Let America Build Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 11, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to boost domestic energy production and mineral extraction by reducing regulatory hurdles and accelerating project approvals across various Federal agencies.
What it actually does
The "Let America Build Act of 2026" aims to significantly streamline and accelerate permitting processes for oil, gas, and mineral development on Federal and non-Federal lands, as well as for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) authorizations. It introduces reforms to environmental review processes, limits judicial review, expands State and Tribal authority in certain areas, and modifies definitions for critical minerals. The bill seeks to reduce regulatory hurdles and litigation risks to boost domestic energy and mineral production.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is crucial for enhancing American energy independence, bolstering national and economic security, and creating jobs by removing unnecessary bureaucratic delays and litigation risks that hinder vital infrastructure and resource development. They contend that current permitting processes are overly burdensome, leading to project cancellations and increased costs, and that this bill will unlock domestic potential.
Opponents contend
Critics contend that the bill severely weakens environmental protections by limiting environmental reviews, restricting judicial oversight, and delegating Federal authority to States, potentially leading to increased pollution, habitat destruction, and adverse impacts on public health and climate goals. They argue that it prioritizes industry interests over public and environmental safeguards.
The bill is moderately long and technically dense, requiring significant time to understand its full implications, especially given its numerous amendments to existing statutes. The time typically allotted for public and congressional review of such complex legislation is often insufficient for thorough analysis.
Sec. 1101(r) and (s), Sec. 1102(q) and (a)
Limitations on Litigation and Lease Cancellation for Oil and Gas
This provision significantly limits the impact of environmental litigation on onshore and offshore oil and gas leases. It states that civil actions challenging environmental reviews (under NEPA, FLPMA, NHPA) for lease sales will not affect the validity of issued leases or delay permit-to-drill timelines. If a court finds an environmental review violates NEPA, it must remand the issue to the Secretary of the Interior for resolution rather than vacating or setting aside the leases. Furthermore, leases cannot be canceled based on a court finding of an environmental review violation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that these provisions provide much-needed regulatory certainty for energy companies, preventing costly and lengthy delays caused by litigation, which often targets procedural aspects rather than substantive environmental harm. They contend it will accelerate domestic energy production.
Critics contend
Critics argue that these provisions undermine the rule of law and the effectiveness of environmental statutes like NEPA. They contend that by insulating leases from judicial remedies, the bill removes a critical check on agency decision-making and could lead to less thorough environmental reviews and greater environmental harm.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for regulatory certainty and accelerated energy development against the principles of judicial oversight and environmental accountability. It trades potential environmental safeguards for reduced litigation risk and faster project timelines.
Sec. 1201
Cooperative Federalism in Oil and Gas Permitting on Federal Land
This section amends the Mineral Leasing Act to allow the Secretary of the Interior to delegate exclusive authority to states for issuing permits to drill (APDs), approving drilling plans, sundry notices, suspensions, and rights-of-way on specific 'available Federal land.' States can also inspect and enforce these permits. Crucially, state processing of applications would continue regardless of ongoing federal environmental reviews (NEPA or ESA). States can collect fees for administering these programs, and federal penalties for violations are precluded if a state has already imposed sanctions for the same violation.
Sec. 1202
Permitting Compliance for Federal Minerals on Non-Federal Land
This section exempts certain oil and gas wells from federal permit-to-drill requirements under the Mineral Leasing Act. Specifically, if the federal government owns less than 50% of the minerals in a drilling unit and no surface estate, or if a wellbore traverses/produces from a federal mineral estate but is located on non-federal land overlying non-federal minerals, a federal permit to drill is not required. The Secretary of the Interior's authority on such non-federal land is limited, prohibiting requirements for bonds to protect non-federal land, entry without landowner consent, mitigation requirements, or approval for surface reclamation.
Sec. 1203
State and Tribal Authority for Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation
This section prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from enforcing federal regulations, guidance, or permit requirements regarding hydraulic fracturing for oil, gas, or geothermal production activities in any state that has its own regulations for that activity. It mandates deference to state regulations on federal land. For tribal trust lands, federal enforcement of hydraulic fracturing regulations is prohibited without the express consent of the beneficiary. States are required to submit their hydraulic fracturing regulations to the Bureau of Land Management for public availability.
