Stuart Burgess
Dynamic Entrepreneur | Mining & Mineral Exploration Thought Leader | Driving Innovation in Mining, Aggregates, and Sustainability
President Donald J. Trump’s recent executive orders aim to dramatically increase American mineral production, marking a strategic shift in U.S. resource policy. In January 2025, Trump declared a national energy emergency that explicitly included oil, gas, uranium, coal, and critical minerals as vital “energy resources”. This was followed by a sweeping March 2025 order, “Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production,” which invokes emergency powers to jump-start mining and processing projects across the country. These actions are framed as essential for U.S. economic and national security, given growing demand for minerals in technologies like EV batteries and defense systems, and China’s near-monopoly in many supply chains. “The United States was once the world’s largest producer of lucrative minerals, but overbearing federal regulation has eroded our nation’s mineral production,” Trump stated in the order. Below, we analyze how the new directives alter permitting and regulations, offer funding incentives, and affect exploration for a broad range of commodities – from lithium and rare earths to copper and uranium – as well as comparisons to past policies and global initiatives, and what this means for the U.S. as a long-term exploration jurisdiction.
Streamlining Permits and Reducing Regulatory Hurdles
A centerpiece of the executive orders is an aggressive streamlining of permitting processes for mining and exploration projects. The orders direct all relevant agencies to “identify and use any lawful emergency authorities” to fast-track the leasing, exploration, production, and processing of domestic mineral resources. In practical terms, this means federal departments must prioritize mining-related permits and expedite environmental reviews. For example, agencies have been instructed to compile a list of mining projects that are awaiting approval and move “priority projects” to the front of the line, with immediate permit issuances where possible. The March 2025 order specifically required that within 10 days, agencies list all pending mine permit applications, and then identify which of those can be “immediately approved” and take “all necessary actions” to expedite them. It also puts these fast-tracked mines on the Federal Permitting Dashboard under the FAST-41 program to ensure transparent schedules for review.
Crucially, the Trump administration is leveraging emergency provisions in environmental laws to cut red tape for mining. The emergency declaration calls on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to utilize “emergency Army Corps permitting” under the Clean Water Act for energy and mineral infrastructure. It likewise invokes emergency consultation procedures under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), directing wildlife agencies to speed up or even waive certain habitat reviews for projects deemed critical to national energy supply. An Endangered Species Act Committee (the “God Squad”) is now convened quarterly to consider exemptions for projects and to pinpoint any ESA or Marine Mammal Protection Act regulations that impede domestic energy and mining development. By mandating frequent ESA Committee meetings and very short deadlines (initial decisions within 20 days, final within 140 days), the order seeks to prevent wildlife considerations from causing multi-year delays to mining projects.
The orders also target outdated land-use constraints. The Interior Department has been told to identify all federal lands with known mineral deposits and “prioritize mineral production as the primary land use” in those areas. Land management plans are to be amended to support mining, and millions of acres could be newly opened or reprioritized for exploration and development. In fact, the Administration is pushing to amend the 1872 Mining Law itself – within 30 days, officials must recommend clarifications on handling mine waste and tailings under that law, potentially removing legal ambiguities that opponents have used to stall projects. Even the Department of Defense has been directed to find under-utilized lands (like old military sites) that could be leased for private mining operations, fast-tracking those with high potential.
These permitting and land-use reforms represent a significant break from previous federal practices. It is well documented that U.S. mine permitting is a slow, convoluted process – historically averaging 7 to 10 years to get approvals, versus just 2 to 3 years in mining-friendly countries like Canada or Australia. In some cases, the full timeline from discovery to an operating mine in the U.S. has stretched nearly 30 years, one of the longest in the world. By accelerating reviews and cutting procedural requirements, the executive orders aim to compress these timelines and make the U.S. a faster, easier place to launch a mining project. Industry groups have long argued that America’s lengthy permitting undermines its mineral potential; now agencies are effectively being told to trim any “unnecessary” steps and treat mining projects with a sense of urgency normally reserved for disasters or wartime infrastructure. In sum, the U.S. government is signaling that permit wait times should shrink and regulatory obstacles should no longer be a major barrier for exploration projects – a welcome message to mining and exploration companies that have been frustrated by bureaucratic delays.
