The second half of 2026 is shaping up to be a pivotal period for U.S. environmental policy. Federal agencies and lawmakers are advancing proposals that could significantly alter the regulatory landscape for climate policy, industrial permitting, wetlands protection, and infrastructure development. Together, these efforts reflect a broader shift toward accelerating economic development and project approvals while reconsidering the scope of federal environmental oversight.
In February, the EPA finalized the repeal of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding, which for nearly 17 years served as the legal foundation for federal climate regulations under the Clean Air Act. The finding determined that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, giving the EPA authority to regulate emissions from vehicles, power plants, and a range of industrial sources.
While the repeal directly eliminated federal greenhouse-gas standards for motor vehicles, many other climate-related regulations remain in place, including rules governing power plants, oil and gas operations, aircraft, and landfills. However, these regulations are now under increased scrutiny because they rely on the same legal rationale that the EPA has withdrawn. As a result, their future remains uncertain, and additional regulatory rollbacks could follow.
The repeal has already triggered legal challenges from environmental organizations, public health groups, and state governments. Critics argue that the EPA’s action conflicts with established climate science and decades of legal precedent, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which held that greenhouse gases qualify as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and can be regulated by the agency.
The EPA has proposed a rule that would give the construction and manufacturing sectors a long-sought permitting reform by allowing certain portions of major industrial projects to move forward before a Clean Air Act New Source Review (NSR) permit is issued.
The proposal would revise the definition of “begin actual construction” to distinguish between pollution-emitting equipment and non-emitting infrastructure. Under current regulations, many projects must secure an air permit before construction can begin, even when the work itself does not generate emissions.
If finalized, the rule would allow developers to proceed with activities such as pouring foundations, laying concrete pads, installing piping and wiring, and constructing support structures while permit reviews are still underway. Emissions-producing equipment, however, would still require an approved permit before installation.
Supporters say the change would reduce costly delays for manufacturing facilities, power generation projects, semiconductor plants, and data centers. EPA officials have argued that the proposal would accelerate critical infrastructure development and economic growth while preserving environmental safeguards for equipment that generates emissions.
Critics, however, contend that the rule could weaken the effectiveness of preconstruction environmental reviews and erode state authority over permitting decisions.
The EPA is expected to redefine “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA. The ruling significantly narrowed federal authority over wetlands, holding that only wetlands with a continuous surface connection to traditionally navigable waters are subject to federal jurisdiction. As a result, many wetlands and other ‘water features’ previously protected under the Clean Water Act may no longer qualify for federal regulation.
While Sackett clarified how wetlands should be evaluated, it left unresolved questions regarding other water systems. These unanswered questions are causing continuous regulatory uncertainty. To address those issues, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers proposed a new WOTUS rule in November 2025 designed to formally implement the Sackett decision and clarify the scope of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
The proposal seeks to define key terms such as “relatively permanent” waters and “continuous surface connection,” both of which became central legal standards under the Supreme Court’s ruling. In June, EPA submitted a revised version of the proposal to the Office of Management and Budget, signaling that additional changes may be forthcoming.
Congress is continuing a years-long effort to overhaul the federal permitting process, with the Senate now weighing the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act, a bipartisan bill that passed the House in December 2025.
Supporters argue the legislation is needed to accelerate construction of energy projects, manufacturing facilities, housing, transmission lines, and other critical infrastructure at a time of growing electricity demand and increased domestic investment.
The legislation focuses primarily on reforming the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the law that requires federal agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of major federal actions before approving projects.
Among its most significant provisions, the SPEED Act would:
- Narrow the scope of environmental impacts agencies must analyze under NEPA.
- Create additional exemptions from NEPA review for certain projects.
- Clarify what qualifies as a “major federal action” requiring review.
- Allow agencies to rely on some state, tribal, or other federal reviews in place of duplicative NEPA analyses.
- Impose stricter timelines for environmental reviews and permit decisions.
- Shorten the statute of limitations for NEPA lawsuits to 150 days, reducing opportunities for prolonged legal challenges
The remainder of 2026 could bring some of the most significant environmental policy changes in years. Whether through regulatory actions at the EPA or legislative reforms in Congress, policymakers are pursuing a common goal: accelerating development, infrastructure construction, and project approvals. At the same time, these initiatives are reshaping long-standing environmental protections and redefining the federal government’s role in regulating emissions, water resources, and permitting. The outcome of these debates will help determine the future direction of U.S. environmental policy for years to come.