Executive Order on Federal Regulations and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Shift in Environmental Enforcement Policy

On May 9, 2025, Executive Order No. 14294 was issued, signaling a significant shift in the federal government’s approach to regulatory enforcement. The order, titled “Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations,” prioritizes administrative or civil penalties over criminal prosecution for regulatory violations, particularly those lacking willful intent. This policy change has direct and substantial implications for corporate accountability under federal environmental laws and the advancement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Core Directives and Alignment with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

The Executive Order fundamentally alters the framework for regulatory justice, reflecting a new interpretation of SDG 16, which calls for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions. By disfavoring criminal enforcement for strict-liability offenses and focusing on violations involving a clear mens rea (guilty mental state), the policy aims to refine the application of justice in the regulatory sphere. Key directives require federal agencies to:

• Disclose the specific conduct subject to criminal enforcement, its statutory authorization, and the applicable mens rea standard in all new rulemakings.
• Publish an annual list of all criminally enforceable regulations, including penalty ranges and mental-state requirements, by May 8, 2026.
• Review existing regulations to assess the feasibility of adopting a default mens rea standard.
• Issue new guidance for criminal referrals to the Department of Justice (DOJ) by June 23, 2025, which must consider factors such as the harm caused, the defendant’s expertise, and awareness of the illegality.

This emphasis on clarity, intent, and proportionality in enforcement aligns with the principles of SDG 16 but may concurrently reduce the deterrent effect of criminal penalties that protect environmental resources.

Potential Impacts on Environmental Protection and Key SDGs

The order’s preference for civil remedies in cases short of intentional misconduct may weaken the enforcement of laws critical to achieving several environmental SDGs. While aiming for a more focused justice system, the policy could inadvertently undermine protections for natural resources and public health.

• SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) & SDG 14 (Life Below Water): The Clean Water Act (CWA) allows for criminal charges based on negligence. A policy shift away from prosecuting such cases could increase risks to water quality and aquatic ecosystems from unpermitted or negligent discharges.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) & SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): The Clean Air Act (CAA) includes provisions for negligent endangerment from hazardous air pollutant releases. Reduced criminal enforcement could impact air quality and public health, particularly in urban and industrial areas.
• SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) & SDG 15 (Life on Land): Statutes like the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) govern the management of hazardous waste. A higher bar for criminal prosecution could lead to less stringent compliance with waste disposal and site remediation standards, threatening land ecosystems and sustainable production cycles.

Analysis of Affected Environmental Statutes

The policy’s focus on willfulness will disproportionately affect environmental statutes that establish criminal liability based on lower mental-state standards, such as negligence or knowledge.

Provisions with Potentially Reduced Enforcement

• Clean Water Act (CWA): Negligent discharges into U.S. waters (33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(1)).
• Clean Air Act (CAA): Negligent endangerment from hazardous air pollutant releases (42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(4)) and knowing permit violations (42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(1)).
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): Knowing storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste without a permit (42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)).
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): Knowing manufacture or distribution of unlisted chemicals (15 U.S.C. § 2615(b)(1)).

Provisions Less Likely to be Affected

• False Statements and Obstruction: Offenses under Title 18 and environmental analogs that inherently require intent.
• Knowing Endangerment: Provisions within the CWA and CAA that criminalize conduct known to place another person in imminent danger.
• Lacey Act: Provisions targeting willful wildlife trafficking.

Strategic Recommendations for Corporate Compliance and Sustainability

While the Executive Order may narrow the scope of criminal liability, it concentrates prosecutorial resources on the most egregious violations. Corporations should adapt their compliance and sustainability strategies accordingly.

1. Enhance Focus on Intentional Violations: Prioritize internal controls and training to prevent intentional misconduct, such as data falsification or bypassing pollution controls, which directly undermines corporate commitments to the SDGs.
2. Address Patterns of Non-Compliance: Recognize that repeated violations, even if minor, could be interpreted as evidence of willfulness, especially following agency inspections or enforcement actions.
3. Maintain Robust Compliance Systems: Document all good-faith compliance efforts, including training, procedures, and internal audits. This documentation serves as a critical defense against allegations of intentional wrongdoing and demonstrates a tangible commitment to sustainable and responsible operations.
4. Monitor Regulatory Developments: Actively track agency publications of criminally enforceable regulations and new DOJ referral guidance to identify and mitigate high-risk areas impacting environmental and social governance (ESG) performance.

