Among other things, the EO directs:
- federal agencies to streamline the permitting of priority mineral projects;
- federal agencies to support mineral exploration and production on Federal lands, including through the leasing or development of sites on such lands;
- the Department of Defense (DOD) and the International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to use Defense Production Act (DPA) authorities to support domestic production of minerals; and
- the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im) to make efforts to secure offtake of global raw mineral or ore feedstock for domestic processing.
Strategic Directives of the EO
Broad Definitions
The EO defines “mineral” to include “critical minerals” designated by the Secretary of Interior under 30 U.S.C. § 1606(a)(3))—the most recent list is available here—as well as uranium, copper, potash, gold and other elements, as deemed necessary by the Chair of the National Energy Dominance Council (NEDC).
This broad definition and new authority of the NEDC Chair to forego the existing process through the Department of Energy and the U.S. Geological Survey to determine which minerals are “critical” has raised questions about whether the U.S. can designate coal “critical” without the oversight and public participation provided by the existing critical minerals listing process.
Streamlining of Permitting
- Identification of Priority Projects: Most immediately—within 10 days of the EO—agencies involved in mineral permitting must submit to the chair of the newly formed NEDC (the Secretary of Interior) a list of mineral production projects with a plan or operations, permit application, or other pending approval. Within 10 days of submitting such lists, the agencies must identify “priority projects” for mineral production that can be “immediately approved” or for which permits may be “immediately issued” and take all necessary and appropriate actions under existing authorities to “expedite and issue the relevant permits or approvals.”
- FASTtracked permitting: Within 15 days of the EO, the Secretary of Interior is required to submit to the Executive Director of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (Permitting Council) projects that could be considered for the streamlined FAST-41 permitting process. Title 41 of the federal Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94, 129 Stat, creates a Permitting Dashboard, which tracks the federal government’s environmental review and authorization processes for qualifying “covered projects” across sectors like mineral production.
- Industry Input: The EO tasks the Secretary of Interior, in consultation with relevant federal agencies, to issue a Request for Information to solicit industry input regarding “regulatory bottlenecks and other recommended strategies for expediting domestic mineral production.”
Mining Act of 1872 Clarifications
Within 30 days of the EO, the Secretary of Interior and the Director of the Office of Legislative Affairs are required to recommend to the President how Congress could clarify how waste rock, tailings and mine waste disposal should be treated under the Act. Bipartisan members of Congress, including Senators Cortez Masto (D-NV) and Jim Risch (R-ID) and Congressmen Mark Amodei (R-NV-02) and Steven Horsford (D-NV-04), have introduced the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2025, which is intended to address these issues.
Federal Land Utilization
- Land Use Plans: Among the features of the executive orders expected to be challenged is a move that has received particular attention from conservation groups. Within 10 days of the EO, the Secretary of Interior is required to identify mineral-rich federal lands, which are to be prioritized for mining and processing-related activities. To promote such use, the EO directs land use plans required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) to be amended to effectuate the intent of the EO and permit mineral production and ancillary uses. Such ancillary uses could include roads, buildings or waste storage.
- Commercial Leasing or Development of Sites on Federal Lands: Within 30 days of the EO, the Secretaries of Defense, Interior, Agriculture and Energy are required to identify which sites on federal lands managed by their respective agencies may be “suitable for leasing or development” under applicable authorities for the “construction and operation of private commercial mineral production enterprises,” prioritizing sites on which mineral production projects could be most expeditiously developed and “have the greatest potential effect on robustness of the domestic and mineral supply chain.” This could include, for example, processing of minerals for which the United States has significant dependencies on China.
To facilitate production on identified sites, the Secretaries of Defense and Energy are required to:
- enter into “extended use leases” with private entities to advance the development and construction or modification of existing structures for commercial mineral production on such sites; and
- coordinate with other agencies that are authorized to provide loans, capital assistance, technical assistance and working capital to make such support readily available to private parties that enter into leases and commercial agreements described in (1).
Such lease arrangements and additional public support could significantly reduce capital expenditures for mineral production. Some stakeholders have raised that this prioritization for mineral production and mining-related activities may undermine Congressional intent that federal public lands be managed for multiple uses, and that priorities among those uses be weighed along with consideration of natural resource protection. Others have expressed concern this prioritization could pit renewable energy developers against the mineral industry.
