to NEPA, which had outlined how environmental analyses should be conducted. On January 7, 2026, the Trump administration formally adopted this interim final rule, finalizing rescissions of NEPA mandates.

Prior to the rollbacks, NEPA required the federal government to incorporate environmental considerations in their planning and decision making through a systematic, interdisciplinary approach. Specifically, all federal agencies were to prepare detailed statements assessing the environmental impact of and alternatives to major federal actions significantly affecting the environment such as decisions on permit applications, adopting federal land management actions, and constructing highways. These statements are commonly referred to as Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and Environmental Assessments (EA). Many states and federal agencies have also developed their own NEPA procedures tailored to the mission and activities of their state or agency.

Critics of NEPA have long sought regulatory reforms to the law, arguing that its requirements put up too much red tape that can cause years-long delays, prevent building efficiently, and stymie economic and infrastructure growth. For instance, NEPA has come under fire for slowing development of renewable energy projects, such as wind farms, due to the onerous permitting requirements of the act.

Conversely, supporters champion NEPA and its corresponding regulations as an important tool in protecting people and the environment from harm and pollution. The rollbacks have raised several concerns that without NEPA’s guidelines, input from the public and experts in federal agencies alike will be restricted and the federal government’s role in safeguarding the public interest has been diminished. Advocates for NEPA also argue that NEPA is not the cause for permitting delays but rather insufficient resources available to federal agencies is the issue. The rollbacks have already spawned litigation challenging the rollbacks as overly restricting judicial review of major federal actions with significant environmental impacts.

In the wake of these rescissions, various federal agencies have issued their own guidelines for how they plan to conduct environmental reviews. We will likely continue to see states and federal agencies review, update, and issue their own NEPA-like guidelines moving forward in spite of the rollbacks.

The central question after finalizing the interim rule: Will these rollbacks increase efficiency and grow the economy as intended or will they simply remove crucial protections for the environment?

One thing is clear: these rollbacks will require a careful balance between economic development and environmental stewardship if the environment is not to bear the cost of deregulation.