Technical corrections only. The changes between v3 and v4 reflect the bill's procedural movement from being engrossed in the House to being referred to the Senate. There are no substantive policy changes to the text of the bill.
Star-Spangled Summit Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Kennedy, Mike [R-UT-3]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 20, 2026
Bottom line
This bill mandates a specific patriotic display on federal land in Utah, streamlining the permit process by waiving fees and bypassing environmental review.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a 10-year special use permit for the installation, operation, and maintenance of a flagpole bearing the United States flag at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point within the Uinta National Forest, Utah. It prioritizes individuals with a history of displaying the flag at this location or qualified local organizations, and explicitly exempts the permit from land use fees, cost recovery fees, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill honors a longstanding local tradition of patriotic flag display at a prominent Utah landmark, removes unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles for a symbolic act, and ensures that dedicated community members can continue to maintain this important symbol without undue financial or regulatory burden.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that the bill sets an undesirable precedent by legislatively mandating a specific land use permit on federal land, bypassing the discretion of the Forest Service. They may also raise concerns about the explicit exemption from NEPA, arguing it undermines established environmental review processes and public participation for federal land management decisions.
The bill is exceptionally short and clear, allowing for a thorough understanding in a very brief timeframe.
Section 2(b)
Mandate for Special Use Permit for Flagpole
This provision directs the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Chief of the Forest Service, to issue a special use permit within 180 days of the bill's enactment. The permit, valid for 10 years, is specifically for the installation, operation, maintenance, and potential removal of a flagpole flying the United States flag at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point in the Uinta National Forest. The bill prioritizes individuals who have previously applied to display the flag or have a longstanding seasonal practice of doing so, or failing that, a qualified local nonprofit or volunteer organization.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures the continuation of a cherished local tradition and patriotic display, recognizing the dedication of community members who have maintained the flag. It provides certainty and a streamlined process for a widely supported local initiative.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this provision represents legislative overreach into the administrative functions of the Forest Service, potentially setting a precedent for Congress to micromanage specific land use decisions rather than allowing agencies to apply their expertise and established procedures.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire to honor a specific local patriotic tradition with the broader principle of maintaining agency discretion and uniform application of federal land management policies across national forests.
Section 2(c)(3), 2(e), and 2(f)
Exemptions from Fees and Environmental Review (NEPA)
This section grants significant exemptions to the special use permit holder. Specifically, the Secretary of Agriculture is prohibited from assessing any land use fees or cost recovery fees for the permit. Most notably, the bill explicitly states that the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) shall not apply to the issuance, renewal, or administration of this special use permit, including any activities related to the placing, maintenance, or removal of the flagpole at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point.
This section explicitly exempts the issuance, renewal, or administration of the special use permit, including all associated activities like placing, maintaining, or removing the flagpole, from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
Section 2(f)
Why it matters:This exemption is likely included to streamline the project and prevent potential delays or challenges that could arise from a full NEPA review, which can be a lengthy and resource-intensive process. It could be seen as standard legislative practice to expedite a specific, non-controversial project, or as a way to avoid scrutiny of potential environmental impacts.
Case for: Supporters argue that for a project of this nature and scale (a flagpole), a full NEPA review is an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle that would impose significant costs and delays without commensurate environmental benefit. The exemption ensures the project can proceed efficiently.
Case against: Critics argue that any exemption from NEPA, regardless of project size, weakens environmental protections and reduces public transparency and participation in federal land use decisions. They contend that it sets a dangerous precedent for bypassing established environmental safeguards.
Estimated impact: The direct environmental impact of a flagpole is likely minimal, but the procedural impact of exempting a federal action from NEPA is significant, potentially influencing future legislative approaches to federal land use.