New Funding Incentives and Pro-Investment Policies
Beyond permits, the executive orders deploy significant financial and policy incentives to attract investment into U.S. mineral exploration and development. President Trump has essentially activated “wartime” powers under the Defense Production Act (DPA) to support the mining sector. The March 2025 order declares that reliance on foreign minerals is a national security threat, thereby justifying the use of emergency DPA Title III authorities to mobilize domestic production. Concretely, this allows the federal government – primarily the Department of Defense – to provide direct financing, loans, loan guarantees, and even purchase agreements for strategic mineral projects, much as it would for defense contractors. The order delegates DPA funding power to the Secretary of Defense and even waives certain legal requirements to speed up aid to mines and processing facilities. Effectively, U.S. mining ventures can now tap Pentagon funding streams typically reserved for weapons or critical equipment, treating minerals like a strategic asset. This is unprecedented in scope – while President Biden had previously invoked the DPA in 2022 to support battery metal production (allocating about $750 million to that effort), the Trump administration is going much further. It has added “mineral production” as a priority to the Defense Industrial Base Sustainment program and stood up a new high-level coordination body (the National Energy Dominance Council) to oversee mining policy. A former mining executive, David Copley , was appointed to “oversee the mining portfolio” for this council, becoming the “highest-ranking person in the federal government shaping mining policy,” according to Reuters. This leadership focus, combined with DPA funding, sends a strong signal that viable U.S. mineral projects can expect government partnership and financial backing, reducing investor risk.
The executive orders also enlist other financial tools to spur exploration and processing. They instruct the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) – an agency traditionally focused on overseas projects – to invest in domestic mines by leveraging its lending and equity authorities. In fact, the DFC and Pentagon are directed to create a dedicated “mineral investment fund” to channel capital into U.S. mining ventures. This creative repurposing of the DFC could provide junior exploration companies with access to project financing that is otherwise hard to obtain, especially for early-stage critical mineral projects that banks might view as high-risk. Similarly, the Export-Import Bank has been told to prioritize its new Make More in America initiative for mining – meaning export credit and loan guarantees normally aimed at promoting U.S. exports can now support domestic mineral production as well. The orders even direct agencies to remove administrative hurdles for companies seeking funds: for instance, any requirements to complete burdensome SEC-style mineral resource reports (Regulation S-K 1300 disclosures) as part of loan applications are to be rescinded. The Small Business Administration and other agencies are coordinating to ensure mining startups can access low-interest loans and technical assistance programs that were not previously oriented toward mining.
These measures amount to a full-court press to make capital available for exploration and mine development in the U.S. They complement more traditional incentives like the existing tax credits for exploration. (For example, Canada has a 30% Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit that effectively doubles the tax write-off for investing in critical mineral drill programs. While the U.S. has no direct analog yet, the new executive actions attempt to fill that gap with direct spending and financing support.) Industry stakeholders have cheered the moves – the National Mining Association (NMA) called ramping up American mining “a national security imperative,” praising Trump’s “strong action” to use federal powers to boost output. The available funding could jump-start domestic projects that have long been stalled for lack of infrastructure or processing capability. For instance, building a U.S.-based rare earth element separation plant or a new lithium refining facility becomes more feasible if government funds can de-risk the investment. The DPA was last used at this scale for mining in the Korean War era to expand steel and aluminum production, so its resurrection for critical minerals signals how seriously the government views the supply shortage.
Of course, these pro-investment policies also highlight a significant policy shift from the prior administration. Whereas the Biden administration favored climate-oriented measures (supporting batteries and EV supply chains via the DPA and the Inflation Reduction Act, but also placing stricter environmental scrutiny on certain mines), the Trump orders embrace a more expansive “all-of-the-above” resource strategy. They even open the door to aiding coal mining if deemed necessary – the Interior Secretary has authority to designate any material (potentially even coal) as a “mineral” critical to energy dominance. This approach is about maximizing domestic production of all minerals of value, and using federal muscle to attract private investment. The immediate effect is likely to be a surge of interest in U.S. mineral assets: junior exploration firms may pivot focus back to American projects in hopes of securing some of the new support, and major mining companies might revisit U.S. expansions now that political risk (permits, delays, financing) is being mitigated by executive action. In summary, the funding and policy changes dramatically improve the investment climate for U.S. mineral exploration, offering incentives comparable to – or even exceeding – those in other top mining countries.