The practical outcome is expected to be fewer but more severe environmental prosecutions. This places a greater premium on disciplined compliance programs that can demonstrate a clear and consistent commitment to environmental stewardship and the principles of the Sustainable Development Goals.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

The article discusses changes in the enforcement of federal environmental laws in the United States, which connects to several Sustainable Development Goals, primarily those concerning environmental protection and the rule of law.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The core of the article is about Executive Order No. 14294, which directly alters the legal and institutional framework for prosecuting environmental crimes. It focuses on justice principles like mens rea (guilty mental state), disfavors strict-liability offenses, and mandates new transparent procedures for agencies like the EPA and DOJ.
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: The article explicitly mentions the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the potential for fewer prosecutions for “negligent discharges to waters of the United States,” which directly relates to protecting water quality.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The article references several laws aimed at the sound management of chemicals and waste, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for hazardous waste, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for hazardous substance releases, and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for chemicals. The change in enforcement policy affects how violations of these regulations are handled.
• SDG 13: Climate Action: The Clean Air Act (CAA) is mentioned in the context of “negligent endangerment from hazardous air pollutant releases.” The CAA is a primary tool for regulating air pollutants, including those that contribute to climate change.
• SDG 14: Life Below Water: By discussing the enforcement of the Clean Water Act, which aims to prevent pollution in “waters of the United States,” the article touches upon the protection of aquatic ecosystems from land-based pollution sources.
• SDG 15: Life on Land: The article mentions the Lacey Act, which combats wildlife trafficking, and laws like RCRA and CERCLA that prevent land contamination from hazardous waste and substances, thereby protecting terrestrial ecosystems.

Specific SDG Targets Identified

Based on the issues discussed, the following specific SDG targets can be identified:

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The Executive Order’s focus on clarifying the mental state (mens rea) required for criminal liability and its preference for civil over criminal penalties for non-intentional violations is a direct attempt to shape the application of the rule of law in environmental regulations.
• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The EO mandates that agencies must “disclose in all new rulemakings” the conduct subject to criminal enforcement and “publish by May 8, 2026 (and annually thereafter) a list of criminally enforceable regulations.” This is a direct measure to increase institutional transparency and accountability.

SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

• Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials. The article discusses the reduced likelihood of criminal prosecution for “negligent discharges to waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act, which directly impacts the enforcement mechanisms for this target.

SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

• Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil. The article’s discussion of enforcement changes for RCRA (hazardous waste), CERCLA (hazardous substance releases), and TSCA (chemicals) relates directly to the legal framework supporting this target.

SDG 15: Life on Land

• Target 15.7: Take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna. The article notes that prosecutions under the “Lacey Act wildlife trafficking” provisions are less likely to be affected by the EO because they already require a higher level of intent, connecting the discussion to the enforcement against wildlife crime.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

The article implies several indicators that could be used to measure the implementation and effects of the Executive Order, thereby tracking progress toward the identified targets.

For SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

• Indicator: Publication of annual lists of criminally enforceable regulations by each executive agency. The article explicitly states this is a requirement of the EO, to be completed “by May 8, 2026 (and annually thereafter).”
• Indicator: Issuance of U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) referral guidance. The article specifies this must be issued “by June 23, 2025,” providing a clear, measurable deliverable.
• Indicator: The number and proportion of environmental prosecutions based on intentional misconduct versus negligence or strict liability. The article’s central theme is that the EO will shift focus to “egregious, intentional misconduct,” making this a key metric to evaluate its impact.

For SDGs 6, 12, 13, 14, 15 (Environmental Goals)

• Indicator: The number of criminal prosecutions and referrals for environmental violations under specific acts (CWA, CAA, RCRA). The article predicts that the “practical result may be fewer but more severe environmental prosecutions.” Tracking this number would measure the direct effect of the policy change.
• Indicator: The number of civil and administrative enforcement actions for environmental violations. The article suggests that strict-liability offenses “should primarily be addressed through civil or administrative means,” implying that an increase in these actions could be an expected outcome.
• Indicator: Penalty amounts for environmental crimes. The article suggests that while prosecutions may be fewer, “resulting penalties may be higher,” making the average penalty a relevant indicator of the shift to more severe cases.

Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: natlawreview.com