Highlights

• Three consecutive U.S. presidents failed to increase domestic critical mineral mines despite aggressive policy initiatives.
• Study exposes systemic barriers preventing critical mineral mining expansion, including regulatory challenges and environmental opposition.
• U.S. remains heavily dependent on foreign sources like China and Russia for critical minerals, highlighting national security risks.

In their 2025 study, Khoi Hua et al. from Indiana University’s Paul H. O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs analyze U.S. presidential rhetoric on critical minerals and materials policy from 2009 to 2023, focusing on Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden. Using a longitudinal policy analysis, the study tracks presidential statements, executive orders, subsidies, and agency actions, comparing them to the actual number of new U.S. mines and processing facilities. The key finding? Despite bipartisan support and over a decade of policy initiatives, the U.S. has failed to make meaningful progress in developing a domestic supply chain for critical minerals.

Study Design & Findings

Hua and colleagues employ a pre-post policy comparison, mapping changes in presidential policy stances to real-world mining expansion (or lack thereof). Their investigation reveals a stunning paradox: while three consecutive presidents from opposing parties aggressively promoted domestic mining, the number of active critical mineral mines remained stagnant. Key highlights include:

• No major increase in U.S. mines for critical materials like lithium, cobalt, nickel, or rare earths, despite ambitious policy goals.
• Presidential rhetoric failed to translate into action due to regulatory bottlenecks, environmental opposition, and investment hesitancy.
• The U.S. remains dependent on foreign sources—especially China and Russia—for key minerals despite repeated security concerns.

Limitations & Gaps

While the study is compelling, it has methodological weaknesses, including 1) the authors acknowledge they cannot directly attribute policy failures to presidential rhetoric alone since other systemic factors (market forces, environmental regulations, and industry inertia) play significant roles; 2) the study does not analyze corporate investment decisions, which are crucial in determining whether mining projects move forward and 3) the paper does not benchmark U.S. policies against successful mining expansions in countries like Canada or Australia, missing key lessons on effective policy implementation.

Policy Without Execution is Just Talk

Hua et al. expose a fundamental flaw in U.S. critical mineral policy: declarations without follow-through. While presidents have talked a big game, systemic barriers—lengthy permitting,environmental lawsuits, lack of refining infrastructure, and reliance on foreign supply chains—have stymied real progress. This failure to convert policy into production raises urgent questions about the viability of U.S. energy.

When focusing on the rare earth element supply chain, the obstacles to resistance seem even more daunting. Rare Earth Exchanges has delineated strategies to overcome these obstacles.