Impacts Across Critical Minerals, Copper, Uranium and More
The scope of these executive orders is deliberately broad, meaning the impacts will be felt across a wide spectrum of mineral commodities. The March 2025 order defines “mineral” to include not only the government’s official list of critical minerals, but also important base and precious metals like copper, uranium, potash, and gold, as well as “any other element or material” the National Energy Dominance Council deems important. In other words, the policy isn’t narrowly limited to rare earths or battery materials; it casts a wide net to revitalize U.S. mining of everything from key industrial metals to fertilizer minerals. This is a significant expansion – for instance, copper and gold are not on the U.S. Geological Survey’s critical minerals list, yet the order explicitly instructs agencies to help boost domestic output of copper and gold. By elevating these to “priority” status alongside critical minerals, the administration is acknowledging their strategic importance (copper as the linchpin metal for electrification and infrastructure, and gold perhaps as an economic/security asset).
Critical minerals – such as lithium, nickel, cobalt, rare earth elements, graphite, and others essential for high-tech and clean energy – stand to benefit substantially. The U.S. currently produces very little of some of these materials: for example, America has only one operating rare earth mine (Mountain Pass in California) and no domestic facilities to refine those elements into magnets. Lithium output is also tiny (just one small brine operation in Nevada), and the country’s only cobalt mine shut down in 2022 under competitive pressure. With demand for these minerals expected to skyrocket (the order notes surging needs for EV batteries and defense electronics), fast-tracking projects is aimed directly at closing that gap . We can expect accelerated development of lithium clay deposits in Nevada, more aggressive exploration of rare earth deposits in states like Wyoming or Alaska, and revival of idled mines (e.g. cobalt in Idaho) now that federal support and streamlined permits are on the table. The orders also emphasize domestic processing: they direct the government to identify sites, including on military land, suitable for building mineral processing plants or refining facilities. This could finally encourage midstream investments (like battery-grade lithium chemical plants or separation facilities for rare earth oxides) that historically went offshore. The invocation of the DPA for processing means projects that make the U.S. more self-sufficient in these critical supply chains may get direct funding. In short, critical mineral exploration – whether for battery metals (lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese) or magnet materials (rare earths) – is poised to accelerate under a much more favorable U.S. policy regime.
At the same time, traditional base metals and energy minerals are explicitly being swept under the policy umbrella. Copper is a prime example. Copper is fundamental for electric grids, EVs, and electronics, and the U.S. does have significant copper mines (in Arizona, Utah, Montana, etc.), but permitting new copper projects (such as porphyry deposits in Minnesota, Arizona, or Alaska) has been notoriously difficult. The new orders place copper on the priority list, which could lend momentum to contested projects by portraying them as nationally important. Federal land withdrawals or vetoes that held back copper projects (like the Obama-era moratorium near Minnesota’s Boundary Waters) might be revisited, and agencies may feel pressure to resolve environmental reviews for major copper mines more quickly. Uranium is another focus: while not officially labeled “critical” by the USGS (due to energy fuel being a separate category), the order treats uranium as a critical mineral. This reflects strategic concerns over U.S. dependence on imported uranium for nuclear power and defense. We may see renewed exploration in western states for uranium, as well as efforts to streamline uranium mine permitting on federal lands (with attention to environmental safeguards given past contamination issues).
Even “less critical” minerals could get a boost. The inclusion of potash (for fertilizer) hints at an interest in ramping up agricultural minerals; the U.S. currently imports a large share of its potash from Canada. Gold, while not strategically critical, is a major component of the mining economy in states like Nevada and Alaska – by labeling gold a priority, the federal government may simply be trying to spur rural economic development and make the U.S. even more attractive for precious metals investment. Essentially, the policy tries to ensure no important resource is left behind: it seeks to recreate a world where the U.S. is a top producer not just of a few flashy tech metals, but of the full suite of resources needed for economic strength.
From an exploration standpoint, this comprehensive approach means geologists, prospectors, and mining companies have a green light to pursue a broad range of targets on U.S. soil. We could see an uptick in exploration spending in the U.S. across multiple commodities. Junior explorers who might have focused in other countries due to easier permitting could refocus on American projects now. For instance, companies exploring for battery-grade nickel (perhaps in Minnesota or Michigan sulfide deposits) or rare earths in Alaska might accelerate drilling programs with hopes that by the time they prove a deposit, the mine permitting will be faster and financing support will be available. Foreign mining investors could also take a second look at the U.S. – if barriers to entry are falling, the rich geology of the U.S. (which has world-class deposits of copper, gold, lithium, and more) becomes very enticing. Trump also hinted at international deals to bolster supply: he announced plans to sign a minerals agreement with Ukraine to secure access to that country’s resources in return for U.S. investment, and even received overtures from the Democratic Republic of Congo offering U.S. firms opportunities in cobalt mining. These maneuvers show a multi-pronged strategy: boost domestic exploration and also secure friendly sources abroad, reducing leverage of geopolitical rivals like China.
