FREEDOM Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 16, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to accelerate energy and mineral infrastructure development by imposing federal agency deadlines, limiting project halts, and clarifying regulations, particularly for mining and geothermal projects.
What it actually does
The bill, titled the FREEDOM Act, aims to streamline the federal permitting process for energy and mineral projects by establishing strict authorization timelines, expedited judicial review for agency delays, and limits on federal actions to halt fully permitted projects. It also includes specific provisions to clarify hardrock mining mill site regulations and advance geothermal energy development by addressing leasing, permitting, and royalty structures.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill will reduce regulatory uncertainty and permitting delays, which currently deter critical energy infrastructure investment, undermine U.S. energy security, and increase costs for families and businesses. They contend it will foster a more predictable environment for project sponsors, leading to more reliable and affordable energy.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that by imposing strict deadlines and limiting agency discretion, the bill could undermine environmental protections, tribal consultation, and public input processes, potentially leading to rushed approvals of projects with inadequate review of their impacts. They may also raise concerns about the potential for increased environmental harm or reduced public accountability.
The bill is moderately complex, requiring careful reading to understand its legal and regulatory changes. The estimated reading time of 45-60 minutes is reasonable for an informed reader to grasp its implications.
Title I, Subtitle A, Sec. 12101
Notices of Initiation and Project Schedules
This provision requires project sponsors to submit a 'notice of initiation' for proposed energy projects to relevant federal agencies. Within 30 days, a lead agency must determine if the notice is complete. Once complete, the lead agency must publish a schedule for the project, listing all anticipated authorizations and classifying them as either 'routine' or 'complex,' along with interim milestones and final decision dates.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision creates a transparent and predictable framework for the start of the permitting process, allowing project sponsors to better plan and hold agencies accountable for delays.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that the initial 30-day review period for completeness is too short for complex projects, potentially leading to incomplete initial assessments or disputes over completeness determinations.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for project predictability with the administrative capacity of agencies to quickly assess and schedule complex projects.
Title I, Subtitle A, Sec. 12102
Authorization Deadlines
This section establishes strict deadlines for federal agencies to issue final decisions on authorizations for covered energy projects. Routine authorizations must be decided within 90 days, complex authorizations within 1 year, and projects requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) within 2 years. Failure to meet these deadlines is considered an 'agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed' subject to judicial review.
Title I, Subtitle A, Sec. 12103
Reviewing Court-Approved Contractors
If an agency misses a deadline, a reviewing court can authorize the project sponsor to hire a qualified contractor to complete necessary analyses or documentation. The costs of this contractor are paid by the lead agency from a Permitting Performance Fund, though the project sponsor may advance payment and be reimbursed. The contractor's work product is deemed received by the agency and included in the administrative record, and agencies must make a final decision based on it within 30 days, with limited ability to identify deficiencies.
Title I, Subtitle B, Sec. 12201
Causes of Action for Judicial Review
This section grants project sponsors the right to file a petition for judicial review for several reasons: final agency actions, alleged failures by an agency to act (including unreasonable delay or missing deadlines), or agency actions that halt, suspend, delay, or terminate fully permitted projects. A project sponsor can only file one petition per cause of action but can seek multiple grounds for relief within that petition.
Title I, Subtitle C, Sec. 12301
Treatment of Fully Permitted Projects
This section defines a 'fully permitted project' as one that has received a substantial majority of its required authorizations. It then prohibits federal agencies from issuing orders to terminate construction or operation, revoking permits, or taking other actions to halt, suspend, delay, or terminate such projects unless there is a 'clear, immediate, and substantiated harm' that requires the action and no other viable alternative, or if an authorization is illegal and the action is the only remedy. Agencies are also limited in petitioning for voluntary remand of authorizations without project sponsor consent.
Title II, Sec. 201
Hardrock Mining Mill Sites and Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund
This section amends existing law to allow hardrock mining operators to locate and include multiple 'mill site' claims (up to 5 acres each) within a plan of operations, as reasonably necessary for mineral development. These mill sites do not convey mineral rights and are not eligible for patenting. It also establishes an 'Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund' in the 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 land reclamation projects under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Title III, Sec. 301
Effect of Pending Civil Actions on Geothermal Leasing Applications
This section amends the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to require the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny applications for geothermal drilling permits, sundry notices, rights-of-way, or other authorizations within 60 days of completing all applicable federal law requirements (including NEPA, ESA, NHPA), even if a civil action affecting the underlying lease is pending. This requirement does not apply if a federal court has vacated or provided injunctive relief for the specific lease or authorization.
