Alaska Governor: Don't Blame Trump Tariffs for Copper Price Inflation
"NEPA" stands for the National Environmental Policy Act, which has constrained the development of mining and refining facilities, and much else along with it, for decades. The law—or, more accurately, courts' and radical leftists' interpretation of the law—has resulted in incessant delays for important infrastructure projects, which get bogged down in never-ending red tape.
In Alaska, for instance, the Ambler Mining District offers multiple deposits of high-grade copper totaling 9.3 billion pounds, as well as other critical minerals. Yet the Biden administration, after a years-long NEPA review, rejected permits for a road the state needed to gain access to the district, preventing the development of Alaska's natural resources for the good of all Americans. The Biden administration took this action to block the road last year even though federal law explicitly requires the Department of the Interior to permit access to the District.
Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy speaks during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center at National Harbor in Oxon Hill, Maryland, on February 21, 2025.
Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy speaks during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center at National Harbor in Oxon Hill, Maryland, on February 21, 2025.
ALEX WROBLEWSKI/AFP/Getty Images
But NEPA doesn't just interfere with energy exploration. It impedes approvals for refineries that process raw ore, and slows down permitting for the bridges, railroads, and highways that companies use to transport finished products. While our adversaries like China have been building projects that can grow their economy, the radical Left has utilized NEPA to keep our infrastructure projects stuck in neutral.
Fortunately, two factors should help to bring an end to this foolish regulatory overkill. First, the Supreme Court in a recent unanimous decision ruled that courts should not "micromanage" agencies' approval of environmental impact statements, and should instead give them "substantial deference." For instance, courts should not consider upstream or downstream impacts—such as the oil that might travel on a new railway—when evaluating the impact of a particular project (in this case, the railroad). The Court's ruling will rein in the ability of judges to collude with the environmental lobby in ways that prevent projects from ever getting approved.
Second, President Trump, unlike his predecessor, wants to supercharge growth, and is taking numerous steps to move in that direction. Several of his executive orders, including a day-one executive order specifically dedicated to "unleashing Alaska's extraordinary resource potential," have focused on marshaling all our nation's natural resources to release our economy's full potential. The new National Energy Dominance Council will help coordinate these efforts, and the Supreme Court's ruling can cut through unnecessary permitting bureaucracy.
In announcing his tariffs, President Trump said he wanted the United States to "once again, build a DOMINANT Copper Industry." With a new mine taking an average of 29 years to develop—the second-longest such process in the world—it will take permitting reforms and an impatience for red tape to see that vision through to success. Here's hoping that President Trump's actions and the Supreme Court ruling will help make it happen.
Mike Dunleavy is the governor of Alaska.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
10 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Doubles Down on Mathematically Impossible Drug Price Cuts
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. President Donald Trump has doubled down on his claim of reducing drug prices by amounts that are mathematically impossible. Trump told reporters on Sunday that his administration had cut the price of some prescription drugs by as much as 1,500 percent. "Well, one of the things they're going to be talking about pretty soon are the tremendous drop in drug prices. You know, we've cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500 percent. I don't mean 50 percent. I mean 14-, 1,500 percent," the president said. When asked to clarify the president's remarks, White House spokesperson Kush Desai told Newsweek, "It's an objective fact that Americans are paying exponentially more for the same exact drugs as people in other developed countries pay, and it's an objective fact that no other Administration has done more to rectify this unfair burden for the American people." Why It Matters Trump's remarks signal a misunderstanding of how pricing and percentages work, which could undermine public confidence in his ability to tackle problems such as drug pricing. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters near Air Force One at the Lehigh Valley International Airport in Allentown, Pennsylvania, on August 3. