Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Economy

Trump’s Tariffs Just Killed the Last Hope of a U.S. Mining Boom

Mining companies have asked for federal support — but this isn’t what most of them had in mind.

Donald Trump.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

It took Donald Trump just over two months to potentially tank his own American mineral supply chain renaissance.

At the time Trump entered office, it looked like the stars could align for an American mining boom. Mining jobs had finally recovered to pre-COVID levels, thanks in part to demand for the metals required to engineer the transition away from fossil fuels (and, paradoxically, continued demand for coal). A lot of the gains in mining stocks were thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, which offered a huge tax break to mining and metal processing companies and mandated that the consumer EV credit apply only to cars with a certain percentage of domestically-sourced material.

Trump 2.0 was poised to capitalize on that progress and unleash permits for U.S. mines under pared-back environmental regulations. In March, he issued an executive order to boost production of minerals in the U.S. — a maneuver that, combined with trade actions targeting China specifically, could have been the final step to bring about a mining and mineral processing resurgence in the U.S. and wrest some global market control away from China and other countries under its sphere of influence. In 2024, more than half of the mineral commodities consumed by the U.S. were imported from foreign sources, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Trump’s new global tariffs, however, sent the broader stock market into freefall, mining stocks very much included. He exempted many metals from the tariffs in their rawest form, but that was all the relief miners got. There were few exceptions for refined metal products or the inputs used for mining and mineral exploration. At the same time, metals prices — including commodities integral to battery production such as copper and lithium — are falling, with producers warning that now may be the high point for prices this year.

Part of this pricing issue is because the market appears to expect lower demand for new products that require those metals, such as EVs. Another part, as U.S. officials have said previously, is that China has been flooding the globe with minerals sold at a loss to win market influence. For this reason, D.C. policy wonks had been lobbying for legislation to address this pricing issue.

Now Trump has piled onto the industry's problems. This period could be especially painful for American mining companies, as it is exceedingly possible that a combination of lower commodity prices and higher costs for machinery and parts shatters whatever tailwinds were buoying many U.S. mining and metals projects. We may not see projects canceled yet, but a sense of extreme anxiety is sweeping the minds of many in the mining sector.

“If you look at the carrot of the pro-domestic mining policy versus the stick of the recessionary impacts from the demand side and the availability of capital impact from the supply side, the carrot is a raindrop and the stick is an ocean,” Emily Hersh, a veteran of the mining industry, told me.

Al Gore III, head of the D.C.-based electric vehicle and battery mineral supply chain association ZETA, said he agreed with Hersh’s assessment: “She’s right. We’ve been waging war against a raindrop for the last year, and now we’re in the ocean.”

Hersh has worked on mining projects across the world and taught me almost everything I know about the mining business, a sector I covered for years as a beat reporter for S&P Global and E&E News. Over the weekend, she explained to me the basic math behind why these tariffs will be bad for U.S. mining: It’ll be more expensive to buy the things abroad that companies need to build a mine, she said, from the drill rigs used in exploration to the parts required for extraction and ore storage. We don’t make a lot of those devices in the U.S., and building factories to do so will now be more expensive, too, making it more difficult to scale up what would be required to avoid higher project costs. Whatever benefits there are from trade pressure to choose U.S. mines for sourcing is outweighed by, well, everything else.

It’s important to remember how integral longstanding U.S. trade partners are to the global mining industry. Canada is one of the world’s largest producers of hardrock minerals, and at least 40% of the world’s mining companies are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Japan — now hit with a 24% tariff — was positioned to be an ally in U.S. efforts to wean off China-linked minerals and signed a minerals trade agreement under Biden. Even the Democratic Republic of Congo, which produces most of the world’s cobalt for batteries, was hit with a 10% tariff, leading Trump officials to try and appease the Congolese government by offering billions of dollars in investment.

Mining capacity is not the only constraint. We don’t process the ore we mine here, either. Take copper, a crucial industrial metal that many companies mine in America but then ship to Mexico or Canada to be refined for use in everything from cars to transmission lines and consumer electronics. This is why news of the tariffs has already led to record shipments of processed copper products into the U.S. as companies try to get ahead of the tariffs.

The final, crucial pain point: Recessions, like low metals prices, are usually horrible for mining projects and the companies developing them.

The 2008 recession was infamous for being the moment when the U.S. lost to China on battery metals; mining companies already hurting under sagging metals prices chose to sell assets and stakes in developers in Africa and elsewhere to Chinese companies, paving the way for the global resource power imbalance Trump likes to bemoan. The 2020 Covid-19 market shock also did little to help mining projects — metals prices went up because mines had to shut down, but demand and investment also decreased. That moment translated into a short-term boon for metals trading, with excess material already floating about in commerce. But little more than that.

“You have an administration here who is trying to torpedo international financial order with a misguided idea that some phoenix is going to magically rise from the ashes,” Hersh said. “That’s not how markets work, and that’s not what history has demonstrated happens in any scenario that parallels what the Trump administration is doing now.”