Of course, the real test will be implementation. While the executive orders lay out an ambitious agenda, carrying it out requires coordination among agencies and surviving potential legal challenges. Environmental organizations are likely to challenge expedited permits in court if they feel laws like NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) are being circumvented. The administration will argue that its emergency authority allows such streamlining, but this could become a battleground. Still, in the near term, the clear message to the exploration sector is positive: the U.S. government is actively inviting new mineral exploration and pledging support to see projects through. From critical minerals to base metals to uranium, virtually all key resources have an improved outlook in the United States as a result of these orders.
Comparisons to Past U.S. Policies and Global Initiatives
The current push marks one of the most assertive U.S. mining policy shifts in decades, especially when compared to past efforts. Previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, recognized the supply risks around critical minerals but responded more modestly. For instance, in Trump’s first term, Executive Order 13817 (2017) established a federal critical minerals strategy, directing agencies to identify critical minerals and find ways to reduce import dependence. That led to the first official Critical Minerals List (35 minerals) and some interagency reports, but largely stayed at the strategy and recommendation level. Likewise, President Obama had earlier formed working groups to improve permitting coordination for rare earth elements and issued policies promoting “responsible mineral development,” but these had limited practical impact on the ground. In contrast, the 2025 executive orders move beyond strategy to execution, using emergency powers to override delays. They effectively implement many of the recommendations that past reports have made (e.g. streamline permitting, update mining law, invest in mapping and R&D) but do so via unilateral executive action rather than waiting for new legislation.
Under President Biden, there was a nuanced approach: on one hand, Biden’s team invoked the Defense Production Act in 2022 to fund critical mineral projects (particularly for battery materials like lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and manganese) and passed the Inflation Reduction Act which included manufacturing incentives tied to domestically-sourced minerals. On the other hand, the Biden administration also placed environmental limits on certain mining endeavors – for example, it canceled leases for a proposed copper-nickel mine in Minnesota over watershed concerns and imposed a 20-year mining ban on federal lands around the Grand Canyon to protect sites from uranium mining. Biden’s Interior Department launched an Interagency Working Group on reforming the 1872 Mining Law, considering royalties and stronger Tribal consultations. Those moves were aimed at modernizing mining rules and balancing development with conservation. However, critics in the industry argued that such stringent measures discouraged investment. Now, with Trump’s return to a “minerals-first” agenda, many of Biden’s more restrictive policies are being reversed or halted. The pendulum swing is stark: where Biden attempted to tighten oversight and ensure “responsible” mining, Trump’s orders emphasize speed and volume of exploration and mining, with less emphasis on upfront regulatory constraints.
Looking abroad, the U.S. is not alone in waking up to the importance of critical minerals, though its approach differs. Canada in particular provides an interesting comparison: Canada has been actively courting mineral investment through funding and tax incentives rather than emergency decrees. In 2022, Canada unveiled a CAD $3.8 billion Critical Minerals Strategy that includes support for infrastructure, processing facilities, and a 30% Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit to encourage exploration of 15 specified minerals. This tax credit (which covers investors’ expenditures on exploration for resources like lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, rare earths, uranium, and more) is double the general exploration credit in Canada and has been touted as a successful way to draw capital into Canadian projects. Rather than using defense law, Canada uses its budget to de-risk projects. However, Canada also benefits from a more streamlined permitting regime – while not without environmental review, Canadian mines often reach approval faster than U.S. ones (as U.S. senators have quipped, “it takes 10 years to permit a mine in the US… In Canada it can take as little as two”. Thus, Canada’s policy mix has been to improve already efficient processes and offer carrots like tax breaks. Australia likewise has a stable and attractive mining policy environment, with state governments working to reduce approval times and federal programs co-funding critical mineral development (for example, Australia’s government has provided grants and low-cost loans to rare earth and battery mineral projects, and maintains a Critical Minerals Facilitation Office to help investors navigate permits). Both Canada and Australia consistently rank at the top of the Fraser Institute’s annual mining investment attractiveness index, thanks to rich geology and mining-friendly policies. In the 2022 Fraser survey, the United States actually had four states among the global top ten jurisdictions (Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and Alaska) – tying or slightly edging out Canada’s provinces – but the U.S. also had some states that scored poorly on policy perception due to regulatory uncertainty. The new executive orders seem aimed at propelling more of the U.S. into that top-tier status by eliminating the policy obstacles.
