If U.S. business has a single bipartisan ask, it’s this: faster, more predictable permitting. In 2026, the quickest route to that outcome is not another round of slogans about “cutting red tape.” It’s a simpler, more practical thesis: properly fund government science agencies so they can produce defensible biology, implement good policy, and keep review processes moving at commercial speed.

When science capacity fails, whole industries stall

Look at commercial fishing, where the consequences are immediate and measurable. Reuters reported that a federal regulatory freeze in early 2025, compounded by staffing disruptions at NOAA Fisheries, injected chaos into multiple fisheries. The result was delayed season planning and heightened uncertainty for fleets, along with enforcement and sustainability risks that can ricochet into future quotas and revenue stability.

This is the pattern to internalize:under-resourcing scientific and regulatory capacity does not speed things up. It turns time-sensitive decisions into bottlenecks, creates uncertainty for operators, and increases the probability of bad outcomes that force costly corrections later.

Permitting is the same kind of pipeline. If you shrink the people who generate and validate the science, the pipeline clogs.

NEPA in 2026: a more fragmented playbook raises uncertainty

On January 8, 2026, the Council on Environmental Quality finalized a rule removing CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations. NEPA still applies, but the practical “one government wide” spine weakens, pushing more responsibility onto agency-specific procedures and guidance.

When rules fragment, agencies often compensate by building defensive administrative records, not leaner ones. CEQ’s own analysis illustrates how documentation can balloon: draft EISs averaged 586 pages (median 403) across agencies. If you want faster reviews, forcing thinner staffing into thicker documentation is a losing equation.

ESA Section 7: the statute has a clock, but agencies have capacity ceilings

ESA consultation remains a hard biodiversity gate. FWS describes formal consultation as a process that may last up to 90 days, after which it prepares a Biological Opinion. Federal regulations then provide that the Service generally delivers the Biological Opinion within 45 days after concluding formal consultation. NOAA Fisheries runs parallel consultations for marine and anadromous species, with its own workload and timelines.

Those timelines sound like a promise of speed, but only if agencies have enough biologists, modelers, and consultation staff to keep pace with demand. Recent reporting and documentation highlight that staffing losses at FWS are not hypothetical, with substantial reductions that include scientists and biologists, the exact workforce that makes consultations timely and defensible.

The business case for funding science agencies is blunt

Companies do not just want “fast.” They want predictable, because predictability is financeable. Funding scientific agencies supports expedited review by improving:

• Baseline data quality (fewer “we need more information” loops)
• Early issue detection (fewer late-stage redesigns and re-consultations)
• Record defensibility (lower litigation vulnerability and fewer remands)
• Throughput (more consultations and reviews completed on schedule)
  

The fishing example is a cautionary tale for every sector that touches biodiversity, including ports, offshore energy, transmission, timber, water, and mining. If we want projects to move without turning wildlife and habitat into collateral damage, the highest-return reform is mundane but powerful: hire, retain, and equip the scientists and analysts who keep NEPA and ESA running on time.