National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology’s Final Report Includes Recommendations to Boost Economy and Protect National Security
The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology (NSCEB) announced on April 8, 2025, the availability of its final report and action plan, “urging Congressional action to bring the full weight of American innovation to improve and maintain U.S. global leadership in biotechnology.” After an extensive study that included “more than 1,800 stakeholder consultations, a holistic review of unclassified and classified material, site visits across the United States, and meetings with foreign government and technology leaders,” NSCEB developed a set of top-priority recommendations to ensure that the United States “outrun[s] and slow[s] down Beijing in the biotechnology race.” The principles for action include:
Promote U.S. biotechnology innovation;
Be the biotechnology partner of choice for the world;
Use national security tools to protect innovation and industrial base in biotechnology; and
Work with the international community, including China where prudent, to develop best practices and standards for biosafety and biosecurity to prevent against misuse, whether deliberate or accidental.
The report states that after an extensive study, “including more than 1,800 stakeholder consultations, a holistic review of unclassified and classified material, site visits across the United States, and meetings with foreign government and technology leaders,” NSCEB developed the following set of top-priority recommendations:
Pillar 1: Prioritize biotechnology at the national level:
1.1a Congress must establish a National Biotechnology Coordination Office (NBCO) within the Executive Office of the President with a director, appointed by the President, who would coordinate interagency actions on biotechnology competition and regulation.
Pillar 2: Mobilize the private sector to get U.S. products to scale:
2.1a Congress must direct federal regulatory agencies to create simple pathways to market and exempt familiar products from unnecessary regulation;
2.2a Congress must establish and fund an Independence Investment Fund, led by a non-governmental manager, that would invest in technology startups that strengthen U.S. national and economic security;
2.3a Congress must authorize and fund the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Commerce to develop a network of manufacturing facilities across the country for precommercial bioindustrial product scale-up;
2.4a Congress must direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to ensure that biotechnology infrastructure and data are covered under “critical infrastructure”;
2.5a Congress must require public companies to disclose single points of supply chain vulnerability located in foreign countries of concern; and
2.5b Congress must prohibit companies that work with U.S. national security agencies and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) from using certain Chinese biotechnology suppliers that are deemed to pose a national security threat.
Pillar 3: Maximize the benefits of biotechnology for defense:
3.1a Congress must direct the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to consult with stakeholders to define principles for ethical use of biotechnology for the U.S. military;
3.2a Congress must direct the DOD to work with private companies to build commercial facilities across the country to biomanufacture products that are critical for DOD needs; and
3.3a Congress must require outbound investment rules to ensure that U.S. capital does not support Chinese development of certain biotechnologies that could pose a national security risk.
Pillar 4: Out-innovate our strategic competitors:
4.1a Congress must authorize the DOE to create a Web of Biological Data (WOBD), a single point of entry for researchers to access high-quality data;
4.2a Congress must conduct oversight of existing policies, and add new ones where warranted, to ensure that China cannot obtain bulk and sensitive biological data from the United States;
4.3a Congress must establish Centers for Biotechnology within the existing National Laboratory network to support grand research challenges; and
4.4a Congress must direct the executive branch to advance safe, secure, and responsible biotechnology research and innovation.
Pillar 5: Build the biotechnology workforce of the future:
5.1a Congress must direct the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to provide workforce training in biotechnology across the interagency;
5.1b Congress must ensure that federal agencies have the necessary expertise across national security and emerging biotechnology issues; and
5.2a Congress must maximize the impact of domestic biomanufacturing workforce training programs.
Pillar 6: Mobilize the collective strengths of our allies and partners:
6.1a Congress must include biotechnology in the scope of the U.S. Department of State’s International Technology Security and Innovation Fund to fund appropriately international biotechnology policy, research and development (R&D), and secure supply chains.
