Op-Ed: John Mulligan and Joseph Hoefer: Permitting reform is the missing link in America’s AI strategy
The global race for AI dominance is one that America must win to ensure our economy and national security remain strong. American companies, innovators, and policymakers are right to view AI as an historic opportunity for our nation, but our growing AI ambitions are running up against a very old problem: bureaucratic red tape.
While Washington spends countless hours debating whether and how to govern AI systems, the infrastructure necessary to power those systems, like data centers, transmission lines, and power plants, is still trapped in in a regulatory maze that is designed to slow — or block — development at every stage of the process. If the U.S. wants to lead the next era of AI innovation, it needs to modernize and simplify how we permit and approve the physical projects that make that innovation possible.
That means treating permitting reform not just as an energy issue, but also as an AI issue.
The rise of AI is driving massive new demands on the U.S. energy grid. Some forecasts project that data centers alone could consume over 10 percent of our electricity within the next few years. But the buildout of supporting infrastructure is routinely slowed by outdated and duplicative permitting processes, particularly under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Simply put: AI innovation cycles move in months, but U.S. permitting takes years.
Included in the Republicans’ recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill was a significant reform to NEPA that creates a new “fee-for-speed" model that would allow developers to pay for expedited environmental reviews under NEPA, completing Environmental Assessments within six months and Environmental Impact Statements within a year. To give a little context on how big a change this is, just look at the Gateway South Transmission Line that took 15 years to receive permit approval.
These may sound like inside-the-Beltway tweaks, but they represent a fundamental modernization of how America builds. And they align with a broader shift already underway. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County clarified that NEPA is a procedural statute, not a tool for indefinitely delaying projects through litigation. The ruling not only narrowed the scope of required environmental analysis to direct project impacts but also reaffirmed that agencies, not courts, are best positioned to evaluate technical details. That’s a big deal for permitting reform, and a timely one.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has moved aggressively through executive action to streamline permitting, sunset outdated rules, and accelerate energy project approvals. But as with any executive action, those changes are inherently fragile. Codifying reform in statute is essential to ensuring long-term certainty for investors, developers, and innovators.
The AI sector is making multibillion dollar investments that will be here for decades to come, and what they need more than anything right now is regulatory certainty. They need to know that the rules governing their decisions today will be the same in five years. Right now, the risk isn’t that the U.S. lacks AI talent or capital. It’s that the infrastructure needed to scale AI, both compute and power, isn’t being permitted fast enough to compete globally. If we want to enable responsible AI development, we have to enable the infrastructure to support it. This is an urgent priority for our economy and national security, and we should approach it in the same manner - with urgency.
Of course, reform must preserve key environmental safeguards and uphold public trust. But the current system often fails on both counts: it creates long unpredictable delays while rarely delivering better environmental outcomes. That’s not good governance…it’s just inertia. And it’s an approach that doesn’t meet the current moment.
The AI future won’t wait. And with Congress and the Court both sending signals that it’s time to modernize NEPA, there’s a rare window to align innovation policy with infrastructure reality. Getting permitting reform right is a prerequisite for American AI leadership.
John Mulligan is a partner at Monument Advocacy, where he leads the firm’s energy and infrastructure practice. A former senior congressional staffer, he advises clients on the intersection of energy and technology policy.
Joseph Hoefer is a principal at Monument Advocacy, where he leads the firm’s AI practice. He advises clients across sectors on federal AI policy, regulation, and emerging technology strategy.