Both former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris support increasing US production of critical minerals. They have even expressed support for similar policies, such as mineral stockpiling. On day one of a new administration, the next US President can—unilaterally—target five policy areas to bolster US mining of critical minerals: stockpiling, subsidies, procurement, tariffs, and permitting.

Stockpiling. The Trump Administration supported and the Harris campaign supports increased mineral stockpiling. According to the Department of Defense, the National Defense Stockpile (NDS), as of March 2023, only had inventories to cover 6 percent of the US military’s and essential civilian demand’s estimated material shortfalls in a hypothetical one-year conflict with China, followed by a three-year recovery. The president could tap the NDS Transaction Fund for mineral stockpiling, as well as the Defense Production Act (DPA) fund. The Eisenhower Administration used DPA funds for mineral stockpiling during the Cold War, and the president still has this authority (50 USC §4533). Importantly, the next administration’s Department of Defense should prioritize stockpiling minerals extracted and processed in the United States.

Subsidies. The Trump Administration supported and the Harris campaign supports subsidies for critical mineral projects. The Trump Administration deemed critical mineral processing projects eligible for direct loans under the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) program, and the Biden-Harris Administration has loaned to such projects. The next administration’s Department of Energy could also deem mining projects eligible under the ATVM program by issuing a draft rule that adds “mining” to 10 CFR 611.2 “Eligible Project” (3). To specifically lower costs for US mineral processing facilities, the next administration’s Internal Revenue Service could propose new regulations extending the production costs covered by the Section 45X 10-percent production tax credit to feedstock acquisition, as has been urged by several organizations and mining companies. 

Procurement. Both the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations support increased domestic content requirements for government procurement. Under the authority of Executive Order 14005, the next administration’s Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council could issue a draft rule that adds a new part to the Federal Acquisition Regulations, requiring that acquisitions of specified clean energy technologies contain a certain threshold percentage of minerals extracted in the United States. For example, the draft rule could ultimately require that the General Services Administration—the federal government’s main source for procuring non-tactical vehicles—only acquire electric vehicles with batteries containing a high percentage of chemicals derived from US-extracted minerals. The next administration’s US Postal Service could adopt a similar content requirement in its Supplying Principles and Practices for electric vehicle acquisitions.

Tariffs. Trump has pledged significant tariff increases, while the Biden-Harris Administration increased tariffs on several minerals imported from China. Domestic mineral projects like South32’s Hermosa manganese-zinc project support such trade protections to reduce US reliance on foreign minerals. The next president could (likely) impose tariffs on any mineral imports immediately under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The only prerequisite is a national emergency declaration, like the now-expired critical minerals executive order. If concerned about the legality of levying tariffs under IEEPA, the president could also direct the secretary of commerce to open a Section 232 investigation into mineral imports, although the tariff imposition would likely take several months to occur.

Permitting. Both Trump and Harris support expedited permitting for building major projects. Previously, most US mining projects required Clean Water Act section 404 permits—which trigger the National Environmental Policy Act—but the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (2023) circumscribed the areas requiring these permits, possibly lowering the permitting requirements for many mine projects. Determining whether a project requires a section 404 permit, however, can take up to one year based on the district. To expedite this process, the next administration’s US Army Corps of Engineers could issue a regulatory guidance letter directing district engineers to prioritize the review of approved jurisdictional determinations for sites of potential mining projects.

In short, the next president’s administration has significant unilateral authority to support US mining of critical minerals. First, it could increase mineral stockpiling by tapping both the NDS Transaction Fund and DPA fund for mineral acquisitions. The next administration could also expand existing subsidies—like the ATVM direct loan program—to mining projects. For government acquisitions of clean energy technologies, it could set content requirements for US-extracted minerals. The next administration could, additionally, impose tariffs on mineral imports of their choosing by issuing a national emergency declaration concerning mineral imports under IEEPA.

Lastly, it could expedite permitting by prioritizing jurisdictional determinations for sites of potential mining projects. On January 20, 2025, the next US president could—and should—take these actions to bolster US mining of critical minerals.

** Gregory Wischer is the founder of Dei Gratia Minerals, a critical minerals consulting firm.

Source: MINING.COM – Read More