New Executive Order Aims to Make Mining the Primary Use of Public Lands at ‘As Many Sites As Possible'
The Trump Administration issued yet another executive order on Thursday. This one directs the federal government to mine federal public lands 'to the maximum possible extent,' and to prioritize mining over all other uses on federal lands that contain critical mineral deposits.
This should be alarming to conservationists and wilderness advocates. Because in addition to putting critical areas like the Boundary Waters and Bristol Bay back in the crosshairs, the administration's extraction-first approach could dramatically shift what our public lands look like and how we use them.
'There are really three main thrusts to this executive order,' Dan Hartinger, senior director of agency policy for the Wilderness Society, tells Outdoor Life. 'Job one is to open new places to mining. Job two is to subsidize mining in those places. And job three is to ram through individual projects regardless of public input or what the science says.'
The executive order, Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production, invokes wartime powers granted by the Defense Production Act. It allows Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to expand the country's list of critical minerals. It also directs Burgum to make a priority list of all federal lands with mineral deposits, and to take whatever actions necessary to expedite and issue mining permits there. This includes rolling back environmental regulations and finding ways to fund and subsidize private mining companies with taxpayer dollars.
One major issue with this executive order is how broad it is, Hartinger says. The order could include lands already protected from mining, such as public land near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, and other lands with high recreational or wildlife habitat value, which have historically been managed for multiple uses.
The Biden Administration effectively halted the current plans by Twin Metals, a Chilean subsidiary, to build a copper-nickel mine just south of the BWCA in 2023 by placing a 20-year moratorium on all mining there. But Hartinger and others say the recent executive order lays the groundwork for reversing that action and re-opening the door to Twin Metals' mine.
'This executive order threatens all of America's iconic landscapes — including the Boundary Waters,' executive director of Save the Boundary Waters Ingrid Lyons tells OL in an emailed statement. 'We will continue to track this and the several other pathways this Administration is using to undermine science, the law, and the will of the people on the issue of protecting the Boundary Waters — America's favorite and now most threatened Wilderness area.'
Read Next: The Wilderness War: Ice Fishing the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area
The current text of the order emphasizes fewer regulations around permitting mining claims and fewer environmental protections regarding the disposal of waste rock and mine tailings. It does not rule out certain kinds of federal lands, such as parks or monuments, and it directs government agencies to amend or revise the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 'as necessary' to support mining as the primary use of those lands. Enacted in 1976, FLPMA established the Bureau of Land Management's mandate to manage public lands for a variety of uses (recreation, mining, and timber production being just a few) while ensuring the long-term health and productivity of those lands.
'Now, will they do that in every single area [with known mineral deposits]? It's unclear. But we certainly have a sense of some of the places that are the most threatened,' Hartinger says. 'In addition to the Boundary Waters, I think the greater Grand Canyon region could very much be under threat.'
By invoking its wartime powers with the executive order, the Trump administration claims that taking a mining-first approach is vital to shore up national security and compete with foreign hostile nations. But its actions via executive order stand to benefit the international mining conglomerates that are already operating on U.S. federal lands and which, Hartinger says, are not required to pay royalties or other fees for their right to mine.
'This would use taxpayer funding to issue loans and capital assistance, and essentially subsidize these operations. So not only are these companies getting the land for free, and the minerals for free, and the ability to dump their waste basically wherever they want. We're going to pay them with taxpayer money to do that.'
This would be a significant step toward the Trump administration's larger plans to unleash American energy. It also aligns with other moves the administration has made in recent weeks, including the creation of a federal Task Force that aims to sell off 'underutilized' public lands for affordable housing developments. These actions, along with mass layoffs at the federal agencies that manage our public lands, all point toward a common goal.
