Trump’s Permit Tech Memo: Promising Ideas, Implementation TBD

restorationnews
Written By Becca Madsen

Co-written by Becca Madsen, Danielle Bissett, and Jessie Mahr

Earlier this week, the Trump Administration released a Presidential Memo (PM), “Updating Permitting Technology for the 21st Century” (White House, April 15, 2025), directing government agencies to “make maximum use of technology in environmental review and permitting processes for infrastructure projects of all kinds, such as roads, bridges, mines, factories, power plants, and others.” On the face of it, this looks like a dream directive, particularly as it echoes so much of what we’ve been recommending for modernizing and streamlining permitting processes –we’ve even recommended issuing an Executive Order (see our Smart Permitting Agenda for the Trump-Vance Administration, and many additional resources below). 

If done right, this PM could be a massive step in the right direction… But it all depends on how it’s implemented.

Here are our top concerns:

  • The dissolution of 18F, layoffs, and hiring freezes have reduced the tech talent pool and will inhibit the Administration’s ability to deliver on this PM. 

  • There’s a potential that the Administration will implement this solely to speed the National Energy Dominance Council’s favorite projects, with environmental impacts outpacing the required mitigation for large energy infrastructure projects (see Unleashing American Energy Executive Order from January). We hope they prove us wrong.

  • The fact that this PM includes two points about defense of legal challenges suggests that the Administration has more of a focus on defending decisions than learning from them.

There are also potential positives that could establish the foundation for smart permitting and better outcomes. Below we review where the PM’s various directives could go right and where they could go wrong. Our recommendations are sourced from our suite of permitting resources. 

Where This Could Go Right

  • Eliminating paper applications: It's still common to print out permit applications—sometimes hundreds or thousands of pages long—to be mailed or hand-delivered to regulators. E-permitting systems can dramatically improve speed and accountability over this paper process. For example, each Army Corps regulator has 40-60 wetland permits on their desk at any given time, and there are roughly 60,000 permits issued annually. It currently takes about a week to manually enter basic permit data into databases. Automation of this data entry has no impact on review quality—it just removes drudgery and gives regulators more time to focus on the actual review. 

  • Accelerating processing time with little to no impact on quality of review; Reduce the length of permit documents: Technology can automate basic tasks like 'completeness' checks faster and more objectively than manual reviews. AI-enabled query systems could help staff and permit applicants to tap into databases of rulings, guidelines, and past projects. This allows staff (and permittees), allowing them to access relevant information in seconds instead of hours. Agencies can also direct staff to get to ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ faster in the proposal stage. This is a tangible way to reduce the length of permitting documents and turnaround time from staff. The US Army Corps of Engineers recently directed staff to view early-stage proposals of wetland restoration plans as a strategy that only needs a “60% level of design detail.” This paradigm shift moves staff away from iterating and re-iterating on creating a ‘perfect plan’, and instead focuses on project outcomes while providing flexibility to address the unexpected. Unless a project is uniquely complex, we think this is a good strategy. 

  • Increase the accessibility of permitting documents: AI-assisted visualization tools can replace lengthy NEPA 'viewshed' analyses (often exceeding 50 pages) with interactive visualizations that help stakeholders better understand proposed changes. 

  • Reduce duplicative data submissions: Permit applicants currently navigate multiple agencies across local, state, and federal levels. Those looking to build things should have  a single entry point with the government where they can both receive all materials they need for a project up front and submit all materials, and then agencies work together on the back end to evaluate the project, provide feedback, and issue permits

  • Increase the interagency use of existing analyses: Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent yearly on field surveys and analyses for permitting, and this data is essentially abandoned. Remember that warehouse in Indiana Jones? That’s where the nation’s data is. Allowing the reuse of permitting data (and textual data of permits themselves) can help applicants and regulators identify best practices, potential red flags, and efficiently apply lessons learned to improve new projects. 

A caveat to all-out data aggregation: The Administration should develop means of flagging and removing Tribal data from data repositories. This includes any information collected from, describing, or identifying locations of significance to an Indigenous community, government or Tribe (see additional detail on Tribal data sovereignty here and here). Information about other sensitive historical sites or presence of threatened or endangered species should also be flagged and removed from any data repository. 

  • Eliminate friction in coordination between agencies: With consistent data standards, we could solve the problem of disparate agency databases that make it impossible to holistically evaluate projects. Data standards were important enough to be mentioned 48 times in CEQ’s Permitting Portal Study delivered to Congress last year. The Permitting Council’s FAST-41 Permitting Dashboard is an exemplary pilot project on this score. An online collaboration space could also reduce friction in reviews and provide an archive of decisions, especially valuable during staff turnover. Creating interagency teams tasked with permit reviews can also be particularly helpful following the removal of NEPA implementing guidelines, which creates inconsistent implementation across agencies with their own agency-specific guidance. 

  • Improve the transparency and predictability of project permitting schedules: Virginia's Permitting Enhancement and Evaluation Platform system demonstrates the positive effects of transparent, predictable permit timelines. It shows applicants where their permit is in the process, includes automatic timestamps, target timelines, and identifies who's handling the permit. No more ‘black hole’ after submitting a permit. The state has said that its system has “streamlined 50,000 regulatory requirements and saved Virginia citizens over $1.2 billion.” These are great cost savings that don’t come at the expense of the quality of reviews.

