
Permitting Reform Can Ensure a Lasting Manufacturing Renaissance
For manufacturing to continue growing our economy, creating jobs and developing the best products in the world, the United States must update its permitting laws and procedures. Permitting delays and associated costs make it harder for manufacturers to compete and win in the global economy. To fulfill President Donald Trump's plan to build America into a manufacturing powerhouse, permitting reform needs to go hand-in-hand with the administration's industrial strategy, which also includes tariffs on steel, tax cuts, and deregulation.
Construction workers are pictured.
Construction workers are pictured.
Getty Images
Bold actions are needed to fix the generational difficulties of building in the U.S. The administration has taken strong steps to alleviate the issues, such as the permitting technology action plan and the move to drastically cut approval times for energy projects. However, this requires a comprehensive, whole of government approach. The solutions must come from Congress and the administration to ensure certainty that cannot be wiped away with a new administration. Any reforms should do the following:
—Ensure Regulatory Certainty
Constantly shifting regulations are a nightmare for compliance and raise costs for all manufacturers. For instance, under the prematurely revised particulate matter (PM2.5) standard, the compliance level shifted from a tough but achievable number to an aspirational goal that is impossible or implausible for manufacturers to achieve. If the revised standard remains, economic growth will stall, as under the revised standard, the naturally occurring background levels of airborne particulate matter may put much of the country into non-attainment, meaning no construction permits will be issued. Manufacturing thrives on certainty, ensuring that regulations are achievable and stable helps manufacturers plan long-term and make positive investment decisions.
—Streamline the Paperwork and Process
Obtaining permit approvals for critical infrastructure projects often takes years. Before the 2023 debt ceiling deal, the White House Council on Environmental Quality issued a report stating that environmental impact statements, which are mandated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), took on average four and a half years. The mandatory studying of potential environmental impacts under NEPA takes longer than building a new steel mill. Streamlining the permitting process and reducing the endless required studies can ensure America is able to take advantage of incoming investment opportunities.
—Reform Litigation and Case Review
NEPA is the most litigated federal environmental statute. There are few limits to who can sue and when they can sue, which can dramatically delay the time to begin construction. Tightening limits on who can litigate and expediting review of cases is vital to ensuring swift adjudication. Putting a stop to endless delay tactics through the courts will help more projects break ground and bring much needed economic growth.
—Create an Approval "Shot Clock"
Manufacturing depends on access to our nation's plentiful natural resources. However, restrictions on the development of these resources are hindering our ability to strengthen domestic supply chains and making manufacturing more reliant on raw material imports. The National Mining Association reports that Australia and Canada, two countries with environmental protections that are arguably more stringent than those in the United States, have mine permitting processes that last two to three years on average, whereas in the U.S. the permitting process averages seven to 10 years. Creating a shot clock for approvals can dramatically expedite much needed projects.
—Expand One Federal Decision
One manufacturer reported lengthy delays of up to an entire year for the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers due to the failure of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to complete the informal consultation required for confirming no adverse project impacts under the Endangered Species Act. For an entire year, potential workers sat on the sidelines and a community lost out on economic opportunity waiting on informal paperwork that should not have taken longer than 90 days to complete. Having a single point of contact for all federal permitting decisions can ensure that no project waits years for an agency without primary jurisdiction to act.
Permitting affects every aspect of our lives—from our economic security to our national security. If we fail to modernize existing processes, we risk falling behind international competitors. However, if we create lasting solutions that make the federal process more efficient, we can make America a global manufacturing powerhouse again.
Philip K. Bell is president of the Steel Manufacturers Association.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
13 minutes ago
- Forbes
AMA: Doctors And Patients Hurt By ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
The American Medical Association says legislation wending its way through the Republican-controlled ... More Congress would 'take us backward' as a country by cutting health benefits for poor and low-income Americans, the group's president said Friday, June 6. In this photo, the US Capitol in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, June 3, 2025. Photographer: Eric Lee/Bloomberg The American Medical Association says legislation wending its way through the Republican-controlled Congress would 'take us backward' as a country by cutting health benefits for poor and low-income Americans. Meeting for its annual policy-making House of Delegates this weekend in Chicago, the AMA is rallying physicians to thwart the legislation now before the U.S. Senate. Legislation known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' that narrowly passed the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives two weeks ago 'would reduce federal Medicaid spending by $793 billion and that the Medicaid provisions would increase the number of uninsured people by 7.8 million,' a KFF analysis shows. 'We have to turn our anger into action,' AMA President Bruce A. Scott, M.D. said in a speech to AMA delegates Friday. 'I know our patience is being tested by this new administration and Congress.' The AMA said it has launched a 'grassroots campaign targeted at the Senate' in hopes of making changes to the legislation. The AMA is the nation's largest physician group with more than 200,000 members. 'The same House bill that brings us closer to finally tying future Medicare payments to the rising costs of running a practice, also takes us backwards by limiting access to care for millions of lower-income Americans,' Scott said. 'Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act are literal lifelines for children and families for whom subsidized health coverage is their only real option. We must do all we can to protect this safety net and continue to educate lawmakers on how best to target waste and fraud in the system without making it tougher for vulnerable populations to access care.' Scott, an otolaryngologist from Kentucky, said the Medicare physician payment system is broken and Congress hasn't addressed – as an increasing number of states have – prior authorization, the process of health insurers reviewing hospital admissions and medications. Prior authorization delays needed treatment and puts patient health in jeopardy, doctors say. 