Critical Decisions Await Policymakers on Critical Minerals
Early next year, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is expected to make a significant announcement on our global competitiveness when it releases its updated list of critical minerals.
Why is this so important? Critical minerals – such as zinc, cobalt, nickel and manganese – are the cornerstone of our modern society. They’re important for our economy, the clean energy transition, our national security, and are found in everything from smartphones to pacemakers and bicycles.
While very much in demand around the globe, supplies of these critical minerals are not endless. That’s why Congress and U.S. policymakers in recent years have gone to great lengths to better understand where in the world critical minerals can be found and who controls their supply chains.
There’s several ongoing efforts to catalog what the minerals most critical to the United States are.
Language signed into law in 2020 defined a critical mineral as “any mineral, element, substance, or material designated as critical” by the Secretary of the Interior because it is essential to the economic and national security of the United States, has a vulnerable supply chain, and serves an essential function in manufacturing a product.
There’s “China Week” for a Reason
In 2022, when the USGS published its updated list of 50 critical minerals, including those produced as a byproduct of a different material, the results were sobering.
It found that the United States was 100% net import reliant for 12 of the 50 critical minerals on the 2022 critical minerals list, and more than 50% net import reliant for an additional 29. In 2023, China was the leading producer for 29 of the 50 critical minerals on the 2022 critical minerals list. Reliance on critical minerals from other countries and China’s dominance in producing and refining them raises concerns about critical mineral supply chain disruptions in the United States.
Since then, geopolitical events have only heightened the tension over mineral supply chains, including Russia’s 2022 escalation of its war against Ukraine, ongoing Middle East turmoil, and new Chinese export restrictions on gallium, germanium, graphite, and antimony.
Political Football
Every three years, the USGS reviews and updates its list of critical minerals, which is an important benchmark for prioritizing investment, research and policy development. It can also lead to the addition or removal of minerals based on changing supply chain dynamics.
We’ll be watching to see if copper makes the next USGS list – as it did the Energy Department’s (DOE) critical minerals list in 2023 – as well as silver.
Political calculations are also a reality of the work of identifying critical minerals. While President Trump had made clear that uranium should be on USGS’s list, President Biden removed it after he faced political blowback over uranium mining near the Grand Canyon.
And as a sign of the stakes surrounding critical minerals, the federal lists don’t stop at USGS or DOE. The Department of Defense also maintains a list of critical and strategic materials needed to supply the military and defense industrial base. And we understand that the Commerce Department may be working on its own unofficial list of critical minerals and metals based on trade.
Elections Have Consequences
The lack of harmony among these lists is a point of contention on Capitol Hill, where some lawmakers are wary of legislative attempts to override decisions made by trained experts that could have huge federal funding implications, and others are proposing to unify the lists.
And ultimately, while upcoming decisions on critical minerals are supposed to be immune from politics, remember that it’s the victor in November’s race for the White House that will be able to influence the final list.
The irony in our critical minerals policy is that it’s driven by data and a quantifiable need for specific resources but still exists in an inherently political process.
