Melina Warling and Matthew Daly
When President Donald Trump rolled out plans to increase artificial intelligence and data centers, the key goal was to clear the barriers to rapid growth.
And that meant targeting the National Environmental Policy Act – the 55-year-old bedrock law aims to protect the environment through a process that allows the public to be heard before the project is approved, taking into account the possible impact of the project. Data centers that demand huge amounts of energy and water have sparked strong opposition in some communities.
The AI Action Plan released last week by Trump announced it would streamline environmental reviews and try to drive away the commonly known NEPA to get permission for data centers and related infrastructure. Republicans and business interests have long criticized NEPA for what is considered an irrational slowdown in development. Trump’s plan gives data centers a “category exclusion” for “maximum efficiency” in permits.
A spokesman for the White House Environmental Quality Council said the administration is “focusing on reducing federal permit delays and promoting meaningful NEPA reforms to unlock America’s ability to strengthen AI and strengthen manufacturing leadership.”
Trump’s administration has been weakening the law for months.
“It’s the standard for this administration’s course: Attitude is to clear the path of projects that are harmful to the community and the environment,” said Erin Dolan, senior staff lawyer at Food & Water Watch, an environmental nonprofit.
Here’s what you need to know about this important environmental law and Trump’s efforts to undermine it.
What is NEPA and why is it important?
NEPA is the basic environmental law of the United States, “essentially our Magna Carta is Magna Carta for the Environment,” says Wendy Park, a senior lawyer at the Center for Biodiversity, another environmental group, referring to the 13th century English legal texts that formed the basis of constitutions around the world.
Signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970, NEPA requires federal agencies to propose actions such as roads, bridges and energy projects to study how projects affect the environment. Private companies are often subject to NEPA standards when applying for permits from federal agencies.
In recent years, the act has become increasingly important in requiring that the potential contributions of projects to climate change be considered.
“It’s a really important feature, because otherwise there are alternative solutions that could achieve the same goal, but they’re blindfolded just to complete the project, without considering whether it’s a greener way,” Park said.
However, according to the business group, NEPA routinely blocks critical projects that often take more than five years to complete.
“Our broken permit system has long been a national embarrassment,” said Marty Durbin, president of the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute. He calls NEPA “a tool of dull chance” and is frequently used to block investment and economic development.
The White House proposal is working on a permit reform plan for Congress to overhaul the NEPA, addressing long-standing concerns from both parties that development projects that include some of the clean energy will take too long to be approved.
What happened to NEPA recently?
The strength and usefulness of NEPA depends on how it is interpreted by different managers.
Republican Trump called for the NEPA to be weakened in his first term by limiting environmental reviews when needed and limiting time for ratings and public comment. Former Democrat President Joe Biden has restored a more rigorous review.
During his second term, Trump once again targeted the law.
Many agencies have abolished the requirements for environmental impact statements in executive orders that violate the Environmental Act. The May CEQ also retracted Biden-era guidance that federal agencies should consider the impact of greenhouse gas emissions that warm the planet when conducting NEPA reviews.
Separately, the US Supreme Court in May narrowed the scope of environmental reviews needed for major infrastructure projects. In a ruling that includes the Utah Railroad Expansion Project aimed at quartiles in oil production, the court said NEPA was not designed “to hammer the new infrastructure and construction projects.”
“It was a rough eight months for NEPA,” said Dinah Bear, former adviser to the Environmental Quality Council under both Democrats and Republican presidents.
John Ruple, a research professor at the University of Utah’s Law School, said that side jobs can actually slow things down. Federal agencies must comply with other environmental laws, such as endangered species and the Clean Air Act. He said NEPA tends to overlook the oversight of enforcing adjustments with other laws.
Some examples of when NEPA plays a role
Trained botanist Mary O’Brien was working with a small Oregon organization in the 1980s to propose alternative techniques to revive the Douglas Far Tree, which had become clear on federal lands. Airborne herbicides intended to help the growth of conifers were not only linked to human health issues, but also killed another species of tree, red alder, which is beneficial to seedlings, O’Brien said.
The U.S. Forest Service had argued that the impact of herbicides on humans and red alder was not an issue. However, under NEPA, the court requested the agency to redo the analysis and ultimately had to write a new environmental impact statement.
“That’s a basic concept. Think about the ‘don’t just scream ahead’ option,” O’Brien said.
O’Brien, who later worked at the Grand Canyon Trust, co-chaired a working group focused on the Forest Service’s proposal in 2012, and was finalised in 2016 for Aspen repair in Monroe Mountain, Utah. Hunters, landowners, loggers and ranchers all had different opinions about how the restoration should be handled. She stated the NEPA requirements for engaging the public for better research and better planning.
“We are pleased to announce that we are a great source of urgent care for environmental law,” said Stephen Sima, senior advisor to the nonprofit Earth Examiner for Environmental Law. “NEPA has long been one opportunity for the community and has impacted stakeholders and local governments.”
Schima said rolling back the power of NEPA threatens the scientific integrity of investigating the full impact of the project.
“The decision will not be much informed by scientific research, which is one of the main concerns here,” he said.
Ruple said uncertainty from NEPA has changed and competing opinions on how to comply with legal requirements could lead to more lawsuits.
“And all of this rests on the shoulders of agencies that are losing the staff they need to lead them through these changes,” he said.
This story has been updated to revise the date until 2012 rather than 2018 due to the U.S. Forest Service’s proposal for Utah’s Aspen Repair.
x Follow Melina Walling at @melinawalling and bluesky @melinawalling.bsky.social.
Associated Press Climate and Environmental Insurance receives financial support from several private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP standards for working with Ap.org supporters and charities, a funded coverage area.
Original issue: July 29, 2025, 12:34pm EDT
