With the November election behind us and a Republican administration to come, there are many questions regarding possible changes to environmental regulations and funding of U.S. energy projects. Given the Trump Administration’s focus on building American business and manufacturing, many feel that it will continue policies enacted during his first administration to improve the management of critical minerals needed for economic prosperity and energy security.
First Term Mining Agenda
During his first term in office, President Donald Trump prioritized boosting domestic mining as part of his broader agenda to promote energy independence, economic growth, and the revitalization of U.S. industry. Mining was framed as part of achieving "energy dominance," a strategy to make the U.S. a global leader in energy and mineral production. Trump championed domestic resource extraction, including coal, oil, gas, and critical minerals like lithium, cobalt, and rare-earth elements, to reduce dependence on imports. Domestic mining was also presented as a strategy to create jobs, particularly in rural and economically struggling regions.
The Trump Administration viewed mining as critical to securing supplies of minerals needed for infrastructure, manufacturing, and national defense. In 2019, President Trump’s Administration released, A Federal Strategy to Ensure a Reliable Supply of Critical Minerals. The strategy directed the U.S. Department of the Interior to locate domestic supplies of those minerals, ensuring access to information necessary for the study and production of minerals, and expedite permitting for minerals projects. Trump supported the fast-tracking of controversial projects like the Twin Metals copper-nickel mine in Minnesota and uranium mining near the Grand Canyon. He approved the massive Thacker Pass lithium mine near the Nevada-Oregon border, one of several projects fast-tracked in the last days of the first Trump Administration to expand mining on public land.
In 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13817, which directed agencies to identify critical minerals essential for national security and the economy. It also encouraged reducing permitting delays for mining projects involving these minerals.
He also issued Executive Order 13807, creating a "One Federal Decision" framework to streamline the environmental review and permitting processes across multiple federal agencies. Trump also promoted greater involvement of state governments and private companies in the permitting process to reduce federal oversight. At the end of the term, the Trump Administration revised the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to limit the scope and duration of environmental reviews. The new rules set a 2-year time frame for completing environmental impact statements and a 1‑year time frame for environmental assessments.
While these actions reduced permitting times for some projects, they were controversial. Critics argued the changes weakened environmental protections and community input. However, supporters hailed them as necessary steps to revitalize mining and secure critical mineral supply chains. Many of these measures were reversed or revisited under the Biden Administration.
What a Second Term Might Bring
Many people believe that the new Trump Administration will be heavily invested in domestic onshoring of all parts of the mineral supply chain, especially mineral extraction.
Trump’s pick for Secretary of the Interior, Governor Doug Burgum has expressed enthusiasm for expanding domestic production of minerals needed for battery production. In 2022, he praised the approval of a nickel processing plant in North Dakota that received $144 million in federal funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2022.
However, the incoming administration will face a nuanced challenge in promoting mining for green materials like copper, lithium, and rare earth elements, which are critical for technologies such as electric vehicles, batteries, and renewable energy systems.
Contradiction Between Policy Goals
- Mining Push: Trump has historically supported domestic resource extraction to reduce reliance on imports, boost jobs, and enhance national security. His administration’s rhetoric may focus on “energy independence” and securing critical minerals.
- Skepticism Toward Green Economy: Trump’s stance on climate change and renewable energy has been dismissive. This poses a philosophical conflict since the primary drivers of demand for these materials are green technologies Trump has downplayed.
Demand Dynamics
- The global demand for critical minerals is skyrocketing due to the green energy transition, but without Trump embracing renewable energy policies, U.S. consumption of these materials might lag global trends.
- To sustain the mining push, the administration may need to reconcile its stance by either supporting green initiatives domestically or relying heavily on export markets, which could contradict its “America First” agenda.
Permitting and Environmental Challenges
- Mining projects face lengthy permitting processes due to environmental regulations. Obtaining permission to operate a mine in the United States today involves securing federal, state, and local permits, as well as ensuring compliance with redundant regulations. A project can require up to 30 permits, many of which are duplicative. While Trump could streamline permitting, this risks backlash from environmental groups and local communities, who may view mining as harmful, even if tied to green outcomes.
- Balancing expedited mining with environmental stewardship will be a key challenge.
Global Competition
- China dominates the processing of rare earths and lithium. Although China produces just 10 percent of the world’s cobalt, lithium, and nickel, it imports vast quantities allowing it to process 60–90 percent of the global supply of these base metals.
- Trump’s trade policies, particularly tariffs, could complicate the supply chain for U.S.-based industries reliant on processed materials. Strategic partnerships may be necessary, however, given that the United States has roughly 1.3 percent of the world’s rare earths. Deploying incentives for rare earth mining projects in Brazil and Vietnam, which cumulatively hold 37 percent of the world’s reserves, will be vital to provide feedstock for separation facilities and manufacturing in the United States.
- Domestic mining alone won’t suffice without building processing infrastructure, which requires significant investment and time. Building a new mine in the United States takes an average of 29 years.
Public Perception and Political Risk
- Mining is often unpopular in communities due to potential environmental degradation. Many feel that Trump’s choice to appoint Burgum as head of the Interior could risk alienating moderate voters who support clean energy or are concerned about the environment if they push mining without clear alignment to green goals.
- The administration could struggle to sell mining expansion to the public without emphasizing how it fits into broader technological or security goals.
While Trump may not embrace the green economy, he could frame domestic mining as a national security priority, emphasizing reduced reliance on foreign sources for critical materials. However, without broader support for renewables, the domestic market for these materials might not develop as robustly as it could under a pro-green policy framework, creating an economic gap between extraction and utilization.
References
