“There is no better time to be mining in the United States.”
For Rich Nolan, president and CEO of the National Mining Association, President Donald Trump’s second administration has transformed Washington’s relationship with an industry that for decades complained of being ignored or obstructed.
Less than two years into Trump’s term, the federal government has pushed projects through accelerated permitting, taken equity stakes in mineral companies, offered price floors and offtakes, expanded loans and grants and put mineral security near the centre of U.S. economic and defence policy.
Project Vault has also moved from concept to physical stockpile. In October, commodities trader Mercuria delivered 12,000 tonnes of copper from the Democratic Republic of Congo to warehouses on the U.S. Gulf and East coasts, the first disclosed copper delivery to the initiative.
“That’s a sea change in the U.S. government’s posture,” Nolan told The Northern Miner. “The industry is in a markedly different position than we were just a year ago.”
Unruly backdrop
But Trump’s mining push sits inside a far less predictable presidency. His administration has escalated trade disputes, including a damaging tariff fight with Canada, the United States’ largest export market and one of its most important mineral suppliers.
Trump, who has long criticized U.S. involvement in “endless wars,” has also committed American forces to a lengthy conflict with Iran. His administration has simultaneously rolled back environmental protections and accelerated project approvals, drawing legal challenges from states and environmental groups.
Against that backdrop, four industry and policy specialists interviewed by The Northern Miner offered sharply different assessments of the mining record.
Reed Blakemore, director of research and programs at the Global Energy Center, part of non-partisan think tank the Atlantic Council, called the expanded federal toolkit “genuinely new and genuinely constructive,” but warned that project-by-project support alone can’t build supply chains capable of competing with China.
Zahava Urecki, a senior policy analyst at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, credited the administration with putting mineral security front and centre, while questioning whether its financing tools, processing strategy and executive actions will prove durable.
Aaron Mintzes, senior policy counsel at U.S. environmental group Earthworks, sees the same changes much more critically, arguing that government equity stakes create conflicts and faster permitting has weakened environmental and Indigenous protections.
Yet all four converge on one point: the experiment is unfinished. China still dominates crucial processing steps, and whether Washington’s new mining policy produces durable supply chains remains the test.
Rich Nolan
“The approach the administration has taken to improve the competitiveness of U.S. mining is an all hands on deck, all the above approach,” Nolan said.
“While we’ve really seen a massive global awakening to the scale and urgency of the minerals challenge, this administration is actually moving aggressively to address it.”
“Efforts to streamline permitting and bring more transparency and certainty to the process are bearing fruit. We’re seeing projects now move through the FAST-41 permitting program with far more coordination and support than we have seen traditionally.
“That’s very encouraging but there’s no question we need congressional action on permitting to affect the kind of sweeping change that’s required for this moment.”
The bipartisan permitting deal under consideration in the Senate would maintain rigorous review while setting firm timelines, reducing duplication and addressing litigation that can delay projects for years, Nolan said.
“There is a recognition that there is no single solution to breaking China’s hold on our minerals supply chains. The U.S. must embrace the enormity of the challenge and bring new tools to the fight.”
China’s state subsidies and dominance of mines and processing have created an uneven playing field that requires a more ambitious U.S. response, Nolan said.
“Historically, the U.S. government understood the critical importance of building and supporting domestic productive capacity. I think we’re seeing a rediscovery and reinvention of many the tools that made the U.S. a mineral superpower in the 20th century.”
“While we’ve taken important steps to reshore our domestic industry, change can’t happen overnight. The lead times for mining are historically long, and China has a two-decade lead that it’s not going to give up willingly.”
“So much of the success or failure of today’s mineral security effort will come down to follow through. Are today’s efforts a beginning of a new era for American mining or a blip and then a return to the status quo?”
“We’re already seeing shovels in the ground on new projects and ribbons being cut to start production on mines that for too long were awaiting final approvals.”
“I don’t think there’s any going back to the way things were before. And that’s a remarkable achievement.”
Reed Blakemore
“I think the toolkit that this administration has deployed over the past two years is genuinely new and genuinely constructive.”
Blakemore contrasted the approach with the previous administration’s greater reliance on tax credits and grants.
“I think the move towards equity stakes, the exploration of price floors, offtakes, and kind of reserves, I think that begins to create the appropriate government interventions … that actually begin to improve the economics of supply chain activity in the United States.”
FAST-41 designations have helped some projects, but the permitting environment remains “quite sticky,” Blakemore said.
“It’s how permitting can get gummed up as it moves through the regulatory and court process.”
“We fast tracked certain parts of the permitting process, but ultimately, once it gets to the proverbial courthouse door, it can still get really, really slow.”
“It’s an interesting tool. It’s an incredibly powerful tool. It is an evolution of U.S. industrial policy that we haven’t seen yet.”
Limited equity positions can help strategic assets survive markets skewed by foreign state support, but there are limits, Blakemore said.
“The United States is not going to secure its critical mineral supply chains by trying to out subsidise China.”
“Can limited equity stakes provide a de-risking tool needed to make certain assets help certain assets get off the ground as a short-term solution? Absolutely, but I don’t think we will see equity stakes be the core pillar of long-term supply chain strategy.”
Allied cooperation is “absolutely critical” and the administration has matured from believing in domestic self-sufficiency, Blakemore said.
Canada matters because of geography and shared values, Europe can help aggregate demand, and Japan has important midstream technical capacity, he said.
Success should eventually be measurable through a partner-based trade regime, coordinated offtakes and price support, and an alternative for mineral-rich countries dependent on Chinese capital, Blakemore said.
“The United States isn’t necessarily going to be able to compete on speed of capital. So, what is the compelling alternative that the United States can offer those countries?”
Zahava Urecki
“I’d say broadly to answer that question is just their focus on mineral
Source: www.northernminer.com — article syndicated from the publisher’s feed; all rights remain with the original publisher.
