On January 24, 2017, just four days into his presidency, Trump signed Memorandum 2017-02032 directing the Army Corps of Engineers to grant the easement required to complete the Dakota Access Pipeline. The action reversed the Obama administration's December 2016 decision to deny the easement, effectively overturning months of environmental review and tribal consultation. The pipeline subsequently began crude oil transport from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to refineries in Illinois in June 2017.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe faced the most immediate consequences. The pipeline crosses the Missouri River just upstream from their reservation and sacred sites, creating direct risks to the tribe's primary water source. Members of the tribe had protested the project for years, citing concerns about potential oil spills contaminating drinking water and spiritual sites. Beyond Standing Rock, other tribes in the pipeline's path—including the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nations—also opposed the project on similar grounds. The memorandum dismissed these concerns without reopening environmental or cultural impact assessments.

This action established the template for Trump's subsequent fossil fuel expansion strategy. The Dakota Access reversal preceded a broader pattern of removing environmental protections and accelerating extraction projects. The recent invocation of the Defense Production Act for fossil fuels, the decision to open Minnesota wilderness to mining, and payments to abandon offshore wind development all reflect the same underlying prioritization: rapid fossil fuel development over environmental safeguards. Each action narrows the regulatory authority of agencies like the EPA while expanding corporate access to federal lands and waters.

The pipeline construction faced ongoing legal challenges from tribal nations and environmental groups, though the project continued operating. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe argued the easement violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, but courts largely upheld the Trump administration's streamlined review process. Reversal would require either legislative action to revoke the easement or a future administration's decision to deny the pipeline's continued operation, a step not yet taken.