  • Streamline the overall environmental review and permitting process at the Federal level, with the goal of speeding data gathering and decision-making: We’ve seen that this is work when a state or federal leader adopts a priority goal of improving processing times; establishes and tracks reasonable processing timelines where none exist; publicly reports processing times to ensure transparency; develops performance improvement plans for permits with significant delays; and holds staff at all levels accountable through performance metrics.

  • The PM also includes actionable steps (creating an Action Plan and Permitting Innovation Center), timelines, and identifies who is accountable in Sections 2 and 3. The current Administration is not the only one to look into permit modernization - a lot could be learned from successes, failures, and recommendations highlighted in past reports (e.g., the Permitting Portal Study), the work of the Permitting Council, the FAST-41 program, investments in agency tech and tools, and the Bipartisan Policy Center’s analysis of NEPA timelines. 

Where This Could Go Wrong

  • Digital versions of broken systems: Implementing new tech without addressing underlying process inefficiencies risks creating digital versions of the same broken systems.

  • Staffing and talent gaps: The dissolution of 18F and recent departure of agency Chief Information Officers raises concerns about who will lead these technology transitions and whether agencies will have necessary expertise. In addition to staff with tech expertise, there is a need to hire, train, and retain government permitting staff. In EPIC’s interviews with more than 50 permit applicants, a lack of agency staffing or staff expertise was universally cited as a primary cause of delays. Cutting the budget of a regulatory agency in an attempt to deregulate can backfire, causing even more delays.

  • Government technology limitations: Government may never keep pace with private sector advancements in technology. The Administration should prioritize creating APIs allowing private sector access to e-permitting data, enabling the development of useful services.

  • Organizational culture resistance: There's a need to ensure employees find value in new systems—something a human-centered design process can help address. Agency leaders can also foster a solution-oriented regulatory culture that prioritizes efficiency. 

  • Insufficient long-term investment: Government technology projects often fail due to inadequate funding for ongoing maintenance and evolution. Without sustained investment, initial gains could erode quickly.

  • Energy project focus: We fear these improvements will only be implemented for energy projects, with benefits never granted to other investments in America. Importantly, for permitting to work effectively, the restoration projects legally required for permit approval (aka ‘mitigation’) must progress alongside development impacts, and should receive equal if not greater streamlining benefits. We believe complex, large-scale restoration projects should be approved in under 1 year, and well-known, typical restoration activities should be approved in 60-90 days.

  • Limited interoperability: The Administration should not neglect interoperability with state and local agencies, which are often part of permit reviews.

  • Defending rather than learning: The fact that this PM includes two points about the defense of legal challenges suggests the Administration has more focus on defending decisions than learning from them. 

  • Potential limitations on tribal consultation and public commenting limitations: In developing e-permitting systems, it will be important to incorporate NEPA early consultation requirements regarding indigenous communities. Given that the Administration has flagged key terms like “indigenous,” “Native American,” and “tribal,” we suspect that concordance with NEPA requirements may be sidelined. We also suspect public comment opportunities will be targeted for elimination, given that the Administration recently suggested agencies could repeal regulations without notice and comment. This approach risks legal delays rather than efficiencies. Why not take the money that would have been spent on legal defense and identify efficient, technology-supported pathways for meaningful input from affected stakeholders?

  • Relying on simple fixes: Page limits and deadlines won't automatically create efficiencies. They're tempting "simple fixes," but experience shows they don't address underlying inefficiencies.

  • Data access issues: To date, the Administration has pulled more data down from public websites than it has published. Additionally, some publicly available data used by permit applicants is 5, 10, and even 50 years out of date. We need higher-resolution, up-to-date data to help permit applicants better site projects and avoid impacts from the get-go. 

  • Community data gaps: If e-permitting is built without providing context about economically disadvantaged communities (because the Administration removed public access to many datasets of this nature), projects may continue or increase negative impacts on communities.

  • One-way transparency: Too often, e-permitting outcomes and timelines are only provided to the permit applicant rather than increasing transparency for the American public.

  • Permitting innovation center: the PM establishes this new center, but it could overlap with or duplicate efforts of the existing Permitting Council, creating potential confusion about roles and responsibilities.

If done right, this PM could be a massive step in the right direction for our ability to deliver needed infrastructure projects across the US.

EPIC is here to work with you to improve permitting and ensure it delivers better outcomes for everyone. Check out the resources below to learn more about our smart permitting recommendations. As experts in this field, we believe that thoughtful, targeted policy-oriented solutions are the key to achieving meaningful progress. Together, we can build a permitting process that is smart, efficient, and as dynamic as the environmental challenges we face, paving the way for a resilient and sustainable future for all.

Please reach out to any one of us via email if you’d like to discuss further: Danielle Bissett, Becca Madsen, and Jessie Mahr.

Becca Madsen
Next

Working Wonders in Purpose Driven Innovation Labs