Critical materials are used in everyday products like cell phones, computers, appliances, vehicles, batteries, and notably, energy infrastructure that American families and businesses need to thrive. America’s unprecedented energy demand will require resources like lithium, copper, cobalt, graphite, nickel, and other critical minerals and materials. Currently, we are too dependent on foreign adversaries like China to supply our needs.
The United States' reliance on foreign sources for minerals threatens our national security, energy independence and economic competitiveness. It is imperative to make it easier to supply manufacturers with domestically mined and refined minerals, and employ American workers.
Critical minerals are…critical. In the global race to a new energy economy, the U.S. shouldn’t depend on other countries for critical materials when we have abundant resources here at home. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reports in their 2025 Mineral Commodities Summary Report that of the 50 critical minerals, the U.S. was 100% net import reliant for 12, and at least 50% net import reliant for an additional 28. China also has a near-monopoly on mineral processing and refining.
To address these vulnerabilities, the U.S. must deploy a comprehensive strategy that synchronizes domestic R&D capabilities with targeted free market incentives, regulatory modernization and proactive trade policies to restore the U.S. to a leadership role.
Restore predictability to the permitting process. By the time a standard domestic mining project receives permits needed to begin production, it has already lost more than one-third of its value as a result of bureaucratic delays. The higher costs and increased risks that often arise from a prolonged permitting process can cut the expected value of a mine in half before production even begins. The proper steps can help restore predictability to the permitting process for domestic mining and refining projects:
Streamline judicial review. Today, the current system is overwhelmingly tilted toward those who seek to delay or block projects through endless litigation. Opponents of domestic mining projects file lawsuits to delay them until developers run out of funding and abandon their projects.
U.S. policy should limit legal challenges to plain and obvious errors related to the natural resources laws, narrow the scope and adhere to a strict review timeline. Without these changes, billions in investment and years of progress will continue to be wasted, undermining the nation’s ability to build critical infrastructure and secure a reliable supply chain for essential minerals.
Derisk private investment in domestic mining and processing with targeted incentives and public-private partnerships. The U.S. must allow mining and refining entities access to certain financial incentives to compete globally. Chinese state-owned enterprises use heavy subsidies to undercut American companies, distort prices, and dominate markets. These actions have led to shortages of critical minerals and increased prices, disrupting supply chains and exposing the U.S. economy to risk. New mines and facilities succeed by embedding their supply chains, ensuring buyers are in place before production begins. Targeted incentives and public-private partnerships help support resilient domestic supply chains.
Another continuing issue that disincentivizes domestic mining development is the 2022 Rosemont decision. The decision upset decades of legal precedent by restricting mining-support activities, such as waste storage, processing, and infrastructure, to public lands that contain economically valuable minerals. The decision jeopardizes critical minerals and materials projects and further disincentivizes investment in domestic mining operations. The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act would statutorily reaffirm that public lands under a valid mining claim can be used for both mining operations and their necessary support activities. This is a needed positive step to provide a stable, predictable regulatory framework for domestic mining, which will protect American jobs, strengthen critical mineral supply chains and support responsible resource development.
Create Parity Between the USGS Critical Minerals List and the DOE Critical Materials List There are two major lists of minerals and materials - the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Critical Minerals List and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Critical Materials List. Currently, Critical Materials and Critical Minerals are eligible for different federal incentives and permitting benefits. Notably, only USGS Critical Minerals are eligible for the FAST-41 permitting program. FAST-41 streamlines the development process for a mine by coordinating expedited interagency reviews and limiting project litigation.
Disparities between DOE’s Critical Materials List and USGS’ Critical Minerals List have led to inefficiencies in resource development since copper, silicon carbide, terbium, and electrical steel—which are crucial for clean energy technologies—are classified as DOE Critical Materials but not USGS Critical Minerals, limiting their eligibility for streamlined permitting benefits.
Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ) introduced S.714, the Critical Mineral Consistency Act, to align the two lists. This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to create a combined “Critical Minerals and Materials List." This action would provide needed parity for mining developers and increase domestic production of critical minerals and materials.