You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Mining companies have asked for federal support — but this isn’t what most of them had in mind.

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.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The interior secretary and former North Dakota governor used to praise liberty. Now he is betraying it.
One thing has long stood out about U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum: Even before he ran for office, he talked a lot about freedom. It’s really striking, even for a Republican.
Perhaps you don’t know Burgum’s story. He grew up a shaggy-haired boy in tiny Arthur, North Dakota. In 1983, he mortgaged a part of his family farm to fund a software company, Great Plains Software. The company was a success, and it made him wealthy as a young man.
Burgum talked about the startup — and the new technology industry to which it belonged — as something nobler and higher than just a hustle. The software industry, he told lawmakers in 1998, helped make the people who participated in it free because it helped them flourish. “Part of the appeal of this industry is the freedom to succeed or fail based solely on one’s own abilities,” he said. He was known as a good boss.
Microsoft bought his company, making Burgum a billionaire. He stayed there for a few years, then became an investor and a real estate developer. In 2016, he ran to be North Dakota’s governor and won by a landslide.
Observing Burgum for a few years now, I’ve seen him talk about freedom in a few ways. He is a federalist. Although he praised the First Amendment’s liberties, which he describes as inherent and God-given, he speaks often about the Tenth Amendment, too — the part of the Bill of Rights that says powers not delegated to the federal government are retained by the states and the people.
That idea, he said while running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2023, was something national Republicans too often forgot. “When I see the Republican Party try to get into things where we’re also overreaching, it also goes against this principle. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all federal rule — it should be returned to the states,” Burgum said.
Even his criticism of President Joe Biden’s “green fantasy energy policies” was rooted in this understanding of freedom. It wasn’t just that Biden’s policies limited consumer choice, he said, but that they empowered freedom’s enemies. They kept U.S. oil in the ground while encouraging Americans to buy electric vehicles and critical minerals from China.
“To defeat those adversaries, we must have a leader who understands the power of free societies and free markets,” he said.
Burgum didn’t win the 2024 nomination, and he wasn’t — as some hoped — picked for vice president on the ticket, either. But he won control of Trump’s energy agenda. Today, Burgum not only runs the Interior Department, but also chairs the National Energy Dominance Council, an ad hoc body that oversees energy and environment policy.
He’s kept talking about freedom in his new role — and he connects liberty to the eternal human struggle to flourish. “Human flourishing in this world has always been dependent on affordable and reliable energy,” he told Stanford students last year.
Which is why I was astounded to see this post last week:
Now, Burgum is a light-hearted guy, and obviously, we’re meant to chuckle. It’s a joke. Alaska and Washington, D.C., are part of the “old interior,” but Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, is the “new interior” — future American territory.
Burgum defended himself on Fox News last Thursday. “Who knew that posting a factual map of Alaska and Greenland would be triggering to those folks who do not fully understand the importance of Greenland and the strategic nature of protecting the United States of America?” he said.
Burgum is wrong. His map was not factual: Greenland is not part of the American interior; it is part of Denmark. To describe it as the “interior” of America should humiliate Burgum’s liberty-loving soul. But what we can tell from this tweet is that Burgum is mentally preparing himself for a terrible betrayal of the values and ideas he once celebrated.
What would that betrayal be? Nothing less than the open theft of Greenlanders’ most fundamental freedoms. On Fox, Burgum said that Trump wanted to “buy” Greenland — but this is such a twisting and abrasing of the truth as to make a patriot yelp. Trump desires Greenland by any means, and he is willing to use the military to bully Denmark and the Greenlandic people into selling their sovereignty.
This is not friendly commerce between two equals, as a free market requires, but rather petty and corrupt gangsterism. Trump is shoving a gun in Denmark’s face, muttering, We can do this the easy way or the hard way. Burgum claims to see nothing wrong with this degeneracy.
He should. Less than two years ago, Burgum praised the Constitution and “the historic and aspirational vision presented by our Founding Fathers.” That cohort’s insight — the reason we remember its members now, despite their flaws — was that the most fundamental political freedom is political self-determination. “All men are, by nature, equal and free,” wrote James Wilson, one of only six men to sign both the Declaration and the Constitution. “No one has a right to any authority over another without his consent: all lawful government is founded on the consent of those who are subject to it.”
Yet Burgum would help establish Trump’s authority over more than 55,000 Greenlanders without their consent and over their objections — a government that would reek of illegality from its birthpangs. And Burgum would be its midwife. The Office of Insular Affairs, which he oversees as part of the Interior Department, manages America’s territories and freely associated states, such as Puerto Rico and Palau. Greenland could soon fall under its purview, too. Burgum could easily become Greenland’s colonial governor, its federal subjugator.
All lawful government is founded on the consent of those who are subject to it. I have been to Greenland. It is an austere and beautiful country, home to a population of independent and freedom-loving people who want to prosper, raise their families, farm, hunt, thrive, and flourish. It should sound familiar: Greenlanders are not so far from Burgum’s old North Dakota constituents.