EPA Provides Technical Support for Companies Submitting New Chemical Data
On April 25, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability of new resources intended to help companies with the requirements described in EPA’s December 2024 final rule governing the review of new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). According to EPA, the new materials “provide companies with clear instructions on how to include required data elements in the current system used for new chemical submissions while the agency works to update that system.” EPA’s final rule clarifies the level of detail for the data elements that submitters are required to provide with new chemical notices whenever that information is known to or reasonably ascertainable by the submitter. EPA states that “[a]s noted in the preamble to the final rule, enhancements to the Central Data Exchange (CDX) for submitting the data elements were not finalized concurrently with the amendments.” Until then, submitters can provide the required information using the existing CDX workflow. The new information on EPA’s website describes how submitters can satisfy the amended data requirements pending updates to CDX. EPA states that once it completes the CDX updates, it intends to conduct stakeholder outreach before rolling the updates out “so that users know all data elements are included in CDX and that the use of this supplemental information” will no longer be necessary.
All Things Chemical® Podcast: Chemical Law and Policy — A Conversation with Karyn Schmidt [Podcast]
This week I had the pleasure of speaking with Karyn Schmidt, now a principal at Squire Patton Boggs in its Public Policy practice, after spending 25 years at the American Chemistry Council (ACC). For the many members in the chemical community who know Karyn, her deep understanding of chemical law and policy will serve the firm’s clients well. We discuss Karyn’s transition to private practice, her work at ACC, and Karyn’s thoughts on what is in store for chemical stakeholders now and the foreseeable future.
Nevada Supreme Court: Judge, Not Jury, Decides Unambiguous Contract
In 2011, a local water district in Nevada entered into a lease agreement with Paradise Canyon, LLC to provide shares of water for irrigating the Wolf Creek Golf Club. The lease agreement granted Paradise Canyon a right of first refusal with respectrenewing the agreement, but unambiguously provided the district with sole and absolute discretion in rate-setting during the renewal period. When it came time to renew, the district notified Paradise Canyon that it intended to raise its rates. Paradise Canyon responded by suing the district for declaratory relief and damages, alleging a bad faith breach of the lease agreement. The trial court allowed some of the claims to got to a jury.
Yesterday, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the trial court had erred:
Given that the relevant provision here was unambiguous, the trial court erred in failing to find that the District had sole and absolute discretion to set the rental rate after January 1, 2020. Sending that question to the jury was error, and thus the verdict resulting from the jury’s mistaken reading of the lease and the trial court’s judgment resting on that jury verdict are in error.
Virgin Valley Water Dist. v. Paradise Canyon, LLC, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (April 25, 2025). Nevada does imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing into contracts but this covenant “may not be used to supply additional terms to the lease or to fault conduct exercised under an authority expressly provided by the lease absent conduct that intentionally interferes with the intent and spirit of the lease.”
Tough Timetable Pushed Through To Update CSRD’s Reporting Standards
On 25 April 2025, the sustainability reporting board (“SRB”) of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (“EFRAG”), agreed the internal timeline for delivering advice to the European Commission on the simplification of the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (“ESRS”), which is at the centre of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive’s requirements.
This followed the initial failure to do so, which we reported on here, on 15 April which had been the target date to approve the timeline.
The timetable is ambitious:
Activity
Timing
1. Establishing a vision on actionable levers for substantial simplification (to be confirmed following the stakeholders’ feedback)
April to mid-May 2025
2. Gathering evidence from stakeholders, analysis of the issued reports and other sources
April to mid-May 2025
3. Drafting and approving the Exposure Drafts amending ESRS
Second half of May to July 2025
4. Publishing the Exposure Drafts, receiving and analysing feedback from stakeholders
August and September 2025
5. Finalising and delivering the technical advice to the European Commission
October 2025
The public consolidation will start at the very end of July, for a short window, combined with some public feedback events tabled for the beginning of September 2025.
When Is a Final Approval Not the Final Word? Empire Wind Halt Raises Questions About Managing Risk for Previously Approved Infrastructure Projects
BOEM Halts Construction of Empire Wind 1
On April 16, 2025, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued a formal director’s order instructing Empire Offshore Wind LLC to cease all construction activities related to the Empire Wind 1 offshore wind project. The directive, citing concerns the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) raised about the project’s environmental analyses, stems from a broader offshore wind review President Trump’s January 2025 memorandum (90 Fed. Reg. 8363 (Jan. 29, 2025)) initiated. In the January 2025 executive order, Trump cited concerns over “alleged legal deficiencies underlying the federal government’s leasing and permitting of onshore and offshore wind projects,” which could lead to “grave harm—including negative impacts on navigational safety interests, transportation interests, national security interests, commercial interests and marine mammals.”
