Four myths are distorting the national debate over permit reform. First, it is misconceived as a singular issue, with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at its center. Second, reformers assume that federal reviews and permitting cause most project delays and failures. Third, there is a widespread belief that environmental laws are routinely weaponized against new infrastructure through obstructive litigation. Fourth, critics assert that environmental procedures and standards must be sacrificed to enable timely climate action. This Article debunks these myths and asserts that permitting efficiency is not incompatible with strong environmental standards, rigorous analysis, transparency, or public engagement. An empirically grounded approach would address the true causes of delay and reject the prevailing perspective that assumes deregulation is the only option. Increasing agency capacity through adequate funding, staffing, and training improves the permitting process for everyone. Interagency coordination reduces delays caused by inconsistent or redundant standards. Early, meaningful public engagement avoids delays by proactively addressing community concerns and mitigating harms. Agencies have already adopted these types of programs, improving efficiency without compromising regulatory standards. The Article proposes several principles that should guide permitting reform, describes established programs that should serve as models, and identifies future work that would promote an informed and constructive national debate.