Meanwhile, Europe has been pursuing its own strategy via the proposed EU Critical Raw Materials Act. The EU’s approach sets targets (like sourcing 10% of critical raw materials from within Europe and cutting permitting times for mines to under 2-3 years) and funding innovation, but each member state’s bureaucracy still plays a role. Europe’s focus is also heavily on sustainable and ethical sourcing, which contrasts with the U.S. emergency stance of “just get it done.” China, for its part, has spent decades methodically building a dominant position in mineral supply chains – investing in mines in Africa, Latin America, and Australia, and controlling refining of materials like rare earths and lithium. China’s advantage comes from long-term industrial policy and control over environmental trade-offs that democratic nations struggle with. The U.S. is now, in a sense, attempting to rapidly catch up using executive power to compress timelines that China mastered by state-driven planning. Other nations like Japan, South Korea, and India are also launching critical mineral initiatives (often involving stockpiling or government-backed overseas investment), but none have the kind of domestic mineral abundance that the U.S. does. Russia’s war in Ukraine has further underscored the West’s need for secure raw materials, giving political momentum to these efforts.
In summary, compared to past U.S. policy which was more passive or incremental, Trump’s new orders are decisive and interventionist, echoing Cold War-era resource mobilization. And compared to allies, the U.S. is now trying an approach that combines their incentives (funding, tax breaks, partnerships) with an assertive use of emergency authority to break through bureaucratic inertia. The rest of the world will be watching to see if this yields results – for instance, if mines in the U.S. can actually be built faster now than in Canada or Australia, it could reshuffle the hierarchy of preferred mining jurisdictions. Conversely, if the U.S. push encounters legal roadblocks or flip-flops with future political changes, investors might still favor the steadiness of countries with legislated policies rather than executive directives.
Long-Term Attractiveness of the U.S. as an Exploration Destination
The big question for investors and the mining industry is whether these changes will make the United States a more attractive place for mineral exploration in the long run. In the short to medium term, the answer appears to be yes – the U.S. is sending strong signals that it wants more mining and is willing to back that up with faster permits and financial support. This drastically improves the risk/reward calculation for exploration projects. Companies factor in political risk and permitting timelines when choosing where to spend exploration dollars. By reducing the notorious delays (potentially from a decade or more down to a few years for approvals) and by offering government funding programs, the U.S. is lowering both the timeline to development and the cost of capital for projects. A mine discovery in Arizona or Idaho might now be just as or more likely to turn into a producing asset than one in a traditionally easier country, which boosts the incentive to explore on U.S. soil.
The Fraser Institute’s survey of mining companies has consistently shown that alongside geology, policy certainty and permitting are major factors in where exploration budgets go. States like Nevada and Utah rank at the top globally largely because they have mining-friendly regulations and less uncertainty. With these executive orders, the federal component of U.S. policy begins to align more with those pro-mining state policies. If effectively implemented, the U.S. could see a rise in its overall investment attractiveness. The country already has world-class mineral potential (for example, it hosts one of the world’s largest lithium resources in Nevada’s Clayton Valley, huge copper deposits in the Southwest, and was once a leading rare earth producer). Unlocking these with supportive policy could see the U.S. climb in global rankings for exploration spending. We may also see more domestic startups and junior companies forming to pursue critical minerals, now that there is a clearer path to monetization and even the possibility of government offtake agreements or funding.
However, long-term attractiveness will also depend on the durability of these policies. One concern is that executive orders can be rescinded or altered by future administrations. The current measures are not enshrined in law – they rely on executive authority that might not last beyond Trump’s term if a different philosophy comes into power. This potential whiplash in U.S. policy (pro-mining now, perhaps restrictive later) could give some investors pause, especially for projects with development timelines spanning a decade. To mitigate this, the Trump administration is trying to institutionalize some changes (for example, formally adding minerals to defense priority programs, and pushing agencies to propose legislative updates to Congress like changes to the Mining Law). If some of these policies become bipartisan or statutory, it would cement the U.S.’s reputation as mining-friendly. As of now, though, there’s an element of political risk – a sharp change in leadership could re-impose longer reviews or undo land access, as seen when Biden took over from Trump in 2021 and halted some Trump-era resource initiatives.
