Wyoming is leading on critical mineral independence
This isn't just another mining operation. The Ramaco Brook Mine represents the first new rare earth mine in the U.S. in more than 70 years, and the first new coal mine in Wyoming in more than 50 years.
Standing alongside Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, my colleague Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Gov. Mark Gordon, Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.), and former Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W,Va.), I witnessed firsthand America taking a crucial step toward breaking our dangerous dependence on foreign critical minerals.
The reality is stark: China controls roughly 80 percent of the global rare earth supply chain. This stranglehold poses a serious threat to our national security, future economic prosperity, and U.S. technological leadership. Every smartphone in your pocket, every piece of advanced manufacturing equipment, every precision-guided missile in our military arsenal, and every satellite in our networks depend on these critical minerals.
Most Americans don't realize how dangerously dependent we are on other nations to power our lives. Mining critical minerals domestically puts us back in the driver's seat.
The rare earth elements and critical minerals extracted from Wyoming's soil will power the artificial intelligence systems, secure the digital asset networks revolutionizing our financial systems, and strengthen the defense technologies keeping America safe.
Simply put, critical minerals drive modern life in America.
Washington red tape and costly regulatory obstacles allowed China to step in and dominate this market while our own abundant resources remained locked in the ground.
The Ramaco Brook Mine changes that equation. This project demonstrates that American ingenuity, coupled with Wyoming's abundant natural resources and business-friendly environment, can compete with and ultimately surpass foreign competitors. Wyoming has always been America's energy powerhouse, and now we're proving that Wyoming's energy dominance extends beyond oil, gas and coal. Our critical minerals will also help define the next century.
We cannot allow China to maintain their chokehold on these materials. The Chinese Communist Party has already weaponized rare earth exports, threatening to cut off supplies to countries that oppose their aggressive policies. Now imagine if they controlled the materials necessary for our military's most advanced weapons systems, or if they could cripple our technology sector by restricting access to the elements that power our digital economy.
The technology sector understands this urgency. As AI impacts every industry from health care to manufacturing, the demand for rare earth elements will continue to increase.
President Trump's energy dominance agenda prioritizes securing America's critical mineral supply chains. The Ramaco Brook Mine is a powerful physical reminder that America will not seed critical mineral production to China.
But this is just the beginning. We must continue removing the regulatory barriers that have prevented America from developing our vast mineral wealth. Streamlining permitting processes and supporting necessary research and development is vital to maintain our technological mining edge.
China spent decades building their rare earth dominance while America looked the other way. It's time to wake up and change course. The future of American technological leadership, military superiority and economic prosperity depends on our ability to control our own mineral supply chains.
Standing in northern Wyoming, surrounded by the advanced machinery and expertise that will extract these critical materials from Wyoming soil, I saw America's future — and it's bright.
America's critical minerals independence begins in Wyoming, and it begins now. President Trump and his administration have made it possible by making it clear that America will not continue to make the same mistakes.
The Ramaco Brook Mine is more than a mine — it's a declaration of American energy independence for the 21st century. Wyoming is proud to lead this charge, and I'm proud to stand with the Wyoming miners making it possible.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
3 minutes ago
- Newsweek
America Needs a Digital Dollar
As China accelerates deployment of its digital yuan, and the European Central Bank advances toward a digital euro, the Republican Party is seeking to prevent the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) in the United States. Their insistence on clinging to an increasingly obsolete financial infrastructure means that Americans will continue to be saddled with billions in unnecessary fees every year and that corporations will be empowered to erode our privacy in Orwellian fashion. What's more, handicapping ourselves in this way will only make it more likely that the dollar's dominance in global finance will come to a premature end. America needs a digital dollar, and we need it now. The Trump administration's recent digital assets report explicitly prohibits federal agencies from establishing or promoting CBDCs, arguing they "threaten the stability of the financial system, individual privacy, and the sovereignty of the United States." This position reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how digital currencies actually work—and ignores the privacy advantages they could provide over our current system. Consider this analogy: when you send a package through the United States Postal Service, the Fourth Amendment protects its contents from unreasonable government search. That same package sent via FedEx or UPS enjoys no such constitutional protection. Similarly, a government-issued digital currency would operate under constitutional constraints and democratic oversight that private payment systems simply don't face. As such, a government run service inherently offers more privacy protection than its privately run counterpart. A visual representation of digital cryptocurrency coins sit on display in front of a European flag in Paris, France. A visual representation of digital cryptocurrency coins sit on display in front of a European flag in Paris, France. Chesnot/Getty Images Today, every swipe of your credit card, every electronic transfer, and every digital payment flows through private corporations that collect, analyze, and monetize your financial data. Banks routinely share transaction information with third parties, build detailed consumer profiles, and sell insights about your spending habits. In contrast, a properly designed CBDC could implement strong privacy protections by design, limiting data collection to only what's necessary for monetary policy and financial crime prevention. The economic benefits of a digital dollar are even more compelling. Americans currently pay $5-10 billion annually in overdraft fees alone—money that could stay in families' pockets with a CBDC system that allows direct government-to-citizen transfers and eliminates many banking intermediaries. The millions of Americans who remain unbanked or underbanked would finally have access to basic financial services without requiring a traditional bank account. Even for those in the baking system, the benefits of a CBDC are potentially enormous. Wire transfers, which cost $13-$44 each on average and take days to settle, could become nearly instantaneous and free. That speed in payment settlement would also make a huge difference to Americans when they need emergency aid quickly, as a CBDC could allow the government to deliver relief payments in minutes rather than weeks. The urgency in America to adopt a CBDC extends beyond domestic concerns. In an era of growing geopolitical