Although Empire Wind 1 had already received all necessary federal approvals based on a previous NEPA review and begun early-stage construction, BOEM invoked its authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and 30 C.F.R. Part 585 to halt activities while the agency reexamines the project’s compliance. The directive requires Empire to remain paused until the review is complete and outlines potential enforcement actions for noncompliance. Work on the project has reportedly been halted.
State Officials’ Response
Gov. Kathy Hochul criticized the move, vowing to oppose what she characterized as federal overreach. “Every single day, I’m working to make energy more affordable, reliable and abundant in New York, and the federal government should be supporting those efforts rather than undermining them,” she stated. The federal halt also drew criticism from Rory M. Christian, chair of the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC), with both officials emphasizing the project’s scale and importance—delivering 800 megawatts of offshore wind energy, powering over 500,000 homes, and supporting more than 1,000 union jobs tied to the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal’s redevelopment.
Permitting Reversals and Political Instability
BOEM’s authority to halt offshore activities is grounded in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and its implementing regulations. See 43 U.S.C. § 1337(p)(4); 30 C.F.R. § 585.102(b).
Federal action to stop work on previously approved projects is rare and typically limited to instances where agencies assert violations of those approvals rather than a re-thinking of the approvals themselves. The reversal of Empire Wind follows a separate determination by the Trump Administration to revoke the 2024 approval of New York’s congestion pricing program after completing environmental review under NEPA and SEQRA.[1] Congestion pricing is continuing right now, but the revocation decision is currently being litigated in the courts.[2] Both cases reveal that even where fully permitted, project sponsors and those financing these undertakings should not discount continued regulatory uncertainty during project construction. It is likely that eventually court decisions will provide further guidance on the level of discretion that federal agencies have to rescind prior project approvals. However, until such guidance is forthcoming this new regulatory environment may lead project applicants to consider a reevaluation of risk allocation in construction agreements and financing for major infrastructure projects.
[1] See Final Environmental Assessment for the Central Business District Tolling Program, U.S. Dep’t of Transp., Fed. Highway Admin. (June 2023), FHWA Approval 88 Fed. Reg. 41999 (June 28, 2023); see also 23 U.S.C. § 109(h).
[2] See e.g., Metro. Transp. Auth. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., No. 1:25-cv-01413-LJL (S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 19, 2025) (seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the federal government from rescinding prior approval of New York City’s congestion pricing program under the Value Pricing Pilot Program).; State of New Jersey v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., No. 2:23-cv-03885-LMG-LDW (D.N.J. filed July 21, 2023) (challenging the Federal Highway Administration’s approval of New York’s Central Business District Tolling Program under NEPA and the APA based on alleged environmental and procedural deficiencies).
Department of the Interior to Adopt Expedited NEPA Permitting Procedures for Energy and Minerals Projects on Federal Lands
On April 23, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced plans to implement unprecedented emergency procedures to fast-track permitting for energy and critical minerals projects on federal lands. The initiative follows President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025 declaration of a National Energy Emergency and implements that executive order’s direction to “identify and exercise any lawful emergency authorities available” to facilitate energy development, including critical minerals. In his executive order dated March 20, 2025, President Trump used a broad definition of the term “critical mineral” to include all critical minerals identified by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior pursuant to the Energy Act of 2020, as well as uranium, copper, potash, and gold. Eligible energy permitting projects include those that seek to “identify, lease, site, produce, transport, refine, or generate” energy resources.
The Department of the Interior will use the new procedures to expedite its permitting approvals, “if appropriate,” employing existing regulations issued pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Notably, the press release promises the completion of environmental impact statements (EISs) in just 28 days, and environmental assessments (EAs) within two weeks. The expedited NEPA procedures will rely on 43 C.F.R. § 46.150(b), which authorizes Department of the Interior officials to take emergency actions before preparing a NEPA analysis under certain circumstances. The rule provides that if emergency action is necessary before preparing an EIS, officials must consult with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regarding the necessary NEPA compliance.