'I'm angry because the dysfunction in health care today goes hand in hand with years of dysfunction in Congress,' Scott added. 'I'm angry because physicians are bearing the brunt of a failed Medicare payment system. And while our pay has been cut by more than 33 percent in 25 years, we see hospitals and even health insurance companies receiving annual pay increases.' Meanwhile, the AMA says cuts to physician payments are pushing more physicians away from private practice and exacerbating the nation's doctor shortage. A recent analysis by AMN Healthcare shows only two in five physicians are now in doctor-owned private practices. And Americans in most U.S. cities face waits of at least one month before they can see certain specialists. 'Congress needs to know there is no 'care' in Medicare if there are no doctors," Scott said.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Ted Cruz proposes withholding broadband funding from states that regulate AI
The Brief Senator Ted Cruz proposed that states attempting to regulate AI should lose federal broadband funding. This proposal is an addition to a House-passed bill aiming for a 10-year ban on state AI regulation. Critics argue Cruz's plan is "undemocratic and cruel," forcing states to choose between broadband access and AI consumer protection. WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) proposed on Thursday an alternative punishment for planned legislation that would set a 10-year ban on state regulation of Artificial Intelligence model learning. Under Cruz's budget reconciliation proposal, an attempt to regulate AI would be prohibited from collecting federal funding provided by the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. The Proposal The U.S. House of Representatives passed their version of House Resolution 1, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," on May 22. In part, the budget bill would ban state regulation on AI for 10 years. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Cruz authored a budget reconciliation that he says is intended to "fulfill President Trump's agenda." In a summary of the proposal, he refers to state regulation as "strangling AI deployment," comparing it to EU precautions against tech development. Cruz's proposal adds $500 million to the BEAD program, which has already administered $42.45 billion to the states in order to expand high-speed internet access across the country. It also prevents states from receiving any of that funding if they attempt to regulate AI. Dig deeper Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) has recently spoken out against HR 1, saying the anti-regulatory section alone will cost Congress her vote. Greene explained that she discovered the controversial provision, located on pages 278-279 of the bill, only after the House had already passed the legislation. Once the bill returns to the House following Senate deliberations, Greene says she will change sides based on the matter of AI. What they're saying Advocacy group Public Citizen released a commentary on Cruz's proposal, referring to it as a "display of corporate appeasement." In the article, J.B. Branch, a Big Tech accountability advocate, included the following statement: "This is a senatorial temper tantrum masquerading as policy. Americans have loudly rejected Senator Cruz's dangerous proposal to give tech giants a decade of immunity from state regulation. State legislatures, attorneys general, and citizens across all 50 states have demanded that Congress step away from overhauling consumer protections put in place in the absence of federal leadership. But instead of listening to the American people, Senate Republicans threw a fit and tied vital digital funding to corporate impunity. "With this move, Republicans are telling millions of Americans: 'You can have broadband but only if your state gives up the right to protect you from AI abuses.' It's undemocratic and cruel. Republicans would rather give Big Tech a 10-year hall pass to experiment on the American people unchecked, rather than give underserved rural and urban communities the ability to compete in the digital economy. Congress must reject this corporate giveaway and refocus their energy on representing the public interest." In her statements criticizing the anti-regulation portion of HR 1, Greene expressed concerns about developing rapidly evolving tech without checks and balances. "No one can predict what AI will be in one year, let alone 10," Greene said. "But I can tell you this: I'm pro-humanity, not pro-transhumanity. And I will be voting NO on any bill that strips states of their right to protect American jobs and families." What's next HR 1 is expected to continue undergoing changes in the Senate before returning to the House for another vote. Cruz's proposal has yet to be officially added to the legislation. The Source Information in this article comes from public U.S. Congress filings, Public Citizen, and previous FOX 4 coverage.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Survey: Russians now see Germany, not US, as most hostile country
Germany is now considered the most hostile country towards Russia, a survey conducted by the independent Moscow-based polling institute Levada showed. The survey found that 55% of respondents named Germany as the most unfriendly state - a 40 percentage point increase since May 2020. In contrast, the United States, which held the top position for two decades, was named by only 40% of respondents, compared to 76% last year. This shift is attributed to the revival of Russian-American relations under US President Donald Trump, the institute said. Germany, however, has faced increasing criticism from the Russian leadership, particularly due to its arms deliveries to Ukraine, which has been under attack by Russia. The tone has notably hardened since Chancellor Friedrich Merz took office last month. The United Kingdom ranked second among countries perceived as hostile to Russia, with 49% of respondents, followed by Ukraine at 43%. Best Friends: Belarus and China The representative survey also asked Russians to name the five countries they associate as having the closest and friendliest relations with Russia. Belarus topped the list with 80% of respondents, followed by China with two-thirds. Kazakhstan ranked third with 36%, followed by India with 32% and North Korea at 30%. The results reflect the Kremlin's official policy of dividing the world into friendly and unfriendly states since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Germany, which was long one of the main buyers of Russian gas in the European Union, has faced criticism in Moscow for its military support for Ukraine. The representative survey was conducted between May 22 and May 28, with 1,613 people aged 18 and older participating, Levada said.