Another factor is how well environmental and community impacts are managed. For sustained attractiveness, the U.S. must avoid a scenario where fast-tracked projects lead to environmental damage or strong public backlash, which in turn could sour politicians and the public on mining again. If the executive orders result in visible problems – it could create future constraints or legal injunctions. On the other hand, if projects proceed efficiently and responsibly, it could build trust that the U.S. can ramp up mining without sacrificing environmental standards. Achieving that balance will be key to the sustainability of the pro-exploration climate. The responsibility falls largely on exploration and mining companies to carry this forward successfully.
From a global perspective, the U.S. becoming more mining-friendly is a welcome development for companies looking to diversify away from unstable regions. Many mineral-rich countries in Africa and Latin America face resource nationalism, high corruption, or weak infrastructure. By contrast, the U.S. offers a stable legal system, infrastructure, and now a government eager to partner on mining – a combination that few countries can match. If these policies persist, the U.S. could emerge as a “safe haven” for exploration investment, especially for critical minerals needed in the energy transition. Already, North America is home to several top jurisdictions for mining investment, and the U.S. having, for instance, Utah, Nevada, Arizona in the global top ten shows the potential. With federal barriers reduced, more U.S. states could join those ranks.
In conclusion, President Trump’s new executive orders represent a bold bid to reclaim U.S. leadership in mineral production. They streamline permits, unleash funding, and encourage exploration across a gamut of resources. If successful, these actions could shorten mine development timelines in the U.S., bolster supply chains for critical industries, and make the U.S. one of the most attractive places in the world to explore for minerals – reversing decades of growing import dependence. The long-term attractiveness of the U.S. will hinge on consistent policy follow-through and proving that faster growth in mining can coexist with environmental stewardship. For now, though, there is palpable optimism in the mining sector that the United States is “open for exploration” like it hasn’t been in a generation or more. As one industry leader put it, “Ramping up American mining is a national security imperative” – and with these executive orders, the U.S. is backing that imperative with concrete action, potentially ushering in a new era for domestic mineral exploration.
Sources:
- Executive Order, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” Jan 20, 2025 – Trump White House (Executive Order: Declaring a National Energy Emergency | Insights | Holland & Knight) (Declaring a National Energy Emergency – The White House).
- Executive Order, “Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production,” Mar 20, 2025 – Trump White House (Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production – The White House) (Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production – The White House).
- Reuters – “Trump invokes emergency powers to boost US critical minerals production,” Mar 20, 2025 (Trump invokes emergency powers to boost US critical minerals production | Reuters) (Trump invokes emergency powers to boost US critical minerals production | Reuters).
- Reuters – “US mine development timeline second-longest in world, S&P Global says,” Jul 18, 2024 (US mine development timeline second-longest in world, S&P Global says | Reuters) (US mine development timeline second-longest in world, S&P Global says | Reuters).
- Holland & Knight – “Executive Order: Declaring a National Energy Emergency (Summary),” Jan 20, 2025 (Executive Order: Declaring a National Energy Emergency | Insights | Holland & Knight) (Executive Order: Declaring a National Energy Emergency | Insights | Holland & Knight).
- Greenberg Traurig – “National Energy Emergency Declaration May Accelerate Energy Infrastructure Projects,” Mar 7, 2025 (National Energy Emergency Declaration May Accelerate Traditional Energy Infrastructure Projects | Insights | Greenberg Traurig LLP) (National Energy Emergency Declaration May Accelerate Traditional Energy Infrastructure Projects | Insights | Greenberg Traurig LLP).
- National Parks Conservation Assoc. – “Parks Group Responds to Order Expanding Mining on Public Lands,” Mar 21, 2025 (Parks Group Responds to Order Expanding Mining on Public Lands, Risking National Parks · National Parks Conservation Association) (Parks Group Responds to Order Expanding Mining on Public Lands, Risking National Parks · National Parks Conservation Association).
- Carbon Brief – “Trump to expand critical mineral output using wartime powers,” Mar 21, 2025 ( US: Trump to expand critical mineral output using wartime powers – Carbon Brief ) ( US: Trump to expand critical mineral output using wartime powers – Carbon Brief ).
- Roll Call – “US mining advocates look north… (permitting comparison),” Sep 21, 2022 (US mining advocates look north and like what they see – Roll Call) (US mining advocates look north and like what they see – Roll Call).
- PDAC Canada – “Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit (CMETC),” updated 2025 (PDAC | Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit).
- SME (Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration) – “Critical Minerals Backgrounder,” 2019 (Critical and Strategic Minerals – Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration).
- National Mining Association – Press statements (Trump invokes emergency powers to boost US critical minerals production | Reuters).