America is charging full-speed into an energy transition that depends on metals. Yet instead of producing those materials here at home—under the world’s highest environmental and labor standards—we continue to import them from countries that don't share our values.
Chinese copper. Congolese cobalt. Indonesian nickel. These are the building blocks of electric vehicles, power lines, solar panels and energy storage systems. And every year, we import more of them—even as U.S. companies sit on permitted, shovel-ready, or near-ready projects that could meet this demand domestically.
It’s a paradox at the heart of our industrial policy. We call for energy independence while deepening our materials dependence. We champion ESG goals while outsourcing their consequences to countries with weaker protections. And we block American mining projects that have already invested billions in planning, permitting, and community engagement.
Twin Metals in Minnesota. Resolution Copper in Arizona. Stibnite Gold in Idaho. The list goes on. And, whilst the Trump administration has made a strong push to streamline and prioritize permitting efforts, these projects are not yet out of the woods. These are not wildcat operations on speculative land. They are highly engineered, often decades-in-the-making projects in politically stable regions with deep labor pools and strong environmental oversight. Yet many are stuck in bureaucratic limbo—or worse, banned outright.
Meanwhile, China tightens its grip on critical minerals. Over the past year, Beijing has restricted exports of graphite, gallium, and germanium. It dominates global refining capacity for nickel, cobalt, lithium, and rare earths. If we block U.S. projects while buying from China, what are we really achieving?
Let’s be clear: Mining companies must meet incredibly high standards to ensure it can be done in an environmentally responsible way. Thanks to our modern regulations and regulatory bodies, so do all industrial companies in the U.S. But energy growth isn’t possible without a reliable supply of metals. And pretending we can reach sustainable growth by importing materials from countries with lower environmental standards is not just dishonest—it’s dangerous.
Ask yourself: What if we treated resource-rich areas like we treat the Permian Basin in Texas? The Permian generates nearly $25 billion annually in state and local tax revenue, sustains tens of thousands of middle-class jobs, and anchors a supply chain that fuels both traditional and renewable energy. There’s no reason our mineral regions—from the Iron Range in Minnesota to Nevada’s lithium belt—couldn’t offer the same kind of economic engine while producing materials every American consumes.
It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here
Instead, many of these communities are told to wait. To litigate. To shelve projects indefinitely while America talks a big game on energy security—and funds it through imports.
That approach isn’t just bad economics. It’s unjust. It effectively says: let poorer countries deal with the mess of extraction while we enjoy the benefits of clean energy. That’s not ESG. That’s just exporting our conscience.
Consider Twin Metals Minnesota, a modern, high-tech project targeting one of the largest undeveloped copper, nickel and cobalt deposits in the world. It sits in a region with a proud industrial heritage and has invested more than $550 million into local communities through its development. But it remains blocked—not because of new science, but because of shifting politics. At the same time, we import copper from sources with far higher carbon footprints and far lower environmental scrutiny.
This is not a partisan issue. It’s a governance issue. It’s about whether the United States can align its ambitions with its capabilities—or whether we’ll continue to rely on geopolitical adversaries to build the technologies of the future.
We already know how to solve this. We’ve done it in oil and gas. With efficient permitting, public-private partnerships, and clear rules of the road, we’ve unlocked vast energy resources across the U.S. There’s no reason we can’t do the same for minerals.
The companies are ready. The capital is available. The communities are willing. What’s missing is the political will to say yes—to responsible development, to domestic jobs, and to a strategy that actually matches our national goals.
If America is serious about industrial resilience, we need to start acting like it. That means building here. Mining here. Processing here.
Because buying copper from China while banning it in the U.S. is not a strategy. It’s a surrender.
Ashley Zumwalt-Forbes is an engineer with thirteen years of experience in acquiring, financing, and developing both greenfield and brownfield natural resources projects. She is principal at Smoketree Resources, a critical minerals-focused consulting entity, and a nonresident fellow at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy. She formerly served as the Energy Department’s deputy director for batteries and critical materials.