Either Burgum will now see the resemblance and desist from Trump’s corrupt attack on liberty, democracy, and the principle of self-government itself — either he will block it, delay it, never defend it in public or in private, and never joke about the wicked betrayal of an ally again — either he will review and revise the resignation letter in his desk drawer — either he will, in other words, act as a free man, or he should stop lying to Americans about his love of freedom and admit that he now believes instead that might makes right — that Donald Trump’s word is law, or close enough to it — and clarify for us, at last, that he has already become one of the president’s moral degenerates.
“Ronald Reagan famously told us, ‘Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction,’” an earlier version of Doug Burgum once told us. It was 2024, and he was running for president, addressing Republicans in Florida. His political prospects had never looked better.
Burgum paused for a second. He wanted the audience to think about the quote — to stick with Reagan’s words.
“Sometimes people remember that [line],” he said, “but they forget the second part of the quote, and I think it’s the most important: ‘Freedom must be fought for and protected, or we’ll spend our later years telling our grandchildren what it was like when America was free.’”
To fight and protect freedom — what would such an act demand of Doug Burgum in this moment, when a president is threatening America’s neighbors and trying to impose the very definition of unfreedom on its friends? Burgum was a thoughtful politician once: an independent and heterodox leader who loved liberty and wanted to see Americans flourish. Will he now do his duty to America and the world? Or will he push the country and its imperial subjects — no longer free citizens — into an unfreedom that will aggrieve and impoverish us well into our grandchildren’s lives. The choice is his. He has his freedom, now let him use it.
Mikie Sherrill used her inaugural address to sign two executive orders on energy.
Mikie Sherill, a former Navy helicopter pilot, was best known during her tenure in the House of Representatives as a prominent Democratic voice on national security issues. But by the time she ran for governor of New Jersey, utility bills were spiking up to 20% in the state, putting energy at the top of her campaign agenda. Sherrill’s oft-repeated promise to freeze electricity rates took what could have been a vulnerability and turned it into an electoral advantage.
“I hope, New Jersey, you'll remember me when you open up your electric bill and it hasn't gone up by 20%,” Sherrill said Tuesday in her inauguration address.
Before she even finished her speech, Sherrill signed a series of executive orders aimed at constraining utility costs and expanding energy production in the state. One was her promised emergency declaration giving utility regulators the authority to freeze rate hikes. Another was aimed at fostering new generation, ordering the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities “to open solicitations for new solar and storage power generation, to modernize gas and nuclear generation so we can lower utility costs over the long term.”
Now all that’s left is the follow-through. But with strict deadlines to claim tax credits for renewable energy development looming, that will be trickier than it sounds.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act from last summer put strict deadlines on when wind and solar projects must start construction (July 2026), or else be placed in service (the end of 2027) in order to qualify for the remaining federal clean energy tax credits.
Sherrill’s belt-and-suspenders approach of freezing rates and boosting supply was one she previewed during the campaign, during which she made a point of talking not just about solar and battery storage, but also about nuclear power.
The utility rate freeze has a few moving parts, including direct payments to offset bill hikes that are due to hit this summer and giving New Jersey regulators the authority “to pause or modify utility actions that could further increase bills.” The order also instructs regulators to “review utility business models to ensure alignment with delivering cost reductions to ratepayers,” which could mean utilities wind up extracting less return from ratepayers on capital investments in the grid.
The second executive order declares a second state of emergency and “expands multiple, expedited state programs to develop massive amounts of new power generation in New Jersey,” the governor’s office said. It also instructs the state to “identify permit reforms” to more quickly bring new projects online, requests that regulators instruct utilities to more accurately report energy usage from potential data center projects, and sets up a “Nuclear Power Task Force to position the state to lead on building new nuclear power generation.”
This combination of direct intervention to contain costs with new investments in supply, tough language aimed at utilities and PJM, the electricity market New Jersey is in, along with some potential deregulation to help bring new generation online more quickly, is essentially throwing every broadly left-of-center idea around energy at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Not surprisingly, the orders won immediate plaudits from green groups, with Justin Balik, the vice president of action for Evergreen States, saying in a statement, “It is refreshing to see a governor not only correctly diagnose what’s wrong with our energy system, but also demonstrate the clear political will to fix it.”
On Greenland jockeying, Brazilian rare earth, and atomic British sea power
Current conditions: A geomagnetic storm triggered by what’s known as a coronal mass ejection in space could hit severe levels and disrupt critical infrastructure from southern Alabama to northern California • After weekend storms blanketed the Northeast in snow, Arctic air is pushing more snow into the region by midweek • Extreme heat in South America is fueling wildfires that have already killed 19 people in Chile.
