Nearly six months after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its memo entitled "Reinforcing a 'Compliance First' Orientation for Compliance Assurance and Civil Enforcement Activities," the agency's message to regulated industries remains clear: civil environmental enforcement will now begin—and often end—with a focus on achieving compliance quickly, efficiently and cooperatively.

In December 2025, the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) issued a memorandum announcing that it will reinforce a "compliance first" orientation as the guiding principle for civil environmental enforcement nationwide. The memorandum issued by Craig J. Pritzlaff, then-Acting Assistant Administrator for OECA, signaled the EPA's shift away from expansive, enforcement‑heavy approaches and toward policies that emphasize timely compliance, cooperative federalism and narrower interpretations of environmental statutes. Less than two weeks later, Jeffrey Hall was confirmed as OECA's Assistant Administrator. There can be little doubt that this enforcement philosophy was a shared operating framework and will remain the guiding directive for enforcement initiatives moving forward. Indeed, since his confirmation, Hall has emphasized achieving prompt compliance, aligning enforcement initiatives with executive orders and Administrator‑level priorities, and reinforcing cooperative federalism through closer coordination with authorized states.

The months since the memo's issuance have provided an initial window into how OECA may translate "compliance first" from policy language into inspection practices, enforcement negotiations and coordination with authorized states. Regulated entities should not assume that the policy eliminates enforcement risk; rather, it may affect how EPA evaluates legal ambiguities and determines whether informal compliance tools or formal enforcement are appropriate.

A Policy Consistent with Broader Enforcement Trends

The compliance‑first policy is not a new concept. While it represents a marked change from policies that have been in place at the EPA in recent years, the compliance-first approach mirrors policies previously implemented at both the state and federal levels, including in the first Trump administration, when the then-Assistant Administrator Susan Bodine oversaw a transition of EPA's National Enforcement Initiatives to National Compliance Initiatives. It also mirrors the "Find It and Fix It" initiative, run by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality—Pritzlaff's prior employer—which focused on bringing Permian Basin oil and gas operators into compliance swiftly with little or substantially reduced risk of penalties.

The EPA's renewed compliance‑first enforcement framework also reflects policy themes that have appeared in broader discussions surrounding administrative law reform, including those outlined in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 report. In particular, both emphasize achieving regulatory compliance efficiently, grounding enforcement actions in clear statutory authority, limiting settlement terms to legally required remedies and reinforcing cooperative federalism by deferring to authorized state programs where appropriate. All signals suggest that the EPA's December 2025 memorandum operationalizes these principles within the Agency's existing statutory mandate, resulting in a shift toward narrower legal interpretations, reduced reliance on expansive enforcement tools and a greater focus on timely, cooperative compliance rather than prolonged civil litigation.

What "Compliance First" Means in Practice

At its core, the compliance‑first policy directs EPA personnel to begin every inspection or investigation by asking how compliance can be achieved in the most efficient, economical and swift manner possible. Enforcement remains an important tool, but it is no longer positioned as the default response to noncompliance with federal environmental law.

Both the memorandum and recent announcements from the EPA highlight the operational principles that are shaping the EPA's interactions with regulated entities.

1. Greater reliance on compliance assistance and voluntary disclosure.

EPA is prioritizing the use of compliance assistance tools, including outreach, technical guidance and training, to help regulated entities understand and meet their obligations. For example, on June 4, 2026, EPA Administrator Zeldin announced "another 100 top environmental actions" completed by the Agency within the past 500 days of the second Trump administration, with the list of 100 including only about 10 enforcement-related actions—many of which noted completion of matters that started during the prior administration. The vast majority of the 100 items fall into categories other than enforcement, including emergency response, grants and infrastructure investments, permitting, regulatory actions and policy initiatives.

The memo also reiterates the importance of self‑auditing and voluntary self‑disclosure as mechanisms for identifying and correcting violations early.¹  These principles are consistent with EPA's longstanding Audit Policy but can be expected to be utilized with more frequency. Companies that voluntarily discover violations through systematic auditing, promptly disclose them and correct them within prescribed timeframes may qualify for substantial penalty mitigation, including full waivers of gravity‑based penalties in some circumstances and a commitment that the EPA will not recommend criminal prosecution. Note, however, that there are some caveats. Even when applying the Audit Policy, economic benefit penalties may still apply, and the Agency will not reduce penalties or enforcement when violations involve serious harm, imminent danger, willful conduct or certain repeat violations.