Ben Steinberg, a D.C. lobbyist who helps run an ad hoc advocacy group of mining and battery material companies, put it to me more succinctly: “These projects take a long time to develop. Capital can be somewhat patient, but we know it is generally impatient. The uncertainty is incredibly destabilizing,” said Steinberg, whose coalition of companies includes ones with mining projects that have offtake agreements with Tesla and other EV manufacturers. “The tariffs aren’t what I think about when I think about more mining in the U.S. I’m thinking of permitting.”

Gore, who also represents Tesla through his trade association, told me the tariffs will mean “everything is going to move a bit slower,” including the “momentum towards onshoring a lot of the supply chain.”

“I think that in general, capitalism works when you are using signals very judiciously — using carrots far more than you use sticks,” he told me.

The National Mining Association is also carefully signaling concern about the tariffs. NMA represents more than just the interests of battery metals — it also includes coal companies and gold miners that are rare beneficiaries of the market’s tailspin. But in a statement provided exclusively to Heatmap, NMA spokesperson Conor Bernstein offered a cautious note about interpreting these restrictionist trade actions as potentially good for mining.

“Targeted tariffs can be a part of an effective policy response,” Bernstein said. “At the same time, this is an incredibly complex time for any company to be operating, and we are working closely with our members to gather information on actual and potential impacts, are engaged with the administration to provide that information, and are committed to working with the administration to rebuild American supply chain security from the mine up.”

Ian Lange, an academic at the Colorado School of Mines, offered a blunt assessment of the tariffs: They’re an opportunity for a small group of domestic producers who have successfully argued to “reshape the supply chain away from their competitors.”

For years, individual mining companies have been seeking tariffs and trade protections on specific minerals they claim are unfairly subsidized and cheaply distributed by China and other nations. These efforts, which rose to prominence in Trump 1.0 Washington over uranium and fertilizers, have become more popular and bipartisan in D.C. as part of a tit-for-tat with China over minerals used in batteries, including graphite.

If there’s any silver lining in this moment, Lange said, it is the fact that this “bunch of people who’ve been complaining get their shot.”

“You wanted this!” Lange exclaimed. “So you better take advantage of it.”

Blue

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Energy

Span Is Building a New Kind of Electric Utility

The maker of smart panels is tapping into unused grid capacity to help power the AI boom.

A SPAN device.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images, SPAN

The race for artificial intelligence is a race for electricity. Data centers are scrambling to find enough power to run their servers, and when they do, they often face long waits while utilities upgrade the grid to accommodate the added demand.

In the eyes of Arch Rao, the CEO and founder of the smart electrical panel company Span, however, there is a glut of electricity waiting to be exploited. That’s because the electric grid is already oversized, designed to satisfy spikes in demand that occur for just a few hours each year. By shifting when and where different users consume power, it’s possible to squeeze far more juice out of the existing system, faster, and for a lot less money, than it takes to make it bigger.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Electric Vehicles

How Toyota Became an EV Winner

After years of dithering, the world’s biggest automaker is finally in the game.

Toyota EVs.
Heatmap Illustration/Toyota, Getty Images

The hottest contest in the electric car industry right now may be the race for third place.

Thanks to Tesla’s longtime supremacy (at least in this country), its two mainstays — the Model Y and Model 3 — sit comfortably atop the monthly list of best-selling EVs. Movement in the No. 3 spot, then, has become a signal for success from the automakers attempting to go electric. The original Chevy Bolt once occupied this position thanks to its band of diehard fans. Last year, the brand’s affordable Equinox EV grabbed third. And then, earlier this year, an unexpected car took over that spot on the leaderboard: the Toyota bZ.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
AM Briefing

EV Fee

On forever chemicals, Indian and Swedish nuclear, and Ford’s battery business

EV charging.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: A raging brushfire in the suburbs north of Los Angeles has forced more than 23,000 Californians to evacuate • The Guayanese capital of Georgetown, newly awash in offshore oil money, is also set to be drenched by thunderstorms through next week • Temperatures in Washington, D.C., are nearing triple digits today.


THE TOP FIVE

1. Congress proposes a $130 per year fee on electric vehicles

A bipartisan budget deal to fund roads, railways, and bridges for the next five years would also slap a $130 per year fee on drivers registering electric vehicles, with a $35 fee for plug-in hybrids. Late Sunday, lawmakers on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released the text of the 1,000-page bill. Roughly a sixth of the way through the legislation is a measure directing the Federal Highway Administration to impose the annual fees on battery-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles — and to withhold federal funding from any state that fails to comply with the rule. If passed, the fees would take effect at the end of September 2027. The fees — which increase to $150 and $50, respectively, after a decade — are designed to reinforce the Highway Trust Fund, which has traditionally been financed through gasoline taxes. In a statement, Representative Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican and the committee’s chairman, said the legislation “ensures that electric vehicle owners begin paying their fair share for the use of our roads.” But Albert Gore, the executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, called the proposal “simply a punitive tax that would disproportionately impact adopters of electric vehicles, with no meaningful impact on” maintaining the fund. “Drivers of gas-powered vehicles pay approximately $73 to $89 in federal gas tax each year,” Gore said. “The proposed fee would charge an unfair premium on EV drivers, at a time when all Americans are looking for ways to save money.”

Keep reading...Show less
Green