Over the weekend, President Donald Trump once again ratcheted up pressure on Denmark and the European Union to consider his bid to seize Greenland. In a post on Truth Social, the president announced punitive 10% tariffs on Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland starting on February 1, with plans to raise the levies to 25% by June. “We have subsidized Denmark, and all of the Countries of the European Union, and others, for many years by not charging them Tariffs, or any other forms of remuneration,” he wrote. “Now, after Centuries, it is time for Denmark to give back — World Peace is at stake!” In response, the EU has threatened to deploy its economic “big bazooka.” Known formally as the anti-coercion instrument, the policy came into force in 2023 to counter China’s attacks on Lithuania, and involves the imposition of sweeping trade sanctions, ousting the aggressor nation’s companies from the world’s second-largest market, and ending intellectual property protections. Economists told the Financial Times that a trade war over Greenland would risk sparking the worst financial crisis since the Great Recession.

Electricity generation is set to grow 1.1% this year and 2.6% in 2027, according to the latest short-term energy outlook report from the federal Energy Information Administration. Despite the Trump administration’s attacks on the industry, solar power will provide the bulk of that growth. The U.S. is set to add 70 gigawatts of new utility-scale solar in 2026 and 2027, representing a 49% increase in operating solar capacity compared to the end of 2025. While natural gas, coal, and nuclear combined accounted for 75% of all generation last year, the trio’s share of power output in 2027 is on track to slip to 72%. Solar power and wind energy, meanwhile, are set to rise from about 18% in 2025 to 21% in 2027.
Still, the solar industry is struggling to fend off the Trump administration’s efforts to curb deployments of what its top energy officials call unreliable forms of renewable power. As Heatmap’s Jael Holzman wrote last month, the leading solar trade association is pleading with Congress for help fending off a “near complete moratorium on permitting.”
Everybody wants to invest in critical minerals — including the Western Hemisphere’s second center of power. Brazil is angling for a trade deal with the U.S. to mine what the Financial Times called its “abundant but largely untapped rare earth deposits.” With tensions thawing between Trump and the government of leftwinger Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, officials in the Brazilian administration see a chance to broker an agreement on the metals Washington needs for modern energy and defense technologies. “There’s nothing but opportunity here,” one official told the newspaper. “Brazil’s government is open to a deal on critical minerals.”
Northwest of Brazil, in Bolivia, the new center-right government is stepping up efforts to court foreign investors to develop its lithium resources. The country’s famous salt flats comprise the world’s largest known reserve of the key battery metal. But the leftist administration that ruled the Andean nation for much of the past two decades made little progress toward exploiting the resource under state-owned companies. The new pro-Washington government that took power after the October election has vowed to bring in the private sector. In what Energy Minister Mauricio Medinaceli last week called the government’s “first message to investors,” the administration vowed to honor all existing deals with Chinese and Russian companies, according to Mining.com.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Last month, I told you about how swapping bunker fuel-burning engines for nuclear propulsion units in container ships could shave $68 million off annual shipping costs. That’s got real appeal to the British. Five industrial giants in the United Kingdom — Rolls-Royce, Babcock International Group, Global Nuclear Security Partners, Stephenson Harwood, and NorthStandard — have formed a new group called the Maritime Nuclear Consortium to boost British efforts to commercialize nuclear-powered cargo ships. “Without coordinated U.K. action, the chance to define the rules, create high-skilled jobs and anchor a global supply chain could be lost to faster competitors,” Lloyd's Register, a professional services company in London that provides maritime certifications, said in a statement to World Nuclear News. “Acting now would give the U.K. first-mover advantage, and ensure those standards, jobs and supply chains are built here.”
On the more standard atomic power front, the U.S. has officially inked its nuclear partnership deal with Slovakia, which I wrote about last week.
Sunrun has come out against the nascent effort to harvest the minerals needed for panels and batteries from metal-rich nodules in the pristine depths of the ocean. Last week, America’s largest residential solar and storage company signed onto a petition calling for a moratorium on deep-sea mining. The San Francisco-based giant joins Google, Apple, Samsung, BMW, Volvo, Salesforce, and nearly 70 other corporations in calling for a halt to the ongoing push at a little-known United Nations maritime regulator to establish permitting rules for mining in international waters. As Heatmap’s Jeva Lange has written, there are real questions about whether the potential damage to one of the few ecosystems on Earth left untouched by human development is really worth it. Trump has vowed to go it alone on deep-sea mining if global regulators can’t come to agreement, as I wrote last year. But it’s unclear how quickly the biggest developer in the space, The Metals Company, could get the industry started. As You Sow, the advocacy group promoting the moratorium, said Sunrun’s signature “brings an important voice from the clean energy sector.”
The home electrification company Jetson, which makes smart thermostats and heat pumps, has raised $50 million in a Series A round. Founded less than two years ago, the company pulled in first-time funding from venture firms including Eclipse, 8VC, and Activate Capital, and saw at least two existing investors put in more money. “Heat pumps have worked for decades, but their cost and complexity have put them out of reach of most homeowners,” Stephen Lake, Jetson’s co-founder and chief executive, said in a statement. “We’re removing the friction by making the process digital, fast, and affordable while fully managing the purchase from start to finish. This funding will help us quickly bring this experience to more homeowners across the U.S. and Canada.”