President Donald Trump has made control of the critical minerals supply chain a key aspiration of the US economic and national security agenda. His administration is reshaping US minerals policy, expanding federal involvement, picking commercial winners, and opening new frontiers to exploration and extraction. S-RM Americas associate director Felix Cook examines the strategic implications and investment opportunities arising from Trump’s push for minerals domination.
“The meek shall inherit the Earth,” oil tycoon J. Paul Getty once quipped, “But not its mineral rights.” Even as the broader US investment environment slows, the mood in the critical minerals sector remains upbeat. This optimism is driven by a flurry of favorable executive actions and regulatory reforms, alongside the administration’s conviction that critical minerals are not just supply chain inputs, but essential assets in 21st century great power competition. President Donald Trump’s approach marks a departure from the laissez-faire attitudes of previous Republican presidents and the restrictive regulatory instincts of the Obama/Biden era, signaling that Washington is willing to pick market winners, and creating new opportunities for investors aligned with Trump’s priorities.
Sweeping action
In March, President Trump signed executive orders aimed at ensuring US dominance over the global supply of critical minerals, making resource development the central pillar of his administration’s national security, foreign, and energy policy. Trump’s orders expanded the number of minerals deemed critical to include copper, potash, uranium, and gold, circumventing bureaucratic reclassification procedures and closing a gap whereby these materials were excluded by minerals strategies despite their vital uses in infrastructure, defense, and emerging technologies. Copper demand, for example, is surging globally, driven by its use in clean-energy projects, electric vehicle batteries, and AI data centers. A September 2024 study concluded that without increased domestic production, the US will be 60-percent reliant on foreign copper imports by 2035. Trump’s orders grant federal agencies broad latitude in kickstarting minerals exploration and extraction, as well as streamlining the US’s infamously lethargic mining permitting processes. In June 2024, S&P Global found that it takes an average of 29 years to open a new mine in the US, second only to Zambia. True to the administration’s semi-official ‘move fast and break things’ philosophy, Trump has controversially jettisoned Biden regulations around environmental impact assessments and Indigenous consultation, and loosened longstanding restrictions surrounding mining in national parks, prompting a fierce backlash from environmental and civil society groups.
Refocused bureaucracy
The second Trump administration has broadened the number of federal agencies involved in delivering US critical minerals strategy. Trump has declared a national critical minerals emergency under the terms of the 1950 Defense Production Act (DPA), deploying the vast budget and buying power of the Department of Defense to establish new supply chains, and recategorizing the promotion of critical minerals as an essential Pentagon priority. The US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) – created by Congress in 2018 to support human development projects in lower income countries – has also been reconfigured to directly finance domestic production of critical minerals. Trump has nominated venture capitalist Benjamin Black, who has written of his desire to pull the DFC away from “virtue-signaling” international commitments, to head the corporation. To supplement this domestic investment, Trump’s orders direct the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) to expand its Supply Chain Resiliency Initiative, providing targeted financing for international projects that secure supply chains of critical minerals for US businesses. All of these agency initiatives will be coordinated by a new National Energy Dominance Council chaired by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.
Into the blue
In April, Trump signed an executive order intensifying US pursuit of environmentally risky and still largely speculative undersea mining. Trump’s order directs US federal agencies to begin mapping, exploring, and otherwise facilitating extraction of undersea minerals off US coasts and in international waters, with a particular focus on the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a vast stretch of Pacific seabed between Hawaii and Mexico. This area is potentially a rich source of polymetallic nodules, concretions of valuable mineral metals. Trump’s order effectively junks the US’s semi-official adherence to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which places control of undersea mining under the International Seabed Authority (ISA). While the economics of undersea mining remain unproven, Trump’s executive order instructs agencies to direct investment towards developing necessary facilities and technologies. It is clear that the administration regards undersea mining as an important future industry – one it is willing to support with financing and, if necessary, geopolitical confrontation. China and other countries have already strongly rebuked the US’s unilateral move, potentially signaling rising geopolitical risk for investors even as regulatory hurdles fall away.
Pitfalls
While industry has applauded Trump’s sweeping actions, executive orders alone cannot ensure US dominance over critical minerals. Investors will be looking to see if the administration can back its rhetoric and regulatory reforms with sufficient investment support. Financial backstops, such as price floors and tax incentives, may be required to mobilize private capital. This could be politically challenging when even some of Trump’s most loyal supporters are uneasy with ballooning US debt. Trump, term-limited and quickly burning political capital, may seek to defer fiscal rectitude to the next president. Whether Congressional Republicans will concur is unclear, given the potential difficulty of retaining their House majority in the next year’s midterms. A Democratic victory will block Trump legislating for the remainder of his term. There is therefore a narrow window of opportunity for business before this administration’s bold vision for the critical minerals sector runs into fiscal realities and US partisan gridlock.
Conclusion
President Trump’s executive orders signal a sharp turn in US policy, breaking from past orthodoxy and reconceptualizing the supply of critical minerals as a vital element of national power. His administration has repositioned Washington as an active player in the critical minerals market, even if Trump’s term-limited presidency, sinking approval ratings, and the dimming economic outlook make his mastery of the US political agenda more fragile than it now appears. Nonetheless, the current environment offers a rare alignment of political will and market opportunity for investors operating in mining, refining, energy infrastructure, and related sectors.
