The Trump Administration’s executive orders represent substantial changes to US energy policy, emphasizing deregulation and increased domestic energy production. These changes may present opportunities for upstream and midstream oil and gas companies to advance their current operations and expedite their emerging projects.
Permitting requirements and obtaining approvals increase delays, complexity, and costs for any upstream or midstream project. Indeed, the permitting process for a single oil and gas project, regardless of size, often requires contact with many executive agencies.
In January 2025, the Trump Administration released the following executive orders, which bear on permitting and regulatory approvals for upstream and midstream oil and gas companies:
Declaring a National Energy Emergency
The two executive orders above demand that agencies strive to eliminate barriers to developing energy projects, even going so far as to authorize agencies to use emergency powers to expedite the permitting and leasing processes. Further, the Trump Administration mandates that oil and gas receive “particular attention” in this pursuit.
While none of these executive orders or mandates can override enacted legislation, agencies can streamline the permitting processes within the confines of that legislation. For instance, NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impact of their actions before making decisions. Even in light of these executive orders, agencies cannot forgo NEPA review entirely, but they can potentially reduce the scope of NEPA reviews and provide more streamlined guidance to permit applicants. Given this Administration’s actions toward energy production, upstream and midstream oil and gas companies could expect shorter timelines and reduced requirements with respect to federal permitting and approvals.
Moreover, recent restrictions on agency rulemaking and legislative interpretation, when combined with these executive orders, also paint a changed picture for oil and gas companies. In June 2024, the US Supreme Court issued an opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo1 that overturned the longstanding “Chevron doctrine,” a judicial doctrine that deferred to executive agencies’ reasonable interpretations and implementations of ambiguous federal laws. Under Chevron, executive agencies were essentially allowed to “fill in the gaps” of federal legislation, which provided them with some discretion in implementing such legislation in accordance with their respective goals and expertise. Now, in light of Loper and the permit assessment mandates in the Unleashing American Energy EO, executive agencies may be more restricted by the confines of enacted legislation. To the extent that any permitting or procedural hurdles were the result of ‘gap-filling’ by executive agencies, these changes could result in upstream and midstream companies facing fewer barriers to receiving federal permits and authorizations for their projects.
Still, whether these potential gains for upstream and midstream companies will come to fruition depends on how quickly and efficaciously the federal agencies implement these executive orders. The Department of Energy (DOE) recently took a concrete step toward expediting permitting and authorization processes in a February 5, 2025 secretarial order by ordering that the DOE “prioritize more efficient permitting to enable private sector investments” and “expedite the approval and construction of reliable energy infrastructure.” Nonetheless, oil and gas companies may consider withholding judgment as to whether these executive orders will truly accelerate the pace of nascent projects until agencies have fully implemented their permitting reforms.
Another effect the executive orders may have on the upstream and midstream oil and gas industries is an overall decreased cost of regulatory compliance. Currently, these companies are required to ensure that all of their equipment, project sites, and operations do not violate US policy with respect to green house gas (GHG) emissions, endangered species protections, and other environmental standards.
In January 2025, the Trump Administration took aim at some of these requirements, but especially environmental requirements, imposed by federal regulations:
Declaring a National Energy Emergency
Unleashing American Energy
Revocation of Prior Executive Orders and Actions
Establishing the National Energy Dominance Council
Chiefly, the Trump Administration’s mandates to “facilitate the Nation’s energy supply” and to identify and eliminate “undue burdens on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources” are aimed at sweeping deregulation throughout the energy industry.
These mandates could see regulations in a number of areas reduced, or even eliminated. Places where upstream and midstream companies may experience lesser regulatory requirements include GHG emissions and pollution control technologies, endangered species restrictions, seismic surveys, and environmental impact assessments. Moreover, while the NEDC has not yet had an opportunity to impact US energy production, its creation solidifies the notion that the current Administration could indeed fulfill its promises of deregulating and proliferating exploration, production, storage, and transportation of domestic oil and gas.
It bears repeating that executive orders cannot repeal enacted legislation, so companies must still comply with the demands of laws such as the ESA, the CWA, NEPA, and other legislation that serves as the foundation for regulation. Executive agencies must act within the confines of the law, but upstream and midstream companies could expect that many regulations that are not codified in legislation may be repealed.
Ultimately, the Trump Administration’s executive orders in the energy space may create new opportunities for, and decrease regulatory costs faced by, upstream and midstream companies, but the regulatory landscape remains uncertain. These executive orders are subject to legal challenges from various stakeholders, and they may be enjoined or blunted by judicial order in the coming months.
A clearer picture may emerge if Congress passes legislation making statutory changes that would give firmer legal ground to these executive orders. Furthermore, oil and gas projects have long lifecycles and require intense capital investment, so upstream and midstream companies should consider the potential for future political and administrative changes that could impact the viability of their projects.
1 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024).
Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising associated legal practices that are separate entities, including Mayer Brown LLP (Illinois, USA), Mayer Brown International LLP (England & Wales), Mayer Brown Hong Kong LLP (a Hong Kong limited liability partnership) and Tauil & Chequer Advogados (a Brazilian law partnership) (collectively, the “Mayer Brown Practices”). The Mayer Brown Practices are established in various jurisdictions and may be a legal person or a partnership. PK Wong & Nair LLC (“PKWN”) is the constituent Singapore law practice of our licensed joint law venture in Singapore, Mayer Brown PK Wong & Nair Pte. Ltd. Mayer Brown Hong Kong LLP operates in temporary association with Johnson Stokes & Master (“JSM”). More information about the individual Mayer Brown Practices, PKWN and the association between Mayer Brown Hong Kong LLP and JSM (including how information may be shared) can be found in the Legal Notices section of our website.
“Mayer Brown” and the Mayer Brown logo are trademarks of Mayer Brown.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.