CEQ also released guidance on April 23, 2025 for federal agencies to use in updating their NEPA regulations. The guidance follows CEQ’s withdrawal of its own NEPA rules, as directed by President Trump in his January 20, 2025 executive order entitled Unleashing American Energy. An internal Interior memorandum from the same day documents the Department of the Interior’s consultation with CEQ – required by the Interior NEPA regulations – and its reliance on the CEQ guidance to develop its “alternative [NEPA] compliance process,” and explains how an EIS could be completed in just 28 days under these emergency procedures:
Project applicants must agree in writing to use the alternative procedures and must have submitted plans of operation, drilling permit applications, or other approval requests.
The Department of the Interior would publish the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS, solicit written comments, and schedule a public meeting that would be held during the agency’s preparation of the EIS.
Comment periods would be approximately ten (10) days in most cases, and occur during the preparation of the EIS.
The EIS would be published in final form within the 28-day period. There would be no draft EIS.
The Record of Decision must document how the action “addresses the national energy emergency.
The press release contemplates similar emergency procedures for compliance with ESA and NHPA requirements. It is unclear when or how these new procedures will be adopted, and remains to be seen whether they will be widely employed by the Department of the Interior.
FDA Releases Results from Bottled Water PFAS Testing
FDA recently shared the final results from the testing of domestic and imported bottled water collected at retail locations across the U.S. for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Of the 197 samples of purified, artesian, spring, and mineral waters tested, ten samples had detectable levels of PFAS. However, none of those had levels that would have exceeded the EPA’s maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for PFAS in public drinking water.
PFAS are a diverse group of widely used, long lasting chemicals that do not easily break down and can accumulate in the environment and human tissues with negative health consequences. PFAS have been the subject of various testing efforts, lawsuits, and legislation.
In the bottled water study, FDA tested for 18 types of PFAS, including the six types with EPA-established MCLs. The ten samples with detectable PFAS levels contained a range of one to four different PFAS in domestic samples and one to two different PFAS in imported samples. Of these, four PFAS were below EPA MCLs for drinking water, and two PFAS detected do not have established MCLs.
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires FDA to establish a standard of quality regulation for contaminants in bottled water whenever the EPA establishes MCLs for public drinking water as part of a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation. If FDA does not establish a standard for the contaminants or finds that such standards are not necessary to protect public health, then the EPA levels are considered the applicable regulation for bottled water. FDA can then take action against bottled water that presents a safety concern even if there is no standard of quality for a contaminant.
Prop 65: Changes to Short-Form Warnings Will Cause Long-Term Impacts
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recently amended its regulations concerning requirements for consumer product warnings to qualify for “safe harbor” protection from enforcement actions brought under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”).
Prop 65 is a “right to know” law — it requires businesses to provide a “clear and reasonable warning” before knowingly and intentionally exposing consumers in California to a chemical listed as known to the state of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm. OEHHA, the lead agency implementing compliance regulations for Prop 65, has adopted certain regulations detailing specific language and methods for warnings that businesses can use to comply with Prop 65 — i.e., “safe harbor warnings.” See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25600, et seq.
On December 6, 2024, OEHHA issued a notice stating that the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved changes to the Prop 65 regulations for “short-form” warnings that OEHHA proposed on October 27, 2023, among other changes.
The effective date of the new regulations is January 1, 2025, but there is a three-year implementation period for businesses to transition to the new warning language (by January 1, 2028). As discussed further below, this final regulation largely follows OEHHA’s October 27, 2023, proposal.
New Required Content for Short-Form Warnings: Short-form warnings are not so short anymore[1]. The new regulations now require that short-form warnings identify at least one chemical for each applicable endpoint (i.e., cancer or reproductive harm) and additional language, of which businesses have the choice of two phrases. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25603(b). As further illustrated below, these changes are bound to have a substantial impact on businesses.
For example, short-form warnings for carcinogens only must now include one of the following phrases:
“Cancer risk from exposure to [name of chemical]. See www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
or
“Can expose you to [name of chemical], a carcinogen. See www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25603(b)(3)(A).