Sec. 1301
Expedited Action on Liquefied Natural Gas Export Applications
This section sets a strict 45-day deadline for the Secretary of Energy to issue a final decision on applications to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) after the completion of all required environmental reviews under NEPA. If the Secretary fails to meet this deadline, the application is automatically considered approved, and the environmental review is deemed sufficient. It also establishes original and exclusive jurisdiction for judicial review of these decisions in the circuit court where the facility is located, with a mandate for expedited review.
Sec. 2001
Land Use Plan Criteria for Mineral Resources
This section amends the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to require that land use plans review applicable mineral resource assessments. In consultation with the Secretaries of Energy and Defense, these plans must determine the significance of minerals located within public lands to energy security, national security, and economic security.
Sec. 2006(b) and (h)
Expanded Mineral Permitting Process Improvements and Deadlines
This section expands existing critical mineral permitting process improvements (from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) to apply to *all* minerals, not just critical ones. It designates a lead agency for mineral projects, requires a memorandum of agreement with the applicant, and sets strict NEPA review deadlines: 1 year for an Environmental Assessment (EA) and 2 years for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A record of decision and all other federal authorizations must be issued within 90 days after the environmental document is published. It also allows lead agencies to adopt environmental documents prepared by applicants and applies these requirements to pending applications upon request.
Sec. 2006(f)
Hardrock Mining Mill Sites and Abandoned Mine Fund
This section amends the Mining Law of 1872 to allow for the location of multiple mill site claims (up to 5 acres each) for operations reasonably necessary for mineral development, even on land where a claimant already maintains a lode or placer claim. These mill sites do not convey mineral rights and are not eligible for patenting. The section also establishes an "Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund" in the U.S. Treasury, into which claim maintenance fees from these new mill sites will be deposited. Funds from this account are to be used for abandoned mine reclamation.
Sec. 3001(g) and Sec. 3002(10)
Narrowed NEPA Review for FERC Projects and Prohibition of Social Cost Metrics
These sections significantly alter how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) conducts environmental reviews under NEPA for natural gas and electric transmission projects. They redefine "effects" to mean physical changes that are reasonably foreseeable, not speculative or remote, have a reasonably close causal relationship (explicitly excluding a "but for" relationship), are preventable by FERC, and *do not include potential effects from emissions upstream or downstream of the facility*. Additionally, FERC is explicitly prohibited from considering or applying any metric that purports to estimate the monetized damages or benefits associated with incremental greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., social cost of carbon).
Sec. 3003
Promoting Interagency Coordination for Natural Gas Projects
This section designates FERC as the *only* lead agency for NEPA reviews of natural gas authorizations, requiring deference to FERC's scope of review. It establishes a process for identifying and designating "participating agencies" (federal, state, local, tribal), and non-participating agencies are largely barred from requesting supplemental environmental reviews. It sets a 90-day deadline for all federal authorizations after FERC completes its environmental review. Agencies must formulate plans for concurrent reviews and notify Congress if deadlines are missed. Applicants can fund third-party contractors for application review, and FERC must consult with TSA on pipeline security.
These sections amend the Mineral Leasing Act and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to specify that oil and gas leases cannot be canceled by the Secretary of the Interior based on a federal court finding that the environmental review for the lease sale violated NEPA or other relevant acts. Instead, the matter must be remanded to the Secretary to resolve the violation.
Sec. 1101(s) and Sec. 1102(a)(1)(A)
Why it matters:This provision is highly consequential and potentially controversial, as it directly curtails judicial power to set aside leases. Burying it within technical amendments to existing acts might be a tactical choice to reduce its visibility and avoid direct debate on the scope of judicial review.
Case for: Proponents argue this provides essential regulatory certainty for leaseholders, protecting investments from procedural challenges that don't necessarily reflect substantive environmental harm. It prevents project delays and cancellations based on technicalities.
Case against: Critics contend this provision undermines judicial oversight and accountability, allowing leases to remain valid even if the underlying environmental review was legally flawed. They argue it removes a critical check on agency actions and could lead to less rigorous environmental assessments.
