EPA’s Revised National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives: One Year Later

On March 12, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) issued a memorandum providing guidance to EPA staff for implementing the Fiscal Years (FY) 2024-2027 National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives (NECIs) to align with Executive Orders signed by the White House and Administrator Zeldin’s “Powering the Great American Comeback” Initiative. The memorandum signaled a recalibration of EPA’s enforcement priorities following the start of the new Administration. One year later, enforcement statistics are becoming available, and while many predicted a retreat from environmental enforcement at the federal level during President Trump’s second term, the reality has been more nuanced: different priorities, and a reframing of enforcement activity under the Administration’s policy agenda.

Two Broad Directives and Five NECI Adjustments

The March 2025 memorandum established two overarching mandates. First, the memorandum directs that environmental justice (EJ) considerations can no longer inform EPA enforcement. The directive removed EJ from every phase of enforcement, in stark contrast to the Biden Administration, which had included EJ as a centerpiece of its EPA enforcement initiatives. The EJScreen tool that EPA previously made available for identifying EJ areas has been disabled, references to “overburdened” or “vulnerable” communities are now limited to physiological vulnerability to specific pollutants and relative pollutant levels. 

Second, the memorandum directs that enforcement actions can no longer shut down any stage of energy production or power generation absent an imminent and substantial threat to human health. Any proposed order that would unduly burden or significantly disrupt energy production requires advance approval from the OECA Assistant Administrator. 

Beyond these overarching mandates, the memorandum sets forth five specific redefined NECI areas:

1.  For climate change, EPA has redirected its focus on oil and gas methane emissions, to unlawful imports of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) products and has identified this initiative as “Multi-Media Border Security.”
2. For coal ash, the enforcement initiative remains; however, the memorandum revises this initiative to clarify that enforcement at active power plants is limited to imminent threats to human health and EJ considerations are no longer part of enforcement considerations. 
3. For air toxics, EPA has retained its focus on areas with the highest hazardous air pollutant (HAP) levels but dropped the specific EJ considerations for communities deemed “already highly burdened.”
4. For chemical accident risk reduction, EPA inspections now prioritize high-risk facilities regardless of the specific regulated chemicals present. 
5. Finally, under “Other Rules,” EPA has directed that OECA concurrence is required before EPA staff can enforce any EPA rule under reconsideration by the new Administration. 

In addition to the above redefined enforcement initiatives, EPA has also outlined the following as additional NECIs:

1.  Increasing Compliance with Drinking Water Standards; and
2. Addressing Exposure to PFAS

One Year of Enforcement Data 

The EPA enforcement narrative has clearly changed from that of the Biden Administration. The EPA FY 2024 Annual Enforcement Report repeatedly identified[1] “Environmental Justice,” “EJ,” and “Climate Change,” but these terms, perhaps unsurprisingly, do not appear in the EPA FY 2025 Annual Enforcement Report. The rhetorical shift, though, based on data provided by EPA, has coincided with a shift in the nature of EPA enforcement activity as well.

The FY 2025 annual report highlights a $1.5 million criminal penalty and a 90-day prison sentence for the president of a company alleged to have knowingly vented hazardous air pollutants.[2] While the number of criminal EPA investigations opened remained roughly the same year over year, based on the data provided by EPA, the number of criminal defendants charged for alleged EPA related violations during the first year of Trump’s second year increased by approximately 25 percent, reaching the highest level since 2016.[3] Similarly, incarceration years for alleged EPA violations in FY 2025 tripled compared to FY 2024.[4] And, based on data provided by EPA, total criminal fines, restitution, and court-ordered relief exceeded $600 million.[5][6]  While the data provided for FY 25 is interesting and perhaps indicative of specific trends, many of the enforcement actions reflected in EPA’s FY 25 data began under the Biden Administration, so the true direction of EPA’s enforcement under Trump’s second term may not be fully borne out in the data until later fiscal years. 

HFC Enforcement and Border Security

One area of clear focus for EPA is enforcement of HFC reduction goals under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act. This work dovetails with the Administration’s emphasis on border and customs enforcement. In FY 2025, EPA assessed a $427,000 civil penalty for the illegal importation of HFCs, the largest such penalty to date. The agency also charged six defendants for illegally smuggling HFCs.

Coal Ash

The coal ash space also illustrates how EPA is applying the March 2025 memorandum’s directive. While the FY 2024 annual enforcement report highlighted multiple settlements for coal combustion residual (CCR) compliance issues, the FY 2025 report contained none. This suggests EPA is reserving federal action for situations it perceives as “imminent threats to human health,” consistent with the memorandum’s directive to enforce only against imminent threats at active facilities.

Recent EPA rulemaking activities reinforce this shift. On April 9, 2026, EPA proposed amendments to the CCR regulations that would replace several uniform federal requirements with site-specific flexibility.[7] Under the proposed rules, permitting agencies would have the flexibility to make individualized determinations in three key areas: the appropriate point of compliance for groundwater monitoring systems, cleanup levels during corrective action for constituents that lack a federal maximum contaminant level, and the appropriateness of certain closure requirements at specific facilities. The proposal indicates that the flexibilities would still require the owner or operator to demonstrate that the unit poses no reasonable probability of adverse effects on human health and the environment, which is consistent with the March 2025 memorandum. 

OECA Concurrence Requirement May Stymie Certain Enforcement for Now

The 2025 memorandum’s “Other Rules” provision requires OECA concurrence before any enforcement action is taken pursuant to an EPA rule that is under reconsideration by the new Administration. As the Administration reconsiders more EPA rules, this concurrence requirement applies in an expanding number of contexts. For example, on September 16, 2025, EPA proposed to permanently remove reporting obligations for 46 of 47 source categories under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, covering more than 8,000 regulated entities across sectors including petroleum refining, cement production, aluminum manufacturing, and municipal solid waste landfills.[8] EPA has also proposed to vacate new lower emission standards for Particulate Matter (“PM”), and is in the process of reconsidering many other environmental rules promulgated by the Biden Administration. The requirement that OECA concur with EPA enforcement staff related to rules under reconsideration could have wide-ranging implications for enforcement.

Company Considerations and Conclusions

While there have been a number of deregulatory efforts by EPA under the second Trump Administration, EPA still maintains NECIs and enforcement remains ongoing — particularly in the specific areas of focus EPA has outlined related to HFC imports, PFAS, hazardous air pollutant releases, and chemical accident prevention.

Companies where these enforcement initiatives are relevant should remain steadfast in their compliance measures, whether that be through internal best practices, auditing, monitoring, recordkeeping, or other compliance procedures. In addition, while enforcement priorities may have changed under the current Administration, priorities ebb and flow, and companies would be wise to continue to monitor and maintain compliance with each of the environmental requirements applicable to their operations whether EPA, under the current Administration, has identified those specific requirements as priorities or not. 

For additional information regarding these developments or related compliance considerations, please contact this article’s authors or your regular Foley & Lardner contact.