Lombardo asks Trump to back away from lithium tariffs
Nevada is the only state in the U.S. with a commercial lithium mine, and it has several other lithium mines in the development process. Putting tariffs on lithium imported from China would seem to create more demand, and a higher price, for lithium mined in Nevada.
So why is Nevada Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo asking President Donald Trump to remove tariffs on lithium from China?
Because Nevada also has hopes of becoming a national hub for manufacturing lithium batteries.
And, Lombardo noted in a letter to Trump this week which the governor's office released Thursday, Nevada's domestic lithium industry 'is still in its early stages. At present, there is no domestic technology capable of refining lithium to the standards required for manufacturing while also meeting our country's environmental regulations. As a result all manufacturing grade lithium is imported from China.'
'As you can imagine,' Lombardo continued in his letter, 'this is damaging all United States manufacturing that is dependent on this product.'
Under the Inflation Reduction Act, which Trump has repeatedly condemned and attempted to nullify by clawing back funding, a Department of Energy loan program provided $2 billion in financing for Redwood Materials' battery component recycling and production facility in Nevada.
'Mr. President, I respectfully urge you to reconsider and remove the tariffs on lithium,' Lombardo wrote. 'Given that domestic processing is not yet a viable option, the current environment poses a serious risk to jobs in Nevada and across the country.'
Lombardo joins the ranks of several Republican officeholders in the nation who have critiqued the benefits of Trump's tariff policies, which have continued to hammer stock markets even after Trump pulled back from most of his 'Liberation Day' tariffs on nations the world over.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
a minute ago
- Newsweek
Green Card Applicants Face New Vetting Procedures: What to Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. On Tuesday the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a major update on assessment of immigrant benefit applications, including those for Green Cards, which will now encompass "anti-Americanism" expressed on social media. Newsweek contacted the USCIS, part of the Department of Homeland Security, for comment on Thursday via email outside of regular office hours. Why It Matters Since coming to power, the Trump administration has tightened restrictions on travel to the United States, including requiring prospective international students to provide details about their social media accounts which will be checked for "any indication of hostility" toward American "citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles." As of April 14, data from Inside Higher Ed showed more than1,000 international students had their visas revoked due to alleged involvement in political activism, including relating to the ongoing war in Gaza. The Trump administration accused some of these students of holding antisemitic or "pro-terrorist" views, which they have widely denied. What To Know The USCIS updated its Policy Manual on Tuesday, with immediate effect, instructing its employees to take account of any "anti-American activity" when deciding whether to approve immigration applications including for permanent resident cards, commonly known as green cards. According to a press release any "anti-American activity will be an overwhelmingly negative factor in any discretionary analysis" of applications. It is unclear exactly what would constitute "anti-American activity," though CBS News reports it will be based around an existing immigration law blocking citizenship from advocates of communism, totalitarianism or the overthrow of the American government. The updated USCIS Policy Manual says its officers should factor in "whether the alien has endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused anti-American views or the views of a terrorist organization or group" when making decisions on benefits such as green cards. This process has been expanded to include vetting of social media accounts. A U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) sign is displayed at the Border Field State Park with the US-Mexico border wall in the background on August 17, 2025 in Imperial Beach, California. A U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) sign is displayed at the Border Field State Park with the US-Mexico border wall in the background on August 17, 2025 in Imperial Beach, California. Kevin Carter/GETTY The policy change impacts those immigration benefits classed as discretionary, which includes work permits and student visas as well as green cards. When considering discretionary immigration benefits the USCIS already had compliance with immigration law as a factor, and this will continue. Earlier this month the USCIS said it would expand vetting for migrants seeking American citizenship to focus on assuring they have a "good moral character." Previously this had largely been dependent on the absence of criminal offenses or immigration law violations, but this will now include the applicants "adherence to societal norms" and "positive contributions" to wider society. What People Are Saying USCIS spokesman Matthew Tragesser said: "America's benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is committed to implementing policies and procedures that root out anti-Americanism and supporting the enforcement of rigorous screening and vetting measures to the fullest extent possible. "Immigration benefits—including to live and work in the United States—remain a privilege, not a right." What Happens Next? The changes outlined by the USCIS went into effect immediately and apply to "requests pending or filed on or after the publication date."