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters near Air Force One at the Lehigh Valley International Airport in Allentown, Pennsylvania, on August To Know Reducing the price of a drug by 100 percent would make it free, and a reduction greater than 100 percent suggests pharmaceutical companies would pay their customers to take their prescription drugs. Commenting on Trump's claims, Jeffrey Frankel, a professor of capital formation and growth at Harvard University, told Newsweek that the numbers were "indeed mathematically impossible." On Friday, the president made similar claims of bringing drug prices down by "1,000 percent, 1,200 percent" in an interview with Newsmax's Rob Finnerty. That came a day after the White House said Trump had written to the heads of 17 pharmaceutical companies outlining steps they needed to take to bring down the prices of drugs sold in the U.S. to match the lowest price paid by a group of other economically advanced countries. According to a fact sheet the White House released on Thursday, Trump's letters said the pharmaceutical manufacturers' proposals for implementing his May executive order—which seeks to achieve "most favored nation" pricing in the United States—had "fallen short." However, it did not mention the percentage reductions the president has discussed in recent days. What People Are Saying Jeffrey Frankel, a professor of capital formation and growth at Harvard University, told Newsweek: "They are indeed mathematically impossible. If he cut prices 90 percent, the drugs would cost 1/10 as much as before. If 100 percent, then they would cost zero. If cutting 1,000 percent means a thing, then it means that the drug company pays you (a lot) to take the drug." He added: "It's almost as if Trump is making fun of his supporters, seeing what increasingly absurd statements he can get away with." Justin Wolfers, a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, told Newsweek: "This is not a question for an economist, but rather a sixth grader. After all, the Common Core curriculum standard states that students should know how to 'find a percent of a quantity as a rate per 100 (e.g., 30 percent of a quantity means 30/100 times the quantity).'" Wolfers added: "I just checked with my sixth grader (Oliver Wolfers), and he confirmed that he has studied percentages and that the president's math does not make sense 'because then the prices would be negative.' He added, 'Is he an idiot?' before returning to watching YouTube. Oliver's father agrees with Oliver's mathematical analysis and encourages him to use more positive language when engaging with fellow kids." Pau Pujolas, a professor of economics at McMaster University, told Newsweek: "If your grocery bill is $100 and you get a 50 percent reduction in price, you pay $50. If you get a 75 percent reduction, you pay $25. If you get a 99 percent reduction, you pay $1. If you get a 100 percent reduction, you pay $0. You can't get a reduction larger than that ... so 1,200 percent doesn't make sense. "Talking about bad math: Firing Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is way worse than a POTUS not knowing how to operate with basic percentages. Let's not miss the forest for the trees." President Donald Trump said at a Republican dinner in July: "This is something that nobody else can do. We're gonna get the drug prices down—not 30 or 40 percent, which would be great, not 50 or 60 percent. No, we're gonna get them down 1,000 percent, 600 percent, 500 percent, 1,500 percent. Numbers that are not even thought to be achievable." The White House fact sheet said: "From this point forward, President Trump will only accept from drug manufacturers a commitment that provides American families immediate relief from vastly inflated drug prices and an end to the freeriding by European and other developed nations on American innovations." Journalist James Surowiecki wrote on X in response to Trump's comments on Sunday: "It's not just that the math here is nonsensical. It's that Trump hasn't actually cut drug prices yet at all. He's literally just sent letters to drugmakers telling them to cut prices. Does he know that and is lying? Or is he deluded? We have no idea." What Happens Next Trump and the White House have not clarified what he means when he says drug prices will come down by as much as 1,500 percent. The president's letters to pharmaceutical companies give them a 60-day window to present a viable plan to reduce U.S. drug prices.
The Hill
39 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump says he'll name BLS chief, Fed governor in coming days
President Trump told reporters Sunday he plans to announce a new commissioner for the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the next three or four days after he fired the previous BLS leader in the wake of a jobs report that found the labor market stalling. 'We'll be announcing a new statistician sometime over the next three, four days,' Trump said as he returned to Washington after a weekend at his property in New Jersey. Trump on Friday had ordered the firing of Erika McEntarfer, a Biden White House appointee who was confirmed with a bipartisan majority in the Senate in 2024. The move, which has sparked outrage among economists, Democratic lawmakers and others, came after the jobs report released Friday showed lower than expected hiring in July and major downward revisions to the jobs reports from May and June. The president also said he would be announcing a nominee to replace Federal Reserve Gov. Adriana Kugler, who announced Friday she will resign from the central bank's board Aug. 8. 'I have a couple of people in mind. I'll be announcing somebody for the filling of the person that left,' Trump said. 'A woman left, as you know, I guess a Biden or Obama appointment.' Kugler was appointed to the Fed board by former President Biden and confirmed in 2023. She will leave the bank six months before the end of her term in January 2026. While it's common for Fed governors to leave the bank before their terms expire, especially when they are not expected to be renominated, Kugler's exit comes as Trump has relentlessly pressured Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell and the rest of the governors to lower interest rates.