Read Next: How Seriously Should We Take the Sale of Federal Lands? Very Seriously, Experts Say
'I think it's helpful to think about this as part of a pattern. And, you know, it's very concerning to us to hear Secretary Burgum saying our federal lands are assets on the nation's balance sheet,' Hartinger says. 'But I think it's very instructive, too. Because this administration sees our public lands not as things that provide inherent and intrinsic benefits to us, in the form of clean water and air, recreation, wildlife habitat, or any of these myriad uses. It is purely a matter of: How can we extract the maximum short-term dollars from these places?'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
2 hours ago
- News24
US military adjusts Africa security strategy
Africa should take greater ownership of its own security challenges. That was the message recently communicated by General Michael Langley, head of US Africa Command (USAFRICOM). The unit is part of the US Department of Defence and is responsible for all defence operations and security cooperation on the African continent. The announcement comes as the United States rethinks its military strategy in Africa, signalling a significant shift in its approach to security on the continent. This adjustment aligns with a broader strategic pivot under the Trump administration, which is prioritising homeland security and a leaner, more lethal military force, while reducing the US military footprint overseas, including in Africa. But what could it mean for the continent? Africa's global relevance With its growing population and vast natural resources, Africa is strategically important to Europe and the United States. 'Africa is a strategic partner with a large and growing youth population - projected to double by 2045 according to the African Economic Outlook,' Adib Saani, a foreign policy and security analyst, told DW. 'The continent is rich, holding vast mineral resources and strategic reserves like uranium that both Western and Eastern countries heavily rely on.' The continent was also home to 11 of the world's 20 fastest-growing economies in 2024. 'The US and others engage with Africa not just out of goodwill but because these resources are vital for running industries worldwide,' Saani said. This makes the relationship mutually beneficial - a win-win for Africa and the rest of the world. Adib Saani However, the Trump administration's defence strategy has shifted focus away from protecting the US from threats emanating from abroad, including countering terrorist organisations such as the so-called 'Islamic State' (IS) militant group and al-Qaeda, which have expanded their presence and capabilities in Africa. 'Sharing the burden' of security operations Previously, US military efforts in Africa combined defence, diplomacy and development. 'America has been a close partner in countering violent extremism, especially in Eastern and West Africa,' Saani explained. 'We have relied heavily on US logistics, training and intelligence sharing to address these threats. In terms of human security, the US has also contributed through USAID and other programs that have helped lift many out of poverty.' USAFRICOM head Langley said the military's priorities now focus on homeland protection, encouraging instead 'burden sharing' with African partners. He said the goal is to build local military capacity to enable independent operations and reduce reliance on US forces. This shift was evident during the latest African Lion joint military exercise. The annual event is the largest military exercise on the continent and emphasizes combined air, land and sea operations with more than 40 participating nations. The latest edition, in May, lacked the US-led efforts usually apparent and instead focused on collaboration and cooperation. What could reduced US involvement mean? Yet foreign policy analyst Adib Saani warned that a diminished US presence could create a power vacuum, emboldening militant networks and undermining years of counterterrorism efforts. 'If the US withdraws its support, it would hit us hard. It could embolden terrorists to carry out more lethal and audacious attacks, knowing there is no major power backing our fight. This would also dampen the morale of our soldiers who face these threats daily, and place significant economic pressure on affected countries,' he said. Abukar Mohamed Muhudin/Anadolu via Getty Images USAFRICOM currently deploys roughly 6 500 personnel across Africa and has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance. With that gone, Saani worries Africa will not be able to be fully independent when it comes to security. 'It will be difficult in terms of logistics and technology - we are simply not there yet. Security is a shared responsibility and works best when it involves multiple actors. In my opinion, Africa cannot do it alone.' Russia, China step in to fill security vacuum African countries will need to look for other allies - both new and old, say experts. China has already launched extensive military training programs for African forces, replicating aspects of the US military model, while Russian mercenaries have established themselves as key security partners in North, West and Central Africa. 'China's approach in the past has mainly been economic,' Saani explained. The US, he pointed out, has primarily focused on military support, in addition to providing economic help. 'The Russians have strong presence with both economic and military involvement. It feels like everyone is competing for attention. The clear message is that there's a need to diversify partnerships. We can't rely solely on the US; we may also need to engage more with the Russians and others.' Can Africa succeed alone? Some voices say the lack of US support could be a wake-up call for African countries, forcing them to consider their own resources and rise to the challenge. African nations must now take the opportunity to review their security resources, Saani said, and collaborate more closely. 'Building up our defence industry is also critical. This means developing industrial capacity and enhancing the capabilities of our armed forces,' he added. 'We also need to tackle corruption to ensure that funds are not getting lost in people's pockets but are instead used to improve people's lives.'