New York Times
a minute ago
- New York Times
The Trade That Binds the Indian and American Economies
The economic relationship between the United States and India has been driven perilously close to a rupture in the past month. President Trump is ready to impose 50 percent tariffs on Indian goods, starting next week. Those tariffs in turn threaten to wipe out businesses that depend on the export of Indian electronics, gems, seafood, carpets and more. Lost in the tumult is the value that both the United States and India derive from the services part of their total trade, which topped $200 billion last year. Mr. Trump has focused on the $46 billion deficit in goods that the United States ran with Indian companies in 2024. But over the same period, Indian and American companies bought and sold, in virtually equal amounts, $84 billion worth of services. The two countries have run a nearly equal balance in the exchange of services for several years. A big reason is that two-thirds of Fortune 500 firms, from Meta and Microsoft to Walmart and Lowe's, now rely on offshore operations across India. In India's biggest cities, multinational companies with American headquarters are building permanent corporate offices to do work across the world. Their annual payroll is far greater than the U.S. trade deficit Mr. Trump is concerned about. That is money that helps drive India's economy and benefits companies with deep roots in the United States. In the southern cities of Bengaluru and Hyderabad, Goldman Sachs has more employees, who are managing operations around the world, than it has in Mumbai, India's financial capital. And on Monday, it announced an expansion in Mumbai, with a new office 50 percent larger than its existing location. Those bankers work the local stock markets, now the world's fourth most valuable. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Indianapolis Star
15 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Trump isn't Indiana lawmakers' boss. They should tell him so on redistricting.
When I was hired to run the state's mental health and addiction work, my daughter was 4 years old, and boy was she confused. 'Are you the governor?' she asked. 'No, I'm not the governor, but I work for him.' That made sense for a moment. But then came the follow-up: 'Doesn't everyone in Indiana work for the Governor?' No, I explained, the governor actually works for all of us. 'Oh, okay,' she said. Then she thought a little longer and asked about the president. 'Does the governor work for the president?' 'No,' I said. 'The governor serves the people of Indiana. And this particular president, well, he sort of works for himself.' Eventually she got it, though during my time at the state she would still complain about people littering and ask why I didn't do something about it. But, in general, she understood: I worked for Gov. Eric Holcomb, and he worked for the people of Indiana. We often collaborated with the federal government, but they were not our bosses. Why do I bring up this story, besides the fact that it's adorable (which, honestly, might be reason enough)? Because I'd like to remind our Republican state legislators that Donald Trump is not, in fact, their boss. The backdrop for this, of course, is the ongoing pressure campaign from the Trump administration on red states to redraw districts mid-decade in a bid to secure a GOP House majority in 2026. Governor Braun and Indiana's legislative leaders clearly don't want to participate, but they haven't ruled it out. Indiana is already heavily gerrymandered. Republicans hold 78% (7 of 9) U.S. House seats in a state where they usually get about 60% of the vote. National attention is focused on flipping Rep. Frank Mrvan's seat in Northwest Indiana, and maybe even Rep. André Carson's in Indianapolis, despite both incumbents winning reelection by healthy margins in 2022 and 2024. Of course, gerrymandering happens in red, blue, and purple states alike. It's a kind of tolerated cheating, part of the 'unwritten rules' of politics. But like in baseball, the system's balance depends on everyone knowing which lines not to cross. What makes this redistricting push especially dangerous is that it represents the final form of the worst political trend of the last 10-15 years: the nationalization of state and local politics. The gravitational pull of Washington has hollowed out the traditional role of governors and legislatures as problem-solvers for their own states. Instead, every fight gets reframed as a proxy war in the national culture struggle. The 2024 Indiana GOP gubernatorial primary is a perfect example. That race was dominated by national, culture-war coded topics: the 'war on woke,' virtue signaling about trans athletes, or border enforcement in a state that is hundreds of miles from the closest border. That is why Trump's allies think they can dictate Indiana's maps. But resistance, right now, would be timely, brave, and necessary pushback against this insidious trend and a chance to remind voters that Indiana's leaders should answer to Indiana, not to a fading national figure. The unwritten rule of American politics has been that districts are redrawn after every decennial census, in a manner that may advance partisan goals. It's actually a fairly elegant agreement: count the people, draw districts, and redo it after the next count. This norm keeps the system from being brutalized by a would-be dictator in pursuit of raw power, while acknowledging the reality that political actors will pursue political goals. Our legislators understand this, which is why they don't want to do it. Here's the thing, and it is really the only thing that matters: they don't have to do it. This decision belongs entirely to Indiana's legislature. Like I told my daughter: Donald Trump is not their boss. The only tool MAGA has is political pressure, and if you take a closer look, there's a decent case for not bending the knee. Very soon, Trump will be a lame-duck president, likely presiding over a recession. And like an aging NFL wide receiver (remember the Andre Johnson year with the Colts, woof), his decline will probably be sudden and striking, not gradual. If you're an elected Republican, this is exactly the moment to create daylight between yourself and Trump. You have a clear moral case, and a strong practical one, since this amounts to threatening decades of statewide dominance for maybe one more congressional seat. Yes, they can threaten to primary you, but can they really primary all of you? That's a bluff worth calling, because they cannot be allowed to win this one. Yes, Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real thing. Yes, Trump's opponents have cried fascism so often that many people have tuned out. But, if you remember your Aesop, the real danger of crying wolf is that sometimes the wolf actually shows up. Here's hoping that the Indiana legislature holds the line.
