The Broken U.S. Permitting System Is A Drag On The Country’s Manufacturing Sector

A new report from the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the Foundation for American Innovation has determined the United States’ broken infrastructure permitting system costs the country’s manufacturers approximately $7.9 billion each year.

The findings highlight the urgent need for bipartisan, comprehensive permitting reform — an initiative the Metals Service Center Institute has supported for years.

The report draws from a joint survey of manufacturers conducted between Dec. 9, 2025, and Jan. 15, 2026 that examined the types of projects companies are pursuing, the permits they most frequently require for those projects, where uncertainty and regulatory complexity create challenges, and which reforms would have the greatest positive impact.

The findings reveal a permitting system that hits manufacturers hardest where they operate most often: routine upgrades, expansions, and ongoing operations. The report noted:

• 8 percent of manufacturers said permitting concerns discourage investment in new or expanded capacity;
• 6 percent of manufacturers would increase U.S. investment if permitting timelines were shorter and more predictable; and
• The most common permitted activities are facility expansions and equipment upgrades, not megaprojects.

The report also outlines eight principles for federal lawmakers as they seek to improve permitting processes. They are that:

• Minor upgrades should face proportional review — not novel-project scrutiny;
• Unchanged operations should trigger verification, not full re-permitting;
• Timelines should be predictable;
• National Environmental Policy Act reviews should be reformed by expanding categorical exclusions, narrowing scope, and expediting judicial reviews;
• The Clean Air Act should be made more workable by ensuring realistic review cycles and allowing regional credit trading;
• The Clean Water Act should be streamlined by clarifying timelines and scope along with expanding the use of general permits;
• Procedural litigation should only halt operations when irreparable harm is imminent; and
• Legally permitted projects must stay permitted in order to limit revocation risk.