Acceleration of Private and Public Capital Investment
- DPA Funding for Domestic Projects: Through invocation of wartime powers under the DPA, President Trump delegated to the Secretary of Defense and the CEO of the DFC authorities under Title III of DPA to provide incentives (including loans, loan guarantees, purchases, purchase commitments, grants and subsidies) for the “domestic production and facilitation of strategic resources” the Secretary of Defense or the CEO of DFC “deems necessary or appropriate” to advance mineral production. It appears that projects funded by DFC under its delegated authority will be funded through reimbursements by the Department of Defense from appropriated funds under the Defense Production Act Fund or the Office of Strategic Capital. While facilities in the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom are eligible for DPA funding, the authority delegated under the EO appears limited to supporting facilities in the United States. That the President delegated the authority to DFC (an entity traditionally focused on funding international development projects) to support domestic projects indicates that the President intends for the funding to be used to support commercial production (in addition to defense production). The President also waived various congressional notification and other requirements to address the national emergency he declared under Executive Order 14156 related to energy and critical minerals.
- Financing for Global Offtakes: Within 30 days of the EO, the president of Ex-Im is required to release guidance for the use of tools authorized under the Supply Chain Resiliency Initiative to secure United States “offtake of global raw mineral feedstock for domestic mineral processing” and under the Make More in America Initiative to support domestic mineral production. Government-financed offtake for raw minerals present an opportunity for projects in resource-rich countries to provide feedstock for processing in the United States. In this regard, it will be important for processors to work with miners in advance regarding ore specification to ensure that the processors can utilize the ores for feedstock. Also, while government-backed offtakes are an important tool for de-risking production, stakeholders have noted that the two percent cap on Ex-Im’s default rate cap poses limitations for the projects Ex-Im is able to finance, and have sought to increase the default rate cap. Notably, the cap also poses limitations on Ex-Im’s backing of other capital-intensive projects.
- Engaging the Demand Side: Firm offtake is critical for the viability and bankability of mineral projects. Challenges in the industry include lack of clarity on demand for certain minerals, such as small volume minerals. The EO seeks to address demand-side issues by requiring the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Policy to convene within 30 days “buyers of minerals and work towards an announced request for bids to supply the minerals.” This convening could be an opportunity for the government to engage with the demand side on opportunities to secure offtake agreements, such as demand aggregation for group-purchasing arrangements consistent with antitrust laws or legislative proposals for antitrust exemptions.
- Supporting Small Businesses: Within 45 days, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration is required to submit recommendations for legislation to “enhance private-public capital activities to support financings to domestic small businesses engaged in mineral production.” These recommendations could potentially benefit junior miners seeking public support.
Broader Efforts
This EO builds upon prior EOs issued by the Administration, including the Day 1 EO 14154 entitled Unleashing American Energy. On the domestic front, EO 14154 requires relevant agencies to identify actions that impose undue burdens on domestic mining and processing, reassess public lands withdrawals, prioritize efforts on geological mapping, ensure that critical mineral projects (including for processing) receive consideration for federal support, and take appropriate actions to ensure that the National Defense Stockpile “will provide a robust supply of critical minerals in event of future shortfall.”
On the international front, the EO requires agencies to assess “whether exploitative practices and state-assisted mineral projects abroad are unlawful or unduly burden or restrict” U.S. commerce, the “national security implications” of mineral trade reliance and “potential for trade action,” threats to national security from the minerals imported into the United States that are likely the product of forced labor, and to submit a report with policy recommendations “to enhance the competitiveness of American mining and refining companies in other mineral-wealthy nations.” The Administration’s Day 1 Memorandum entitled America First Trade Policy (discussed here) also requires the U.S. Trade Representative to review existing sectoral trade agreements and make recommendations regarding potential bilateral or sectoral arrangements. Under the memorandum, some of these recommendations, including those related to trade actions (such as potential investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 or Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232)), may be included in government-wide reports due on April 1, 2025.
In addition, on March 10, 2025, at the direction of the President, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated an investigation under Section 232 into copper imports (which could include copper in all forms and derivative products). Comments with respect to this investigation are due on April 1, 2025. The statutory deadline for Commerce to complete the investigation is December 5, 2025 (although the investigation could be completed prior to that date). If Commerce makes an affirmative finding that imports subject to the investigation threaten to impair national security, the President has 90 days following receipt of Commerce’s report to determine whether he concurs with Commerce’s finding and if so, to take any import adjustment measures.
Conclusion
The March 20, 2025, EO signals to producers (miners and processors), buyers and investors that domestic production is an important component of the Administration’s broader efforts to secure mineral supply chains. These efforts could also involve global partnerships, particularly with mineral-rich countries, to secure raw materials, and trade measures to adjust imports and/or enter into sectoral trade arrangements. The aforementioned stakeholders should consider further engagement with the government and Congress to provide views related to these objectives. As the federal government advances this initiative in parallel with bi-partisan legislative efforts, the mining sector stands poised for significant expansion across upstream and midstream segments.