Estimated impact: Significantly reduces legal risk for oil and gas companies holding federal leases, potentially accelerating development and reducing litigation costs.
This clause states that a state, once delegated authority for oil and gas permitting on available federal land, shall continue processing applications regardless of whether the federal government is carrying out any review related to the permit under NEPA or the Endangered Species Act.
Sec. 1201(b)(4)
Why it matters:This provision creates a significant decoupling of state and federal environmental review processes. Its placement might be intended to obscure its potential to accelerate projects by allowing state approvals to proceed even if federal environmental concerns are unresolved, which could be seen as an evasive tactic to avoid direct scrutiny.
Case for: Proponents argue this prevents federal environmental reviews from indefinitely delaying state-level permitting, thereby accelerating projects and reducing bureaucratic bottlenecks. It respects state authority to move forward with their processes.
Case against: Critics contend this provision could lead to projects being approved at the state level before federal environmental impacts are fully assessed or mitigated, potentially creating conflicts and undermining federal environmental protections.
Estimated impact: Could significantly accelerate project timelines by removing federal environmental review as a potential bottleneck for state-issued permits, potentially leading to faster resource extraction.
This clause mandates that for mineral projects, the record of decision and all authorizations required under any other federal law must be issued not later than 90 days after the applicable environmental impact statement or environmental assessment is published in the Federal Register.
Sec. 2006(h)(3)(D)
Why it matters:The 90-day deadline is extremely tight for complex projects requiring multiple federal agency approvals. Its placement might be a tactical maneuver to impose a stringent timeline without drawing immediate, high-level attention to the potential for rushed decisions or legal challenges from agencies unable to meet the deadline.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that once the primary environmental review is complete, other agencies cannot indefinitely delay a project, providing crucial certainty and accelerating mineral development.
Case against: Critics contend that a 90-day deadline for all federal authorizations is unrealistic and could force agencies to make hasty decisions without adequate review, potentially leading to errors, legal challenges, or overlooked environmental impacts.
Estimated impact: Could dramatically accelerate the final approval stage for mineral projects, but also risks compressing critical agency review periods.
These sections redefine the term "effects" as used in NEPA for FERC-regulated projects. The new definition excludes potential effects from emissions upstream or downstream of the facility and requires a "reasonably close causal relationship" that is not merely a "but for" relationship.
Sec. 3001(g)(1) and Sec. 3002(10)(A)
Why it matters:This redefinition significantly narrows the scope of environmental impacts FERC must consider, particularly regarding climate change. Its technical nature and placement might be intended to limit public and political scrutiny of a change that has profound implications for climate policy and environmental review.
Case for: Proponents argue this brings clarity and practicality to NEPA reviews, focusing on impacts directly attributable to the project and within FERC's authority to mitigate, preventing speculative or overly broad analyses.
Case against: Critics contend this is a deliberate attempt to exclude significant climate impacts, such as those from upstream production or downstream consumption of fossil fuels, from environmental review, thereby undermining NEPA's purpose and FERC's responsibility.
Estimated impact: Significantly reduces the scope of environmental analysis for FERC-regulated projects, particularly regarding climate change, potentially leading to more projects being approved with less comprehensive impact assessments.
These sections explicitly prohibit FERC from considering or applying any metric that purports to estimate the monetized damages or benefits associated with incremental increases or decreases in greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., social cost of carbon) in its environmental reviews.
Sec. 3001(g)(4) and Sec. 3002(10)(D)
Why it matters:The use of social cost metrics is a highly contentious issue in climate policy. Explicitly banning their use is a direct policy intervention that would likely face significant opposition if debated in isolation. Its placement helps to embed this controversial policy within a broader package of permitting reforms.
Case for: Proponents argue that social cost metrics are highly speculative, politically motivated, and not appropriate for regulatory decision-making, leading to inflated costs and project delays. They seek to remove a tool they view as biased.
Case against: Critics contend that banning these metrics prevents a comprehensive and economically informed assessment of climate impacts, making it harder for FERC to make decisions that truly account for the costs of greenhouse gas emissions.
Estimated impact: Removes a key analytical tool for assessing the climate impacts of FERC-regulated projects, potentially leading to less climate-conscious decisions and underestimation of environmental costs.