Trump orders rapid expansion of U.S. mineral production to cut foreign dependence

The United States has a long and complex history with mineral production, dating back to the 19th century, when mining played a foundational role in economic expansion. The Mining Act of 1872 was introduced to encourage settlement and resource development in the western territories, granting individuals and companies the right to mine on federal lands with minimal regulatory oversight. For decades, the U.S. was a global leader in mineral production, fueling the rise of industries such as steel, coal, and rare metal refining.

However, by the late 20th century, increasing environmental concerns led to stricter regulations on domestic mining operations. The passage of laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the Clean Water Act of 1972 imposed additional requirements on mining companies, significantly extending permitting timelines. Meanwhile, globalization and lower production costs abroad made it economically attractive for the U.S. to import key minerals rather than mine them domestically.

By the early 2000s, China emerged as the dominant global supplier of rare earth elements (REEs), taking control of over 80% of the world’s supply. The 2010 Chinese export restrictions on rare earths, which disrupted global supply chains, served as a wake-up call for U.S. policymakers, leading to renewed discussions about mineral independence. The Trump administration previously attempted to address this in 2017 with Executive Order 13817, which aimed to identify and secure critical minerals, but implementation was slow. The latest executive order seeks to go further by prioritizing immediate action to revive domestic mineral production.

How Does the Executive Order Seek to Expand U.S. Mineral Production?

President Donald Trump‘s “Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production” directs federal agencies to fast-track permitting for mining projects, expand access to mineral-rich federal lands, and boost private investment in domestic extraction and processing. The order names critical minerals such as potash, uranium, copper, and gold as strategic resources essential for national security and economic stability.

The administration argues that reliance on foreign imports—particularly from geopolitical adversaries—poses a threat to U.S. interests. By cutting regulatory red tape and incentivizing domestic production, the executive order aims to restore the United States’ position as a leading mineral producer.

What Are the Key Provisions of the Executive Order?

The order requires all federal agencies involved in mining approvals to submit lists of pending projects within ten days, after which priority projects will be identified and approved as quickly as possible. The Department of the Interior must assess federal land holdings to ensure that mining is prioritized in land-use planning, potentially opening millions of acres for extraction.

To encourage investment, the Department of Defense and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) are authorized to use federal funds to support domestic mineral production projects. The executive order also reduces regulatory barriers by suspending certain environmental disclosure requirements, allowing companies to seek funding without extensive reporting under Regulation S-K Part 1300.

Legislative reform is another priority. The executive order directs officials to submit recommendations for modernizing mining laws, particularly concerning waste disposal and environmental compliance. This could pave the way for significant changes to the Mining Act of 1872, which, despite its historic importance, is often criticized for being outdated.

Why Is Domestic Mineral Production a National Security Priority?

Since World War II, U.S. military and industrial strategy has relied on a steady supply of strategic minerals. From the uranium used in the Manhattan Project to the aluminum essential for aircraft production, domestic mining has played a critical role in national defense. During the Cold War, the U.S. maintained strategic stockpiles of minerals to ensure security in the event of supply disruptions. However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, policymakers shifted focus away from stockpiling and towards globalized supply chains.

China’s near-monopoly on rare earths and other critical minerals has raised concerns about economic and military vulnerabilities. Rare earths are essential for fighter jet radar systems, missile guidance technology, and advanced communication networks, making supply chain security a top priority for the Pentagon. The executive order positions domestic mineral production as a way to insulate the U.S. from potential foreign supply disruptions, particularly amid rising tensions with China.

Beyond military applications, critical minerals are also crucial for electric vehicle (EV) batteries, semiconductor manufacturing, and renewable energy technology. With the global transition toward clean energy, demand for lithium, cobalt, and nickel has skyrocketed. The executive order seeks to ensure that the U.S. can develop these resources domestically, rather than relying on imports from nations with volatile political landscapes.

How Will This Impact the U.S. Mining Industry?

The executive order is expected to accelerate several high-profile mining projects that have faced regulatory hurdles. Companies in the potash, uranium, and rare earth sectors have expressed strong support for the order, anticipating a more favorable regulatory environment. Michigan Potash, for example, has praised the administration’s decision to include potash as a critical mineral, arguing that domestic production will reduce reliance on foreign fertilizer imports while creating jobs. The company’s planned facility in Evart, Michigan, is projected to produce 800,000 tons of potash annually, with the potential to scale up to 4 million tons in future expansion phases.

Lithium mining projects in Nevada and North Carolina are also expected to benefit. The U.S. currently imports most of its lithium, despite having significant untapped reserves. By fast-tracking permitting, the executive order could allow domestic lithium producers to expand operations, supporting the EV and battery industries.

Environmental groups, however, have raised concerns about the potential impact of these measures. The suspension of certain regulatory disclosures and the expansion of mining on federal lands could lead to conflicts over conservation efforts. Critics argue that while increasing domestic mineral production is important, it should not come at the cost of environmental protection.

Could This Lead to a Resurgence in U.S. Mineral Independence?

The United States was once a dominant force in global mineral production, but regulatory challenges and cheaper foreign competition led to a decline in domestic mining. The executive order represents the latest attempt to revive the industry by reducing bureaucratic delays and offering financial incentives for extraction and processing.

Long-term success will depend on sustained private-sector investment, technological advancements in extraction methods, and legislative reforms to modernize outdated mining policies. The administration has indicated that it will work with Congress to update mining laws, a move that could have lasting effects on the industry.

The order also aligns with broader efforts to secure global mineral supply chains, particularly through partnerships with allies such as Canada and Australia, which are also major mineral producers. Strengthening these partnerships could help the U.S. reduce dependence on adversarial nations while ensuring a stable supply of critical resources.

What Are the Potential Economic and Political Implications?

The executive order is expected to have major implications for the U.S. economy, the mining sector, and international trade relations. Mining states such as Nevada, Arizona, and Michigan could see job growth and increased investment, while manufacturers in the aerospace, automotive, and defense industries may benefit from a more stable domestic supply of raw materials.

However, legal challenges from environmental groups could delay implementation, particularly in ecologically sensitive areas. Trade tensions with China could also escalate if Beijing perceives the order as a direct challenge to its control over global mineral markets.

While the executive order represents a bold policy shift toward resource independence, its effectiveness will depend on how efficiently the new measures are executed. The long-term impact will be shaped by global commodity prices, environmental concerns, and geopolitical developments.