 |
| Storm'n Norm'n |
Age of Trump
Trump’s Mineral Revolution Secures Our National Sovereignty
by Ronald Beaty | Mar 23, 2025
This is not blind nostalgia for smokestacks but a forward-looking stand for sovereignty.
Trump’s EO rightly frames this as a national security crisis, invoking the Defense Production Act and a prior “National Energy Emergency” (EO 14156, January 20, 2025) to slash regulatory barriers and unleash private enterprise.
At its core, this order embodies the conservative ethos: government as a facilitator, not a dictator, of prosperity. It mandates agencies to identify and approve mining projects within 10 days, prioritizes federal lands for mineral extraction, and mobilizes capital through innovative mechanisms like the Development Finance Corporation (DFC) and Defense Department leases. This isn’t reckless — it’s resolute. The EO’s timelines are tight because freedom delayed is freedom denied. When the Bureau of Land Management takes seven years to permit a mine, as it did with Nevada’s Thacker Pass lithium project (still pending in 2025), we lose jobs to Beijing and sovereignty to bureaucrats. Trump’s order cuts that Gordian knot, proving that limited government can still act with purpose.
Consider the economic stakes. The mineral sector could be America’s next great frontier, a modern echo of the steel and oil booms that built our industrial backbone. The American Mining Association estimates that domestic critical mineral production could generate 50,000-100,000 jobs, mostly in the heartland. In states like Wyoming and Montana, where unemployment lingers from coal’s decline, this EO offers a lifeline. Onshoring battery and magnet production could slash EV costs, boosting firms like Rivian while cutting reliance on Chinese supply chains.
Critics, predictably, will cry environmental apocalypse. They’ll conjure images of scarred landscapes and poisoned rivers, ignoring that modern mining, from heap leaching to tailings management, has evolved since the 1970s. The EO doesn’t gut safeguards; it streamlines them, demanding Congress clarify the Mining Act of 1872 — a law so outdated it predates the light bulb. This is a mandate to strike a balance: stewardship of natural resources doesn’t mean locking resources away but using them wisely for human benefit.
Besides, the real ecological threat isn’t American mines — it’s China’s, where lax standards devastate ecosystems while we wring our hands. If we don’t mine here, we outsource the damage there, a hypocrisy no one should accept.
The EO’s genius lies in its fusion of public power and private dynamism. By waiving cumbersome DPA requirements and delegating authority to Defense and the DFC, Trump turbocharges investment without ballooning the deficit. Picture this: private firms leasing DoD land in Nevada to build refineries, backed by SBA loans and Export-Import Bank offtake deals. Government clears the path, entrepreneurs pave it. The proposed DFC mineral fund, paired with Defense’s Industrial Base Analysis, could rival China’s state-backed juggernauts, proving that free markets, not socialism, win resource wars.
Obstacles to Extracting Minerals
Yet, Americans must temper their enthusiasm with realism. This EO isn’t a magic wand. Our mineral processing lags — zero rare earth refineries operate stateside, per the Department of Energy — and rebuilding could take a decade. China’s cost advantage (20-30 percent cheaper, per industry analysts) means U.S. miners need tariffs or subsidies to compete, tools the EO sidesteps.
Legal challenges loom, too; environmentalists will sue under NEPA, as they did with Minnesota’s Twin Metals (blocked 2023-2025), testing the order’s mettle. And rural communities near mines may balk, fearing water shortages or cultural disruption — a reminder that liberty includes local voices.
These hurdles don’t diminish the EO’s vision; they refine it. Success will require complementary steps: tax credits for processing plants, vocational programs to train miners (only 13 U.S. universities offer mining degrees, per the Society for Mining Engineers), and trade policies to level the playing field. Congress, too, must act on the Mining Act, a task Trump’s team should press with the same urgency as border security. With Republicans holding the House and Senate in 2025, this could pass by year’s end, cementing the EO’s foundation.
The broader implications are profound. For decades, we’ve let globalists hollow out our industries, trading self-sufficiency for cheap imports. Trump’s EO reverses that surrender, echoing Reagan’s call to stand tall. It’s a middle finger to the Davos crowd who’d rather we beg Beijing than dig in Boise. And it’s a strategic coup: uranium independence bolsters our nuclear edge, rare earths secure our tech primacy, and copper fuels our grid. In a multipolar world, where China and Russia hoard resources, this EO positions America to lead, not follow.
The broader implications are profound. For decades, we’ve let globalists hollow out our industries, trading self-sufficiency for cheap imports. Trump’s EO reverses that surrender, echoing Reagan’s call to stand tall. It’s a middle finger to the Davos crowd who’d rather we beg Beijing than dig in Boise. And it’s a strategic coup: uranium independence bolsters our nuclear edge, rare earths secure our tech primacy, and copper fuels our grid. In a multipolar world, where China and Russia hoard resources, this EO positions America to lead, not follow.
This is not blind nostalgia for smokestacks but a forward-looking stand for sovereignty. Yes, execution matters — agencies must deliver, investors must step up, and greens must be reasoned with, not steamrolled. But the alternative is grim: a nation beholden to Xi Jinping’s whims, our factories idled, our defenses exposed. The EO’s flaws — tight timelines, processing gaps — are fixable. The American people should back this effort at mineral independence with the same resolve that built this nation. If we don’t, someone else will. And they won’t wave our flag.
No comments:
Post a Comment