As another example, short-form warnings for both listed carcinogens and reproductive toxicants must include either of the two following phrases:
“Risk of cancer from exposure to [name of chemical] and reproductive harm from exposure to [name of chemical]. See www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
or
“Can expose you to [name of chemical], a carcinogen, and [name of chemical], a reproductive toxicant. See www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
See id. at § 25603(b)(3)(C).
According to OEHHA’s comments in its Final Statement of Reasons (“FSOR”) for the new regulations, these changes were made to provide consumers with more information about the warning being given, consistent with the long-form warning. FSOR, at 20. However, the changes will likely require businesses using the old short-form warnings on product labels, which are much shorter, to substantially redesign their labels to accommodate this new language.
Identification of Specific Chemicals: Perhaps the most controversial change is that the new regulations now require short-form warnings to name at least one chemical that is listed for cancer or reproductive harm. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25603; see also id., at § 25601 (b). Previously, only long-form warnings had to identify a specific chemical. In the FSOR, OEHHA states that it believes listing at least one chemical in short-form warnings is necessary to provide “consumers sufficient information to make informed decisions about their exposures to listed chemicals” and to discourage the widespread business practice of providing short-form warnings “prophylactically, as a litigation avoidance strategy.” FSOR, at 20. OEHHA also commented in its FSOR:
Under existing law, companies currently may provide a warning with no chemical name for a product that does not cause any significant exposure to a listed chemical, because they would rather apply a generic warning to everything rather than determine which of their products actually create such an exposure and which do not. This litigation-avoidance strategy does not serve the interests of the Act because it does not provide accurate information. By including a chemical, companies will be encouraged to actually determine which chemicals—if any—could expose consumers of their products.
Id., at 30-31.
This significant change may require businesses to reconsider their testing protocols and use of short-form warnings if they are unable to identify a specific carcinogen and/or reproductive toxicant. Regardless of how businesses work to comply with the new regulations, their risk of costly enforcement actions is now undoubtedly higher.
New Options for Warning Labels: Companies are no longer limited to using “WARNING”, and now have the option of using “CA WARNING” or “CALIFORNIA WARNING” instead. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25603. These options providebusinesses with the ability to identify the warnings as California-specific warnings, which may be beneficial for products that are also sold outside California. FSOR, at 45. Short-form warnings can also be given on any label size, provided the text is at least 6-point font and is “conspicuous” as defined in the regulations (i.e., “must be displayed with such conspicuousness as compared with other words, statements, designs or devices on the label, labeling, or sign, as to render the warning likely to be seen, read, and understood by an ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase or use”). Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25601(c). Under the new regulations, the warning no longer needs to be “in a type size no smaller than the largest type size used for other consumer information.” See id.
Requirements for Catalog and Internet Purchases: OEHHA initially proposed clarifying language for products ordered through a catalog, but that clarifying language was not incorporated into the final regulations. However, the proposed edits to clarify the labeling requirements for products ordered through the Internet were enacted. Specifically, OEHHA clarified that, for one of the warning methods for internet purchases, the warning must be provided on the product display page, not on the internet site generally. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25602(b).
Short-Form Warnings for Food Exposure: OEHHA also revised the regulations to specifically allow for a short-form warning for food products. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25607.2. As with the safe harbor warning for consumer products, the warning for food products must identify the name of at least one chemical that is a carcinogen and/or reproductive toxicant. Warnings for food products do not need to include the warning symbol required for consumer products (i.e., a yellow equilateral triangle with a bold black exclamation point).
Warnings for Passenger or Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Parts and Recreational Marine Vessels: Businesses involving passenger or off-highway motor vehicle parts and recreational marine vessel parts can comply with Prop 65 by warning for phthalates and lead and suggesting best handling practices on a sign no smaller than 5 inches by 5 inches placed at each retail point of sale or display of products. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, §§ 25607.51(a)(3), 25607.50(a)(3), and 25607.52. If a business chooses this form of warning, it may not add to, remove, or substitute the chemicals identified. Id. at §§ 25607.51(b) and 25607.53(b). If the product is sold through the internet or through a catalog, the business must provide a long-form or short-form warning on the webpage or in the catalog for its products.
