Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law blog — March 11, 2025
Critical Minerals are the backbone of modern technology and national security. They power everything from advanced semiconductors, electric vehicle batteries, missile guidance systems, and renewable energy infrastructure. The demand for these materials has increased as the global economy shifts to a more diverse range of energy technologies. Despite their vast importance and usefulness, the United States remains heavily dependent on foreign sources–particularly China–that dominate the global supply chain for critical minerals. In recent weeks, we have seen a variety of actions taken by the White House, from new executive order to repealing old ones. This includes the Trump administration’s Day One Executive Order entitled Unleashing American Energy, which directs U.S. government agencies to assess several trade and national-security-related actions (including stockpiling), prioritize geological mapping, and consider support for processing of critical minerals, among other things. The federal government’s response is not limited to that, however. A number of congressional bills–many of them with bipartisan support–have been proposed in the 2025 legislative session in an effort to boost domestic extraction, refining and production of critical minerals.
Critical Materials Future Act of 2025 (S. 596)
Introduced by Senators John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chris Coons (D-DE) and Todd Young (R-IN), the
Critical Materials Future Act of 2025 would establish a pilot program under the Department of Energy (DOE) to support domestic critical material processing projects–a key industry underdeveloped in the United States, resulting in the concentration of processing capabilities and facilities in certain countries. The U.S. critical mineral supply chain is lacking a robust midstream industry for the conversion of raw materials to high purity metals that are used for specific end-uses. This results in 93% of the rare earth elements (REEs), mined in the U.S. being exported for refining abroad. Currently, the U.S. exports almost its entire domestic mining supply for REEs to be processed into finished products – often to China, who refines 92% the global supply – only to buy back the same REEs in various forms through advanced technologies. If passed, the bill would authorize DOE to spend $750 million on at least three domestic mineral recycling or refining projects. Sen. Hickenlooper stressed the need to “maintain American Leadership” by boosting processing at home and reducing dependency on foreign adversaries. Similarly, Sen. Graham highlighted the risks posed by China’s control over critical mineral processing and the importance of building resilient domestic capabilities.Unearth Innovation Act (S.598)
A second, similar bill was re-introduced by Sen. John Hickenlooper and joined by Thom Tillis (R-NC) on February 13, 2025. The
Unearth Innovation act would create a Mineral and Mining Innovation Program at the DOE. The Colorado School of Mines and the Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration have expressed support for the legislation. The Colorado School of Mines and the Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration have expressed support for the legislation.Securing Trade and Resources for Advanced Technology, Economic Growth, and International Commerce (STRATEGIC) Minerals Act (S.429)
Previous introduced in 2024, Senators Todd Young (R-IN), Chris Coons (D-DE), John Cornyn (R-TX) and John Hickenlooper are re-introducing the
STRATEGIC Minerals Act in the 2025 session. The act would allow the President to negotiate sector-specific free-trade agreements with trusted allies that focus on critical minerals and REEs, while specifically excluding China. This legislative effort aims to strengthen supply chains, reduce trade barriers and ensure reliable access to these vital materials with the cooperation of U.S. Allies. While the Trump administration has imposed tariffs aggressively in its first few weeks in office (including on allies and partners), in its Day One executive orders entitled America First Trade Policy and Unleashing American Energy, the Administration charges the U.S. Trade Representative to identify countries with which the United States can negotiate bilateral or sector-specific agreements, and the Department of State to consider opportunities to advance mining and processing of minerals within the United States through the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue.Critical Mineral Consistency Act of 2025 (S.714)
The
Critical Mineral Consistency Act of 2025, introduced by Senators Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), John R. Curtis (R-UT), James E. Risch (R-IS) and Mike Lee (R-UT), aims to harmonize the definitions of critical minerals across federal agencies by aligning the DOE’s Critical Materials List with the Critical Minerals List of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This alignment is intended to reduce confusion between federal agencies and industries, ensuring that vital resources are treated equally. The legislation, if passed, would reduce the agency see-sawing between administrations. This effort highlights the importance of reconciling Congressional activities with initiatives within executive branch. The current USGS nominee Ned Mamula has stated that he will make this change. President Trump wants copper added to the nation’s list of critical minerals. The House passed a similar law in 2024, authored by Rep. Juan Ciscomani. However, it failed to become law. The 2025 Senate version appears to have more promising prospects with bipartisan support from the start.Conclusion
These legislative efforts reflect a relatively rare point of bipartisan consensus–securing and strengthening domestic supply chains of critical minerals is essential for national security, economic resilience and technological leadership. These bills are designed to reduce reliance on foreign sources and in particular China. They also aim to encourage innovation, build stronger trade relationships with trusted partners, and foster domestic production. The future of U.S. mineral policy is uncertain, particularly with the changing political dynamics and changes in agency leadership. The approach of President Trump to trade, industry regulation, and global partnerships may change the trajectory of this effort. In the first months of Trump’s term, the administration has tried to reduce federal spending for a variety of programs and shrink federal workforces, including those within science, technology, and research agencies. In his recent address before Congress, the President expressed his desire to increase U.S. production for critical minerals and rare Earths. It remains to be determined whether the administration’s efforts at reducing federal spending will complicate legislative efforts to increase funding for the critical minerals sector. Regardless of political leadership, the fundamental need to ensure a stable, independent supply of critical minerals remains a strategic priority–one that will shape the country’s economic and security landscape for years to come.
Pillsbury will continue to monitor these legislative developments and provide updates as the process evolves.
RELATED ARTICLES
AI Needs Critical Materials, Fast! But From Where?
Critical Materials for the Energy Transition: Of “Rare Earths” and Even Rarer Minerals