2. Narrower use of injunctive relief and third‑party requirements.

The memorandum formally rescinded EPA guidance on "Using All Appropriate Injunctive Relief Tools in Civil Enforcement Settlements," concluding that it took an overly broad approach. The use of injunctive relief tools by EPA has shifted multiple times, with administrations taking, and implementing, opposing positions. Under the new policy, remedies such as third‑party audits, independent monitoring or enhanced reporting will be permitted only in limited, case‑specific circumstances and generally require OECA leadership approval.

The memorandum also makes clear that, until further guidance is issued, settlements may not include supplemental environmental projects (SEPs), and certain mitigation or stipulated remedies will require elevated review.

3. Open communication and fewer "surprises."

EPA inspectors and enforcement staff are directed to maintain open, two‑way communication with regulated entities throughout inspections and enforcement processes. This includes clearly communicating expectations, milestones and next steps, and providing regulated entities with early opportunities to address potential compliance concerns. The EPA expressly endorses a "no surprises" framework as a means of accelerating compliance and reducing resource‑intensive disputes.

This is also reflected in Administrator Zeldin's list of 100 actions, which include at least 20 items referencing active channels of communication and coordination with the regulated community. Whether through inspections, notice letters, permitting, compliance evaluations or negotiated agreements, the EPA is seeking to enhance and expand its engagement with regulated parties in meaningful ways.

The "Best Reading" of the Law and Cooperative Federalism

One of the more consequential aspects of the compliance‑first memorandum is the EPA's commitment to basing findings of violation and enforcement remedies on the "best reading" of applicable statutes and regulations. The memorandum instructs staff to avoid expansive interpretations that go beyond clear statutory or regulatory text and to elevate legal ambiguities for national‑level review to promote consistency across regions.

This approach hews closely to recent Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that agencies must identify and apply the best interpretation of ambiguous statutes, rather than relying on broad or aggressive constructions. Pursuant to decisions such as Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), agency statutory interpretation will generally be upheld only if it is the "best interpretation" of the statute. The EPA has indicated that it will develop consolidated, cross‑media criteria defining when formal enforcement, informal enforcement or field warnings are appropriate—though that guidance has not yet been issued.

The compliance-first memorandum also reinforces the EPA's deference to authorized states. Consistent with cooperative federalism principles, OECA enforcement activity must be grounded in a clear federal interest, with states retaining primary responsibility for many compliance and enforcement functions. For regulated entities operating in multiple jurisdictions, this may increase the importance of understanding and managing differences among state programs, particularly where states choose to enforce requirements more stringently under state law.

Open Questions and Practical Takeaways

The OECA memo arrived against the backdrop of what some claim had been a measurable decline in federal environmental enforcement activity generally. Significantly fewer environmental cases have been settled since the beginning of President Trump's second term, and available indicators suggest that a growing share of matters are being resolved through administrative processes rather than civil or criminal litigation. Clean Air Act enforcement, in particular, has been narrowed significantly and remains an area of active policy reassessment. For example, on January 21, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice announced via a post on X that it will no longer pursue criminal enforcement pursuant to the Clean Air Act for tampering with onboard diagnostic devices in motor vehicles.

While the compliance‑first memo provides important directional guidance, it remains to be seen whether and where the agency will focus its attention. Regardless, we anticipate some states and environmental groups will work to fill perceived enforcement gaps.

For regulated entities, the policy underscores several practical considerations:

• Investing in robust environmental management systems, internal audits, and prompt correction of issues may yield greater benefits under the new EPA policy. This investment has the dual benefit of allowing companies to identify, correct and report issues in this administration and to be well-regarded even in a far more enforcement focused administration.
• Relatedly, early, transparent engagement with the EPA is also likely to be productive. This administration's posture of providing broad relief to companies that self-report environmental violations provides an opportunity to address potential violations with lower risk than perhaps ever before. Those on the fence about a potential disclosure will want to consider that it may not remain the case for long. Policies may shift once again under a subsequent administration with a less compliance-first focus, and environmental violations are typically actionable for a period of five years, which would stretch well beyond the 2028 presidential election, where at least some measure of uncertainty exists.

Akin is continuously monitoring and engaging in EPA policy developments and state-level environmental enforcement.

1 Incentives for corporate voluntary disclosure of misconduct are being promoted throughout the Administration, including by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ Criminal Division updated its long-standing Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) in May 2025 to reflect an enhanced focus on providing transparent benefits to companies that voluntarily self-disclose misconduct. Even more notably, the DOJ issued the first-ever Department-wide corporate enforcement policy on March 10, 2026, to bring greater consistency and transparency across all DOJ components, in addition to the Criminal Division. For additional details, see our full assessment of the Department-wide policy here.