Chicago Tribune
39 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
The vast majority of US adults are stressed about grocery costs, an AP-NORC poll finds
NEW YORK — The vast majority of U.S. adults are at least somewhat stressed about the cost of groceries, a new poll finds, as prices continue to rise and concerns about the impact of President Donald Trump's tariffs remain widespread. About half of all Americans say the cost of groceries is a 'major' source of stress in their life right now, while 33% say it's a 'minor' source of stress, according to the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Only 14% say it's not a source of stress, underscoring the pervasive anxiety most Americans continue to feel about the cost of everyday essentials. Other financial stressors — like the cost of housing or the amount of money in their bank accounts — are also broadly felt, but they weigh more heavily on younger Americans, who are less likely than older adults to have significant savings or own property. The survey also found that about 4 in 10 Americans under age 45 say they've used what are known as 'buy now, pay later' services when spending on entertainment or restaurant meals or when paying for essentials like groceries or medical care. Adam Bush, 19, based in Portland, New York, is one of those younger Americans who has used pay-later services for things like groceries or entertainment. Bush works as a welder, fabricating parts for trucks for Toyota, and makes under $50,000 per year. 'I just keep watching the prices go up, so I'm looking for the cheapest possible stuff,' he said. 'Hot pockets and TV dinners.' Groceries are one of the most far-reaching financial stressors, affecting the young and old alike, the poll finds. While Americans over age 60 are less likely than younger people to feel major financial anxiety about housing, their savings, child care, or credit card debt, they are just as worried about the cost of groceries. Esther Bland, 78, who lives in Buckley, Washington, said groceries are a 'minor' source of stress — but only because her local food banks fill the gap. Bland relies on her Social Security and disability payments each month to cover her rent and other expenses — such as veterinary care for her dogs — in retirement, after decades working in an office processing product orders. 'I have no savings,' she said. 'I'm not sure what's going on politically when it comes to the food banks, but if I lost that, groceries would absolutely be a major source of stress.' Bland's monthly income mainly goes toward her electric, water and cable bills, she said, as well as care of her dogs and other household needs. 'Soap, paper towels, toilet paper. I buy gas at Costco, but we haven't seen $3 a gallon here in a long time,' she said. 'I stay home a lot. I only put about 50 miles on my car a week.' According to the poll, 64% of the lowest-income Americans — those who have a household income of less than $30,000 a year — say the cost of groceries is a 'major' stressor. That's compared with about 4 in 10 Americans who have a household income of $100,000 or more. But even within that higher-income group, only about 2 in 10 say grocery costs aren't a worry at all. Housing is another substantial source of worry for U.S. adults — along with their savings, their income and the cost of health care. About half of U.S. adults say housing is a 'major' source of stress, according to the poll, while about 4 in 10 say that about the amount of money they get paid, the amount of money they have saved and the cost of health care. About 3 in 10 say credit card debt is a 'major' source of stress, while about 2 in 10 say that about the cost of child care and student debt. But some groups are feeling much more anxiety about their finances than others. Women, for instance, are more likely than men to report high levels of stress about their income, savings, the cost of groceries and the cost of health care. Hispanic adults are also particularly concerned about housing costs and both credit card and student debt. About two-thirds of Hispanic adults say the cost of housing is a 'major' source of stress, compared with about half of Black adults and about 4 in 10 white adults. Some people are making changes to their lifestyle as a result of high costs. Shandal LeSure, 43, who works as a receptionist for a rehabilitation hospital in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and makes between $85,000 and $100,000 a year, said she's started shopping for groceries at less expensive stores. 'It's an adjustment,' she said. 'Sometimes the quality isn't as good.' As they stretch limited budgets, about 3 in 10 U.S. adults overall say they've used 'buy now, pay later' services such as Afterpay or Klarna to purchase groceries, entertainment, restaurant meals or meal delivery, or medical or dental care, according to the poll. Bland, the Washington state retiree, said she's paid for pet surgery with a pay-later plan. Younger Americans are much likelier than older people to have used pay-later plans for entertainment, groceries or restaurant meals, but there's no age gap on medical care. Black and Hispanic people are also especially likely to adopt the plans. An increasing share of 'buy now, pay later' customers are having trouble repaying their loans, according to recent disclosures from the lenders. The loans are marketed as a safer alternative to traditional credit cards, but there are risks, including a lack of federal oversight. Some consumer watchdogs also say the plans lead consumers to overextend themselves financially. LeSure said she's used pay-later services for things like new clothes, while she balances debt payments for a car loan, student loans and medical bills. She's also turned to them to cover hotel costs after being evicted. 'That's been able to help me stretch my dollar,' she said.