Three-Year Transition Period: Businesses have three years — until January 1, 2028 — to transition to the new short-form warning requirements. Thus, short-form warnings on any products manufactured on or after January 1, 2028, must adhere to the new regulations to qualify for safe harbor protection. However, any products manufactured and labeled with the old “safe harbor” short-form warning language prior to January 1, 2028, may continue to be sold indefinitely without the need for relabeling. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25603(c).
Grace Period for Internet Retailers: Additionally, for internet purchases, a retailer is not responsible for posting or displaying the new warning online until 60 calendar days after the retailer receives a warning or written notice from the manufacturer that updates the short-form warning. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25602(b)(2). This provision is effective for purchases made before January 1, 2028. Id. Retailers who have been issued notices of violation for not updating their short-form warnings after notice from manufacturers may have success in challenging those violations under the new rule.
Key Changes:
Effective January 1, 2028, short-form warnings must include at least one chemical name for each applicable endpoint (i.e., cancer and/or reproductive toxicity).
Businesses now have the option of using “WARNING,” “CA WARNING” or “CALIFORNIA WARNING” in warnings.
The short-form warning can be used on any label size, provided the text is at least 6-point font and is “conspicuous” as defined in the regulations.
Short-form warnings can now be used on food products.
Alternative retail sign warning options for phthalates and lead for passenger or off-highway motor vehicle parts and recreational marine vessel parts are now available.
Businesses have until January 1, 2028, to transition to these revised short-form warning requirements on products manufactured and labeled on or after that date.
Any products manufactured and labeled before January 1, 2028, can have the old short-form warnings, regardless of when the products are sold.
60-day grace period for internet retailers during the three-year transition period.
[1] The prior iteration of the rule required that businesses provide a truly “short” warning – (e.g., “Cancer – www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”).
EPA Announces Updates to MyPest, a Pesticide Registration Tracking App for Companies
On April 18, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced updates to its pesticide registration tracking app, MyPest. EPA states MyPest allows registrants of pesticide products to monitor the status of their pesticide registration submissions in real time. The launch of the latest version of MyPest includes updates to an enhanced dashboard page with information about the registrant’s cases and products, the ability to view detailed information of each application, and the capability to communicate with EPA staff directly within the application page.
According to EPA, MyPest gives pesticide registrants greater insight into the registration process and provides an easier way for them to communicate with EPA on registration packages under review. EPA believes this update will be “a significant step forward in making the regulatory process more efficient and transparent.” This work is part of EPA’s overall digital transformation strategy and process streamlining that will improve the timeliness of pesticide registration decisions.
EPA states over 1,200 registrants have already signed up for MyPest. Additional updates planned for later this year include further enhancements to the user experience and detailed information on the progress of registration review cases and data call-ins.
Additional information from EPA on pesticide registration is available on EPA’s website and on our blog.
Recalibrating Regulation: EPA, Energy, and the Unfolding Consequences of Deregulatory Momentum
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has long navigated the complex intersection of science, law, policy, and public trust. Under the Trump Administration, EPA faces renewed scrutiny. The Administration seeks regulatory rollbacks and is pursuing a broader deregulatory strategy that many believe risks sacrificing hard won environmental protections in the name of economic growth.
While early promises to reduce bureaucratic red tape struck a chord with a number in industry, implementation has appeared blunt thus far, rather than measured. Deregulatory actions have sometimes resembled sweeping cuts “with a machete instead of a scalpel,” affecting the intended target of outdated or burdensome rules, but taking with it collateral damage including critical administrative safeguards and scientific functions. Although EPA has avoided some of the steepest cuts levied on other federal agencies, many worry that this trajectory will fundamentally impair the Agency’s mission.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has attempted to ease concerns, stating that he can “absolutely” assure the public that deregulation will not harm the environment. “We have to both protect the environment and grow the economy,” he stated when questioned by CBS News’s “Face the Nation” about whether he could ensure that deregulation would not have an adverse impact. Still, the juxtaposition of that reassurance against ongoing efforts to slash regulations leaves many stakeholders uneasy.