Title III, Sec. 302
Cost Recovery for Geothermal Leasing and Permitting
This section authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, until September 30, 2033, to require geothermal lease applicants or holders to reimburse the United States for all reasonable administrative and other costs incurred from processing applications (including operations plans, drilling permits, etc.) and from inspecting and monitoring geophysical exploration, drilling, and facility operations. The Secretary can reduce the reimbursement amount for economic hardship or to promote geothermal use. Reimbursed amounts are credited to the Department of the Interior's appropriations as discretionary offsetting collections, available for geothermal program activities.
Title III, Sec. 304
Geothermal Ombudsman and Permitting Task Force
This section requires the Secretary of the Interior to appoint a Geothermal Ombudsman within the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within 60 days. The Ombudsman will act as a liaison, provide dispute resolution, monitor permit processing, and develop best practices. It also establishes a Geothermal Permitting Task Force, led by the Ombudsman, which can coordinate cross-office personnel assignments within the Department of the Interior to assist with geothermal authorizations, including retention allowances for assigned employees.
Title III, Sec. 305
Geothermal Royalties on Electricity Produced
This section amends the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to change the royalty structure for geothermal resources. Instead of a royalty on the value of the geothermal steam or associated byproducts, it establishes a royalty on electricity produced from geothermal resources. This royalty is tiered: not less than 1% and not more than 2.5% of gross proceeds from electricity sales for the first 10 years after a facility's 'in-service date,' and then not less than 2% and not more than 5% thereafter.
This subsection provides a detailed list of specific authorizations that are automatically classified as 'complex authorizations,' triggering longer review deadlines (1 year, or 2 years if an EIS is required). These include FERC licenses, OCS leases, EIS requirements, formal ESA consultations, and certain CWA permits.
Sec. 12101(d)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to provide precise definitions and scope for key terms within a bill. The complexity of the list reflects the complexity of the underlying regulatory landscape.
Case for: Supporters would argue that explicitly defining 'complex authorizations' provides clarity and reduces ambiguity for both agencies and project sponsors, ensuring that the appropriate timelines are applied consistently.
Case against: Critics might argue that the specific inclusions or exclusions in this list could be politically motivated, potentially fast-tracking certain types of projects or inadvertently slowing others, without explicit policy debate.
Estimated impact: Significantly impacts the timeline for a wide range of major energy and mineral projects by pre-determining their classification as 'complex' and thus subject to longer, but still expedited, review periods.
While Section 12103(d)(1) states that the Permitting Performance Fund pays for court-approved contractors, subsection (d)(2) allows project sponsors to 'advance' payment to these contractors. The relevant lead agency is then required to reimburse the project sponsor within 30 days of receiving an invoice.
Sec. 12103(d)(2)
Why it matters:This is likely a practical mechanism to ensure contractors can be paid promptly, as federal agency payment processes can sometimes be slow. It shifts the immediate liquidity burden to the project sponsor.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures that delays in federal payment processing do not further impede project progress, allowing the contractor work to commence without additional administrative holdups.
Case against: Critics might argue that requiring project sponsors to front the costs, even with reimbursement, could create an additional financial barrier for smaller entities or reinforce the perception that the process is unduly influenced by project developers' resources.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant for project sponsors who may need to allocate substantial capital upfront for contractor services, even if temporarily.
This subsection establishes an 'Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund' in the Treasury and specifies that claim maintenance fees collected by the Secretary of the Interior from mill sites located under the bill's new provisions (Sec. 201(a)) shall be deposited into this Fund. These funds are then made available, without further appropriation, to carry out abandoned mine land reclamation projects under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Sec. 201(b)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative tactic to create a dedicated funding stream for a specific purpose, often by linking it to activities that generate revenue or fees. It ensures a consistent funding source for reclamation.
Case for: Supporters would argue this creates a direct, sustainable funding source for critical abandoned mine land reclamation, linking new mining activity to the remediation of historical environmental damage.
Case against: Critics might argue that the amount generated by these fees may be insufficient to address the vast scale of abandoned mine land problems, or that the fees should be higher to more adequately reflect the industry's impact.
Estimated impact: Provides an ongoing, though unspecified, revenue stream for abandoned mine land cleanup, potentially increasing the pace of remediation efforts.