Under Basalt

This Week's Trend In Brief:

• Last month, the Trump Administration doubled down on critical minerals – expanding the official list and proposing nearly $1 billion to boost domestic mining and refining – signaling momentum for a domestic industry eager to build.

   

• While Washington may prioritize critical minerals, companies must be prepared for the reality that support in D.C. does not always translate to speed on the ground, as permitting challenges and state and local requirements can extend timelines beyond federal expectations.

   

• Communities and environmental groups are prepared to challenge projects in courtrooms and zoning boards, deploying a battle-tested playbook they have already used to slow the development of other emerging industries.

   

• Even beyond legal and regulatory hurdles, companies must also contend with infrastructure constraints, volatile trade dynamics, and shifting local politics that make turning federal support into built projects far more complicated.

   

• For companies looking to seize this moment, success will hinge less on federal promises than on the ability to identify key stakeholders, anticipate challenges, and navigate the minefield of local politics, activist opposition, and reputational pressure.

Digging Deeper:

Last month, the Trump Administration doubled down on critical minerals – expanding the official list and proposing nearly $1 billion to boost domestic mining and refining – signaling momentum for a domestic industry eager to build. The U.S. Department of Energy declared that the funding will “speed the development of U.S. critical minerals and materials, used in everything from electric vehicle batteries to semiconductors.” The agency aims to accelerate “mining, processing and manufacturing technologies in the critical minerals and materials supply chains, sectors that have been dominated by China and other countries.” As stated by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, “For too long, the United States has relied on foreign actors to supply and process the critical materials that are essential to modern life and our national security.” But even with the optimistic tone surrounding these developments, companies may discover that turning policy momentum into tangible projects is far more complex than anticipated, requiring navigation of regulatory, financial, and political challenges.

While Washington may prioritize critical minerals, companies must be prepared for the reality that support in D.C. does not always translate to speed on the ground, as permitting challenges and state and local requirements can extend timelines beyond federal expectations. Even as the Trump Administration promotes critical minerals as a means to “create jobs, fuel prosperity, and significantly reduce our reliance on foreign nations,” federal momentum alone does little to overcome entrenched resistance. In Arizona, Resolution Copper’s proposed mine has been mired in lawsuits filed by landowners and activists, with Trump expressing frustration over the court-caused delays. The Pebble mining project in Alaska similarly faced years of opposition and was ultimately blocked by the Biden Administration. Even as the Trump Administration signals openness to revisiting the ruling that halted the project, activists are preparing to continue the legal fight over the facility. For companies seeking to capitalize on the Trump Administration’s push for critical minerals, these projects serve as a reminder that federal support does not necessarily guarantee a clearer path to project approval. Those across the energy industry must prepare for every outcome now, which means going beyond optimistic headlines and identifying key stakeholders, tracking activist activity, and understanding where legal or political friction is most likely to emerge.

Communities and environmental groups are indeed prepared to challenge projects in courtrooms and zoning boards, deploying a battle-tested playbook they have already used to slow the development of other emerging industries. Projects tied to critical minerals are facing mounting opposition from multiple fronts, with activists increasingly relying on lawsuits to stall development when regulatory fights don’t deliver the desired outcomes. Climate groups, backed by years of funding and a polished national infrastructure, continue to target mining and refining projects through coordinated campaigns. Last year, the Center for Biological Diversity sued to block the Rhyolite Ridge lithium facility in Nevada, the first domestic lithium mine authorized under the Biden Administration, highlighting the opposition facing what some call “Nevada’s white gold rush.” Meanwhile, permits for Glencore’s $1 billion copper and nickel mining project in Minnesota have been tied up in court for years, and the company still faces a lengthy environmental review before it can move forward. At the same time, new populist movements on the right are adopting many of the same tactics used by climate activists to challenge developments they argue threaten local economies or communities. This convergence has turned litigation into a central battlefield, meaning that for companies looking to take advantage of the administration’s push on critical minerals, success will hinge not only on navigating federal permitting but also on withstanding organized legal challenges designed to delay or derail projects at every step.

Even beyond legal and regulatory hurdles, companies must also contend with infrastructure constraints, volatile trade dynamics, and shifting local politics that make turning federal support into built projects far more complicated. For example, workforce shortages are preventing mining companies from reaching their production targets and strategic goals, while the high cost of scaling up mining facilities and concerns about being held liable for environmental damage make industry leaders cautious. China’s tight grip on refining capacity and its willingness to restrict exports have their own risks, as they create a major hurdle for companies trying to build out domestic supply chains, given their continued reliance on Chinese refining. Global demand is adding pressure, with the proposed Rhyolite Ridge lithium mine in Nevada stalling earlier this year after prices for lithium plunged. Meanwhile, decades‐long permitting delays, debates about environmental impact, and opposition from local opposition, especially in rural and Indigenous communities, continue to threaten or derail projects at the state and local level. Taken together, these pressures underscore that federal policy alone cannot guarantee progress, and companies will need their own strategies to navigate the complex landscape ahead.

The Trump Administration’s push on critical minerals may signal a new era of federal support, but for companies navigating today’s mining landscape, that is only one piece of a much larger puzzle. Federal momentum does not erase the patchwork of state and local rules that can slow projects for years, nor does it neutralize increasingly sophisticated activist campaigns designed to challenge mining at every stage, from permitting to construction to operations. For companies seeking to build, securing federal approval is only the beginning. To avoid costly delays, mining projects must be approached with the same level of foresight and coordination as the opposition, which means building coalitions early, monitoring emerging risks in communities and courts, and mapping the stakeholders most likely to shape outcomes on the ground. Public affairs professionals and the companies they represent cannot afford to remain reactive. Success will require a playbook of their own – one designed to anticipate opposition, shape the narrative, and ensure that critical minerals projects move from policy promise to built reality.

Trends in Energy is your weekly look at key trends affecting the energy industry, brought to you by the competitive intelligence experts at Delve. As the political and regulatory landscape continues to shift, reach out to learn how our insights can help you navigate these challenges.