At the heart of the Administration’s argument is a broader political philosophy — an intent to upend what it views as “entrenched bureaucracy.” White House spokesman Harrison Fields emphasized in a Statement that the Administration is “prioritizing efficiency; eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse; and fulfilling every campaign promise.” Critics, however, view these efforts as retributive, undermining institutional expertise, and marginalizing science-driven decision-making. Some demand a clearer upside — what fraud, waste, and abuse has been uncovered and eliminated?
One of the most visible fronts in this deregulatory push is energy policy. A recent Executive Order directs the federal government to expedite coal leasing on public lands, and aims to designate coal as a “critical mineral.” This pivot is being positioned as part of a strategy to meet the rising energy demands of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and data centers that are expected to increase significantly electricity consumption in the coming decade.
Despite this coal-forward rhetoric, more coal-fired power capacity was retired during Trump’s first term than under either of President Obama’s terms. Analysts note that even with reduced climate regulations, coal’s economic competitiveness remains constrained by market forces and state-level clean energy mandates. “You can run all these coal plants without environmental regulations…I’m sure that will save industry money,” energy data analyst Seth Feaster of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis recently told Wired. “Whether or not the communities around those places really want that is another issue.”
Meanwhile, the federal freeze on electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure funding has disrupted planned rollouts in several states. “It puts some players in a bad spot where they’ve already invested,” states Jeremy Michalek, an engineering and public policy professor at Carnegie Mellon University, in a recent article on the topic. Similar concerns are emerging in the aviation and alternative fuels sectors, where projects relying on incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) now face sudden funding uncertainty.
Last week, Judge Mary McElroy of the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island, ordered the Trump Administration to reinstate previously awarded funds under both the IRA and the IIJA, underscoring the legal and financial turbulence surrounding the current regulatory landscape. This new normal is unwelcome to most shareholders. In a March 2025 press release about another lawsuit specifically challenging the Administration’s freeze on funding from the IRA and IIJA, Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, states that “The decision to freeze funds that Congress appropriated is yet another attempt to roll back progress and undermine communities. These actions are not only unlawful, but are already having an impact on local economies.”
Meanwhile, in a recent post on TruthSocial, President Trump invited companies to relocate operations to the United States, promising “ZERO TARIFFS, and almost immediate Electrical/Energy hook ups and approvals. No Environmental Delays.” But for regulated entities, states, and federal partners navigating a rapidly shifting policy environment overseen by a new Administration that has diminished and fractured its workforce and shown a propensity to backpedal from bold claims, the promise of speed may not be worth the cost of lost clarity, stability, and long-term sustainability.
Unleashing American Energy: Trump Administration’s Latest Executive Orders
New Executive Orders and Proclamation
On April 8, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued three significant executive orders (“EOs”) and a fourth proclamation consistent with his pledge to “Unleash American Energy.” These Presidential actions, titled (1) Strengthening the Reliability and Security of the U.S. Electric Grid, (2) Protecting American Energy from State Overreach, (3) Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry, and (4) Regulatory Relief for Certain Stationary Sources to Promote American Energy, seek to promote domestic oil, gas, and coal energy production. Each of these actions is discussed below.
Strengthening the Reliability and Security of the U.S. Electric Grid, EO 14262
This EO directs the Secretary of Energy to streamline emergency processes and to develop a uniform methodology for analyzing reserve margins across all regions of the bulk power system. The stated needs for the EO include aging infrastructure, increased need for electricity, and demand for energy use by datacenters.
Using Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act, the EO seeks to curtail the decommissioning of generation resources or to prevent fuel-switching of generation resources in excess of 50 megawatts if the fuel-switching will reduce the nameplate capacity. While not expressly stated, this EO likely seeks to prevent oil, gas, and coal generation resources from going offline.
The EO requires the Secretary of Energy to develop the uniform methodology by May 8, 2025, at which time we will have a better sense of how the Administration intends to implement this order.
Protecting American Energy from State Overreach, EO 14260
EO 14260 aims to counter the more recent state efforts to target oil and gas companies for greenhouse gas emissions and climate change issues. For example, several municipalities, counties, and state governments have initiated litigation against oil and gas companies for alleged climate change damages, using various state tort law theories. We have previously written about these cases and, with this EO, these cases will likely take a new twist. We can expect to see the federal government intervene in these cases if they have not done so already.
