During Baker Botts' 39th Annual Environmental, Safety & Incident Response Seminar on January 28, 2026, Partner Julie Cress moderated a panel covering "Insights on EPA Priorities & Recent Actions" with former EPA attorneys and fellow Baker Botts lawyers Matt Morrison, Mark Talty and Matt Trawick.

Key Takeaways

1. EPA cases are built in the regions, but DOJ controls what moves forward. Most civil enforcement matters originate with EPA regional offices, then must pass through headquarters and DOJ review before filing in court. DOJ is placing heavy emphasis on evidentiary sufficiency, statutory risk, and practical impact, and is sending underdeveloped cases back for more work. The result is a narrower pipeline, longer timelines, and more selective litigation. 
    
2. Enforcement is being recalibrated around imminent risk and legal defensibility. Current priorities focus less on broad, programmatic initiatives and more on cases involving clear statutory hooks and immediate health or safety concerns. Traditional drivers such as EJ based screening and cumulative impact targeting have been scaled back, and internal guidance encourages reliance on the clearest, most defensible interpretations of law. This creates more room for dialogue on interpretive questions but does not eliminate enforcement exposure. 
    
3. Resource constraints are reshaping how cases are resolved. Staffing reductions at both EPA and DOJ are lengthening review cycles and encouraging use of administrative tools where possible. These include penalty waivers below certain thresholds and deputizing agency attorneys to handle more work internally. At the same time, broader injunctive relief and complex remedies still require DOJ and court involvement, adding time and process. 
    
4. Legal strategy is driving faster but riskier deregulation. The administration is pursuing rapid regulatory reversals grounded in aggressive legal interpretations and recent case law, rather than lengthy, record heavy rulemakings. This approach can yield quick wins if upheld in court, but if courts disagree, agencies may need to return to traditional rulemaking to rebuild the record. Regulated entities should expect both swift policy shifts and significant litigation around their durability. 

Federal environmental enforcement is increasingly shaped by a two-step dynamic between EPA and DOJ. Regional offices continue to identify and develop cases, but DOJ is applying a tighter screen before authorizing litigation, with close attention to evidentiary strength, statutory footing, and real-world impact. Combined with staffing constraints, this is leading to fewer, more targeted federal cases and longer timelines for review and resolution. At the same time, internal guidance is steering enforcement toward clear cut violations and imminent risks, while scaling back reliance on broader policy drivers that were prominent in recent years.

Parallel to this enforcement recalibration, agencies are pursuing an accelerated deregulatory agenda built on legal arguments rather than extensive administrative records. This creates a fast-moving policy environment where rules and standards may change quickly, but their long-term durability depends on how courts respond. For industry, the practical takeaway is twofold: early, well-documented engagement with regional regulators remains critical to resolving issues before they escalate, and compliance strategies should account for both the opportunity presented by a more receptive regulatory audience and the uncertainty created by ongoing legal challenges.