A Federal Strategy To Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals

Overview

Executive Order 13817 Overview

Executive Order 13817, titled "A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals," was issued by President Donald Trump on December 20, 2017. The order outlines a national policy to reduce the United States' dependence on imported critical minerals, deemed essential for economic and national security. The directive acknowledges the country's significant reliance on imports for certain mineral commodities, posing strategic vulnerabilities to economic prosperity and national defense. The order emphasizes the need for a comprehensive strategy that supports domestic production, exploration, recycling, and technological alternatives development to mitigate this dependency.

The order defines "critical minerals" as non-fuel minerals or mineral materials essential to the nation's security and economy, whose supply chain faces vulnerabilities. The directive mandates the Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with the Department of Defense and other relevant agencies, to publish a list of these critical minerals. By doing so, it aims to identify which minerals are indispensable and yet susceptible to supply chain disruptions, prompting further exploration and production within U.S. borders.

One pivotal thrust of the executive order is to streamline the processes related to the exploration, mining, and production of these minerals. It includes facilitating the availability of topographical, geological, and geophysical data, and expediting permitting and regulatory processes to foster increased domestic mineral exploration and development. By making these changes, the order seeks to bolster the technological superiority and readiness of the U.S. Armed Forces, as they are significant consumers of such minerals. Furthermore, it supports job creation and balances trade by strengthening domestic production capabilities.

Legal and Policy Implications

Legal Framework

Executive Order 13817 does not directly alter existing laws but sets the foundation for regulatory adjustments by mandating federal agencies to prioritize processes that would support the critical minerals strategy. The directive aligns itself with several other executive orders, such as Executive Order 13771 on reducing regulation, by promoting a streamlined approach to federal permitting and review processes. It also complements Executive Order 13783, which focuses on promoting energy independence and economic growth, by emphasizing the comprehensive utilization of domestic resources.

This order has a notable administrative impact by directing the Secretary of Commerce and other federal agencies to create a cohesive strategy to reduce reliance on imports. The order calls for improved inter-agency coordination to facilitate data sharing and policy development, ensuring alignment with existing statutes and regulations concerning environmental protection, commerce, and national defense.

While the executive order pushes for advancing domestic mineral production, it does so with a vision of ensuring activities occur within legally and environmentally responsible boundaries. The insistence on conducting the strategy "in a safe and environmentally responsible manner" highlights the need for balancing economic and security objectives with environmental and regulatory obligations. However, the scope of environmental protection is not extensively elaborated upon, which leaves room for interpretation in subsequent regulatory frameworks developed by concerned agencies.

Policy Shifts

The order represents a substantial policy shift toward bolstering domestic industries involved in the extraction and processing of critical minerals. It underscores the strategic importance of domestic resource independence, particularly in geopolitical contexts where foreign supply disruption could occur. By involving multiple federal departments in the implementation of the order, it seeks a unified federal approach that aligns security, economic, and environmental considerations.

The policy favors private sector investment and involvement in mineral exploration and processing, setting the stage for a market-driven approach to increasing U.S. mineral development capabilities. However, it also requires a substantial reorientation of agency priorities toward mineral-related data generation and dissemination, implying potential reallocations of resources within and across agencies.

Who Benefits

Beneficiary Groups

The mining and extraction industries stand to benefit significantly from the execution of this order. By expediting the permitting processes and facilitating access to critical geological data, the executive order effectively reduces operational barriers that previously hindered exploration and development. This regulatory easing attracts investment in mineral exploration projects and encourages new entrants into the market, potentially revitalizing the domestic mining sector.

Next to mining companies, the manufacturing and technology sectors could also gain from this order. As producers of goods that depend on critical minerals, such sectors may experience reduced supply costs and improved supply chain stability upon the increased availability of domestic minerals. Companies involved in developing substitutes for critical minerals or advancing recycling technologies are incentivized, as the order encourages technological innovation to mitigate critical mineral dependence.

Military industries, particularly those involved in defense manufacturing, are highlighted beneficiaries. The assurance of a more stable domestic supply of minerals essential for defense technologies supports national security objectives and enables continued technological advancement in military applications. This also aligns with broader strategic goals of military readiness and technological competitiveness.

