Executive Order 13840, signed on June 19, 2018, fundamentally restructured federal ocean governance by directing all relevant agencies to develop a unified ocean policy framework explicitly prioritizing economic development and national security alongside environmental stewardship. The order required a comprehensive review of existing ocean policies and mandated that agencies streamline permitting processes for offshore energy development and infrastructure projects. This legal mechanism shifted the traditional administrative balance away from environmental review toward accelerated commercial licensing, particularly benefiting the fossil fuel industry's expansion into offshore territories.

The immediate beneficiaries were energy companies seeking permits for offshore oil and gas drilling, while the direct casualties were coastal communities, marine ecosystems, and commercial fishing interests dependent on healthy ocean resources. Fishermen in New England, the Gulf Coast, and Alaska faced heightened uncertainty about fishing grounds as permitting accelerated. Environmental organizations noted that the compressed review timeline reduced opportunity for meaningful public comment on projects with decades-long environmental consequences. Federal agencies managing these permits faced competing mandates, with economic and security priorities now explicitly elevated to equal status with environmental protection.

This 2018 order established the foundational framework that later Trump administration actions would aggressively exploit. The restructuring of EPA leadership and regulatory rescissions in 2026, the Defense Production Act invocations for fossil fuel acceleration, and the active dismantling of renewable energy projects like offshore wind all operated within the governance structure Executive Order 13840 created. The order effectively subordinated ocean conservation to resource extraction, setting precedent for the subsequent elimination of Biden-era protections in Minnesota wilderness and the systematic defunding of environmental oversight.

The order faced legal challenges from environmental groups contesting the adequacy of environmental impact assessments, though courts generally upheld the executive's authority to reorganize agency procedures. No congressional action successfully reversed the underlying directive. Meaningful remedy would require a new executive order explicitly restoring environmental review primacy and slowing permitting timelines to allow comprehensive environmental assessment before approvals.