The EO also seeks to challenge state laws and regulations that curtail greenhouse gas emissions or seek payments from oil and gas companies for climate change damages. The EO cites New York’s and Vermont’s climate superfund legislation, where the states seek collective payments from oil and gas companies for remediation involving climate change related damages. In addition, the EO cites to California’s carbon cap-and-trade program.
The EO directs the attorney general to identify all state and local laws and regulations burdening domestic energy production, including “any such State laws purporting to address ‘climate change’ or involving ‘environmental, social, and governance’ initiatives, ‘environmental justice’, carbon or ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions, and funds to collect carbon penalties or carbon taxes.” The EO also directs that the attorney general take all appropriate action to stop the enforcement of these state laws and to provide a report to the president within 60 days (by June 7) of the attorney general’s efforts. We will likely see the federal government initiating lawsuits against these states under various theories of the Dormant Commerce Clause and federal law supremacy related to the Clean Air Act.
Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry and Amending Executive Order 14241, EO 14261
The third EO is an effort to support the domestic coal industry. Originally issued by President Trump on March 20, 2025, EO 14241 aims to enhance coal production and use as a means of securing economic prosperity and national security, lowering electricity costs, and supporting job creation. The revised April 8 EO further outlines a series of policies and actions to remove regulatory barriers, promote coal exports, and assess coal resources on federal lands, while also encouraging the development of coal technologies. Working together, these orders seek to promote coal as a key fuel source for steel production and artificial intelligence data centers in the United States.
By previously designating coal as a “mineral” under the March 20 EO, coal will be granted various benefits specific to mineral production, including expedited environmental review and a streamlined permitting process.
The April 8 EO also grants specific powers to various federal agencies to identify and assess coal resources and reserves on federal lands, as well as to prioritize coal leasing and related activities. The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Energy are instructed to identify, revise, or rescind any guidance, regulations, programs, or policies that seek to transition the United States away from coal production and electricity generation, or that discourage investment in coal projects, both domestically and internationally. These agencies are further instructed to promote and identify export opportunities for coal and coal technologies, and to facilitate international offtake agreements for U.S. coal. The order also specifically directs the Secretary of the Interior to publish a notice in the Federal Register terminating the Obama Administration’s 2016 “Jewell Moratorium,” which halted federal coal leasing on public lands with the intent to change the way the United States managed its coal and oil resources.
Finally, this EO expands the use of categorical exclusions for coal under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), which would allow coal-related projects to avoid NEPA’s requirements to prepare an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment.
Due to the broad powers being granted to these few federal agencies, along with the rescinding of previous administrations’ programs designed to limit coal production and reliance nationally, we anticipate litigation from various energy and environmental groups challenging this order.
Regulatory Relief for Certain Stationary Sources to Promote American Energy
The fourth action, a Presidential proclamation, also addresses coal usage in the United States but specifically in the context of coal-fired electricity production.
Invoking the authority of Section 112(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act, which allows the President to exempt stationary sources from compliance with federal emissions standards, this proclamation exempts certain coal-fired power plants from compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s May 7, 2024, final rule amending the preexisting Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS”) Rule that was issued to make air emissions more stringent. Citing national security concerns pertaining to the shutdown of coal-fired power plants that would cause the elimination of jobs and place the United States’ electrical grid at risk, as well as the unavailability of necessary technology to implement the MATS Rule, this proclamation issues an exemption to certain stationary sources subject to the Rule. Therefore, the Rule, which is scheduled to go into effect on July 8, 2027, will allow the stationary sources to be further exempt from the Rule’s stricter emissions requirements until July 8, 2029. All stationary sources that are specifically subject to this exemption are identified in Annex I of the proclamation.
Because there are certain stationary sources that may be excluded from Annex I and, thus, this exemption, we anticipate litigation from various companies and industries challenging their lack of inclusion in this exemption. Furthermore, it is expected that various energy and environmental organizations will file challenges to this EO in court.
Conclusion
All of these new executive actions are likely to face legal challenges from different states and energy and environmental groups. Blank Rome will continue to monitor any developments and provide updates on the legal and policy implications of these EOs.