Furthermore, the domestic labor market benefits from potential job creation across the supply chain, from mining and processing to technological innovation and manufacturing. By emphasizing domestic production, the order potentially increases employment opportunities in regions rich in mineral resources.

State governments and local communities connected to mining activities may experience economic benefits through increased business activities and tax revenues. Regions with substantial mineral deposits could see economic growth and infrastructure development, furthering local prosperity.

Who Suffers

Impact on Other Groups

Environmental groups and communities concerned with conservation may perceive this executive order as a setback to environmental protection efforts. The emphasis on streamlining permitting and regulatory processes could lead to environmental oversight and scrutiny being sidelined, raising concerns about potential ecological degradation due to increased mining activities.

Industries unconcerned with critical minerals but reliant on import markets may experience indirect consequences from the executive shift towards domestic production. Concentration on critical mineral policy might result in trade tensions with exporting countries affected by reduced U.S. dependency on their mineral exports, impacting broader trade relations.

Communities located near potential mining sites may have apprehensions about local environmental and health impacts. While the order stresses environmentally responsible development, its focus on expediting processes may reduce the depth of public consultation processes usually undertaken during environmental assessments.

The balance of policy may also disadvantage entities promoting renewable energy initiatives that depend on regulatory consistency for approval and continuation. These sectors may face increased competition for fiscal resources and governmental support as critical mineral policy assumes a higher national priority.

Finally, the global mineral market could adjust to decreased U.S. demand, leading to potential price fluctuations and market instability for exporters traditionally servicing the American market. This change could have downstream effects on global supply chains affecting non-U.S. consumers reliant on stable prices and availability.

Historical Context

Executive Orders and Administrative Priorities

Executive Order 13817 fits into a broader trend within the Trump administration focusing on energy independence and economic nationalism. The administration's energy and industrial policies often emphasized reducing foreign dependencies and strengthening domestic capabilities, reflecting underlying themes of self-reliance and national security through economic independence.

This order echoes past executive endeavors aimed at resource independence, reminiscent of early 20th-century policies where strategic resource management featured prominently in national security considerations. With growing technological demands, the calculus of resource availability has become a multidimensional policy issue intertwined with defense and economic policy concerns.

The executive order is consistent with Trump's "America First" policy approach, which prioritizes reclaiming industrial capabilities and encouraging domestic growth through deregulation and facilitating business operations. It signals the continuation of directive actions intended to internally optimize American market participation rather than relying on international supply networks.

Connections to broader regulatory reform initiatives, particularly Executive Order 13771, also highlight the administration's general thrust towards diminishing perceived regulatory burdens hampering domestic economic dynamism. Critical mineral development becomes an arena where these regulatory reforms are actively tested and implemented.

Historically, the reshaping of critical mineral management policy reflects an element of continuity with previous administrations' responses to evolving technological and defense-oriented material needs. The recognition of mineral dependence vulnerabilities has been an enduring theme in U.S. strategic policy, emphasizing shifts in response mechanisms befitting contemporary geopolitical challenges.

Potential Controversies or Challenges

Legal and Political Challenges

One area ripe for potential challenge is the streamlined permitting and review process, central to the executive order. There may be disputes over compliance with existing environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), given that accelerating timelines could challenge rigorous environmental assessments. Legal actions from environmental advocacy groups could argue insufficient environmental scrutiny under expedited processes.

Conflict could arise with state regulations if the federal agenda attempts to supersede or bypass more stringent state-level environmental protocols. State governments may push back against federally driven mineral development mandates conflicting with localized conservation priorities or public sentiments.

Internationally, the emphasis on reduced import reliance could lead to diplomatic tensions with ally nations possessing significant mineral reserves. These geopolitical concerns might engage international trade laws and necessitate careful navigation of bilateral relations adjusting to altered U.S. critical mineral dependency.

In the political arena, bipartisan controversies might arise with divergent perspectives on environmental conservation versus economic development priorities. Critics may raise issues about the decision-making transparency and stakeholder engagement in implementing the executive order, advocating for broader participatory approaches.

Lastly, prolonged litigation on permits and environmental concerns could pose significant delays, frustrating intentions of creating a rapid actionable response to mineral supply vulnerabilities. Such developments necessitate balancing speed of implementation with foresight into litigation obstructions and contested agency jurisdictions.