In early 2025, President Donald J. Trump, now leading his second administration, signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act (DPA) to dramatically scale up domestic production of critical minerals. The move reflects a broader effort to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources of strategic materials that are essential to national defense, clean energy manufacturing, and advanced technology sectors. The decision has sparked significant debate across political, economic, and environmental spheres, with supporters citing national security and economic competitiveness, and critics warning of rushed deregulation and ecological harm.
Trump’s use of the DPA, a Cold War-era statute originally designed to mobilize industrial capacity in wartime, marks one of the most aggressive U.S. actions to date aimed at reshoring mineral supply chains. It follows similar moves during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the act was used to accelerate vaccine production and medical supply distribution. This time, the target is the foundation of the energy transition: lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and rare earth elements.
A Strategic Shift in U.S. Mineral Policy
The executive order, signed in March 2025, directs the Department of Defense and Department of Energy to identify and prioritize domestic projects capable of producing critical minerals deemed essential for national security and economic stability. It also releases federal funding to support mining operations, refining capacity, and research into alternative extraction technologies.
According to the White House announcement, the rationale for the policy centers on breaking dependence on “foreign adversaries,” especially China, which currently dominates global refining and processing of most key minerals. The order emphasizes that secure and resilient supply chains are “vital for national sovereignty, energy independence, and military readiness.”
This pivot follows increasing pressure from conservative lawmakers and industry groups who have warned that the United States risks becoming strategically vulnerable if mineral supplies are disrupted due to geopolitical tensions or trade conflicts. The DPA invocation is seen by many in the mining and defense sectors as an overdue correction to decades of offshoring and underinvestment.
Economic and Industrial Implications
The immediate beneficiaries of this policy are domestic mining companies and private equity investors already positioned in mineral-rich regions like Nevada, Alaska, and Texas. Shares in firms such as Lithium Americas and MP Materials rose sharply following the announcement, while venture capital has flowed into exploratory projects in the Southwest and Midwest.
The executive order also fast-tracks permitting for certain mineral extraction projects by creating a centralized federal review process that overrides state-level environmental restrictions. This provision is particularly controversial. Supporters argue that long permitting delays have made domestic mining uncompetitive, while critics contend that such shortcuts sideline environmental safeguards and community consultation.
The administration has framed this not only as an economic imperative, but as a jobs program. According to Trump’s remarks at the signing ceremony, the policy will “revitalize forgotten mining towns,” “create thousands of high-paying American jobs,” and “ensure our military has what it needs to protect the homeland.” He positioned the order as part of a broader nationalist platform of restoring American industry and reducing foreign entanglements.
Environmental and Indigenous Opposition
Policy analysts and legal scholars have also voiced concerns about the broad use of emergency powers to advance industrial policy. The Defense Production Act grants the executive branch significant leeway, including the ability to prioritize contracts, allocate materials, and direct private industry in the name of national security. Critics warn that such authority, while legal, can be misused or applied too broadly.
Dr. Margaret O’Connell, a public law professor at Georgetown University, noted that the line between military necessity and economic nationalism is becoming increasingly blurred. “The DPA was never intended as a tool for industrial favoritism,” she argued. “We risk normalizing a permanent state of exception in which the executive branch circumvents both Congress and local communities to reshape the economy by decree.”
Some lawmakers in the Democratic Party have also called for congressional oversight and stricter criteria for DPA applications. They argue that while reducing dependence on foreign minerals is sensible, the pathway forward must include robust environmental regulation, labor protections, and shared ownership models that benefit communities, not just corporations.
Global Reactions and Geopolitical Repercussions
International observers have interpreted the move as part of a broader trend toward mineral nationalism, with the United States joining China, the EU, and others in trying to “de-risk” their access to critical materials. While allies such as Canada and Australia have welcomed the U.S. shift and see it as complementary to their own efforts, other resource-rich countries worry that this signals a growing tendency among powerful nations to dominate access to mineral wealth.
The Global South, in particular, has expressed concern. At the recent UNCTAD forum on mineral governance, representatives from several African and Latin American countries warned that the U.S. strategy could distort global markets and undermine multilateral efforts to build more equitable supply chains.
“There is a risk that wealthy countries will secure minerals for themselves while promoting a race to the bottom in labor and environmental standards elsewhere,” said one delegate from the Democratic Republic of Congo. “We need cooperation, not hoarding.”
An Uncertain Future
Trump’s invocation of the Defense Production Act to boost domestic mineral production represents a pivotal moment in U.S. industrial policy and global resource politics. It reflects a clear shift toward securitizing the mineral economy and accelerating domestic extraction at a time of mounting geopolitical uncertainty.
While the order may yield short-term industrial gains and reduce dependence on foreign suppliers, its long-term implications are far more complex. Environmental degradation, Indigenous rights violations, and regulatory shortcuts could create new forms of conflict and undermine the legitimacy of the very transition the policy aims to support.
If the United States is to build a truly resilient and just mineral economy, it must do more than mobilize capital and loosen restrictions. It must also redefine what security means—not just in terms of military capacity or economic dominance, but in terms of democratic accountability, ecological balance, and social equity.
Reference
Baker, P. (2025, March 14). Trump signs executive order to invoke Defense Production Act for critical minerals. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/14/us/politics/trump-minerals-defense-production-act.html
U.S. Department of Defense. (2025). Use of Defense Production Act to accelerate critical minerals supply chains. https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/2025/05/05/critical-minerals-dpa/