Associated Press
2 hours ago
- Associated Press
Oklahoma prepares to execute a man transferred from federal custody by Trump officials
McALESTER, Okla. (AP) — Oklahoma prepared to execute a man Thursday whose transfer to state custody was expedited by the Trump administration. John Fitzgerald Hanson, 61, is set to receive a lethal injection at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester. Hanson was sentenced to die after he was convicted of carjacking, kidnapping and killing a Tulsa woman in 1999. Hanson, whose name in some federal court records is George John Hanson, had been serving a life sentence in federal prison in Louisiana for several unrelated federal convictions. Federal officials transferred him to Oklahoma custody in March to follow through on President Donald Trump's sweeping executive order to more actively support the death penalty. Hanson's attorneys argued in a last-minute appeal that he did not receive a fair clemency hearing last month, claiming that one of the board members who denied him clemency was biased because he worked for the Tulsa County District Attorney's Office when Hanson was prosecuted. A district court judge this week temporary halted the execution, but an appeals court later cleared the way for it. The U.S. Supreme Court late Wednesday rejected a separate appeal that alleged a key witness testified against Hanson in exchange for favorable treatment from prosecutors in a criminal case, information that was never disclosed to his defense team. Prosecutors allege Hanson and accomplice, Victor Miller, kidnapped Mary Bowles from a Tulsa shopping mall. Prosecutors allege the pair drove Bowles to a gravel pit near Owasso, where Miller shot and killed property owner Jerald Thurman. The two then drove Bowles a short distance away, where Hanson shot and killed Bowles, according to prosecutors. Miller received a no-parole life prison sentence for his role in the crimes. During last month's clemency hearing, Hanson expressed remorse for his involvement in the crimes and apologized to the victims' families. 'I'm not an evil person,' Hanson said via a video link from the prison. 'I was caught in a situation I couldn't control. I can't change the past, but I would if I could.' Hanson's attorneys acknowledged he participated in the kidnapping and carjacking, but said there was no definitive evidence that he shot and killed Bowles. They painted Hanson as a troubled youth with autism and who was controlled and manipulated by the domineering Miller.
Associated Press
2 hours ago
- Associated Press
Court hearing set on Trump's use of National Guard and Marines to help with immigration raids in LA
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal court hearing is scheduled for Thursday on whether the Trump administration can use the National Guard and Marines to assist with immigration raids in Los Angeles. California Gov. Newsom has depicted the federal military intervention in the nation's second largest city as the onset of a much broader effort by Trump to overturn political and cultural norms at the heart of the nation's democracy. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has echoed that, saying the deployment of troops was unnecessary and meant to undermine local jurisdictions and intimidate the city's large immigrant population. Newsom filed an emergency motion requesting the court's intervention after President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of roughly 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles following protests over his stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws. The Trump administration called the lawsuit a 'crass political stunt endangering American lives' in its official response on Wednesday. The Democratic governor argued the troops were originally deployed to protect federal buildings and said sending troops to help support immigration raids would only promote civil unrest. The protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles intensified after Trump called up the National Guard and have since spread to other cities, including Boston, Chicago and Seattle. Federal immigration agents have been arresting people at Home Depot parking lots and other businesses, sparking fear in immigrant communities, after the Trump administration said it wanted to dramatically increase arrests under its immigration crackdown. Trump has described Los Angeles in dire terms that Bass and Newsom say are nowhere close to the truth. Most demonstrations have been peaceful but this weekend some turned raucous with protesters setting cars on fire in downtown Los Angeles. The city has imposed a nightly curfew covering a 1-square-mile (2.5-square-kilometer) section where protests have occurred in the sprawling metropolis of 4 million people. The Marines have not yet been spotted in Los Angeles and Guard troops have had limited engagement with protesters. Newsom filed the motion Tuesday, the same day the military announced some members of the National Guard were now standing in protection around federal agents. The change moves troops closer to engaging in law enforcement actions like deportations as Trump has promised as part of his administration's immigration crackdown. The Guard has the authority to temporarily detain people who attack officers but any arrests ultimately would be made by law enforcement. Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer chose not to rule immediately but set the hearing for Thursday in federal court in San Francisco. Dozens of mayors from across the Los Angeles region banded together Wednesday to demand the raids stop and the troops leave.