competition, monetary policy has become a tool of statecraft. The country that controls the dominant digital payment infrastructure will wield enormous influence over global commerce. China understands this, which is why it has invested heavily in digital yuan infrastructure and is actively promoting its use. China is creating first-mover advantages that will be difficult or even impossibly to overcome if we continue to stall. The Federal Reserve has spent years studying CBDC technology. We should be encouraging and guiding them on this task rather than holding them back. In doing so, critics should keep in mind that CBDC implementation need not be revolutionary. A digital dollar should complement rather than replace physical currency, giving Americans choice while maintaining familiar monetary arrangements. So too could retailers freely choose whether to accept digital payments, just as they currently decide whether to accept credit cards. Additional privacy protections for all users can also be built into the system's architecture, not added as an afterthought. The real threat to American privacy and financial sovereignty isn't a democratically governed CBDC—it's ceding monetary leadership to authoritarian competitors and unaccountable private corporations that enrich themselves off our data while impoverishing the worst off among us. The question isn't whether digital currencies will reshape global finance, it's whether America will lead this transformation or watch from the sidelines as others determine the future of money. For the sake of American competitiveness, financial inclusion, and yes, even privacy, it's time for a digital dollar. Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law at Georgia College & State University. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Time Magazine
5 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Tracking Trump's Tariffs
President Donald Trump's on-again, off-again approach to his signature tariff policy has taken global economies on a rollercoaster in just the first six months of his second presidential term. Trump slammed nearly every country in the world with tariffs as high as 50% on April 2, so-called 'Liberation Day.' A week later, he announced a temporary reduction that was meant to end July 9, during which time he said he'd negotiate '90 deals in 90 days' to re-balance U.S. trade relationships. But as that deadline neared, Trump announced a new deadline of Aug. 1 and began unveiling a slate of new tariffs on more than a dozen countries. Throughout this all, Trump has also announced sectoral tariffs on cars, steel, aluminum, and copper, as well as threatened countries appearing to align against American interests, like members of the intergovernmental organization BRICS, with additional tariffs. Read More: Trump's Trade Deals, Negotiations, and New Tariffs for Each Country On the eve of Trump's Aug. 1 trade deal deadline, the White House once again unveiled new tariff rates on much of the world, most of which will take effect Aug. 7. For countries with which the U.S. has a trade surplus—meaning that it exports more to those countries than it imports from them—the 'universal' tariff is 10%, which remains unchanged from April 2. For countries with which the U.S. has a trade deficit, the new baseline rate is 15%, which will apply to around 40 countries. More than a dozen other countries will face higher tariff rates, either imposed by Trump in a more recent announcement or obtained through trade agreements with the U.S. The U.S. has reached trade deals or framework agreements with a number of countries: the European Union, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Korea, the U.K., and Vietnam. The U.S. also reached an agreement with China, although the two sides are continuing to negotiate the details ahead of a later deadline of Aug. 12, which the White House has indicated could be extended. And Trump has granted Mexico a 90-day extension to facilitate further trade talks. The White House has bragged about raising more than $150 billion from tariffs over the past six months, while Trump has said 'tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again.' (A Monthly Treasury Statement from June shows that the government has collected around $108 billion in customs duties since October 1, 2024, while the Treasury Department reported the collection of upwards of $28 billion in duties in July.) Revenue from tariffs is likely to increase as higher tariffs for dozens of countries go into effect. Many economists, however, say tariffs are effectively a tax on American consumers and have warned that trade tensions could trigger a U.S.—or even global—recession. Here's a breakdown of all Trump's tariffs. Trump's 'reciprocal' tariffs Trump has said his tariffs are aimed at balancing the U.S.'s trade relationships with the rest of the world in two main ways: firstly, by pressuring countries to negotiate trade deals more favorable to the U.S., and secondly by incentivizing firms to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. The President has railed against the country's trade deficits with much of the rest of the world, though he's also imposed tariffs on countries that the U.S. has a trade surplus with, like Brazil. It's true that the U.S. imports much more goods from most countries than it exports, but economists have pointed out that that's a position many other countries are striving to be in. The U.S. exports mainly services—like banking services, software, and entertainment—while many poorer countries have much larger and lower-paying manufacturing sectors. Economists have also said tariffs aren't necessarily an effective way to address trade deficits and are instead likely to cause higher prices for American consumers, unsettle American businesses, and erode trust between the U.S. and its trading partners, leading trade and diplomatic partnerships away from the U.S. in the long term. Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs, imposed April 2, were 'reciprocal' based on what he said were tariffs and other manipulations against the U.S. by other countries, although economists have criticized his method of calculating those rates: each country's trade surplus with the U.S. was divided by its exports to the U.S. and then divided by two. It's not yet clear how the new rates, some of which Trump began announcing July 7 in 'letters' sent to each country and shared on his Truth Social platform, were determined. Trump has said they are based on countries' 'Tariff, and Non-Tariff, Policies and Trade Barriers.' For certain countries though he cited reasons unrelated to trade. The 50% tariff on Brazil, for example, is based partly on what Trump called a 'Witch Hunt' against the country's former President Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally who has been charged with attempting to launch a coup to stay in office in 2022. Other Trump tariffs Trump has also imposed tariffs on specific sectors, including a 25% tariff on cars and car parts and a 50% tariff on most foreign imports of steel, aluminum, and copper. Several more sectoral tariffs may be introduced pending Section 232 Commerce Department investigations, such as on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals, and commercial aircraft and engines. Imports subjected to section 232 tariffs do not always 'stack' on top of other tariffs. For example, a car imported from overseas will be tariffed at 25%, but will not be subject to tariffs on aluminum, steel, or other 'stacking' tariffs. Metals tariffs supersede country 'reciprocal' tariffs but both steel and aluminum tariffs can apply to the same product. Some trade agreements, like the U.S.-E.U. deal, also cap sectoral tariffs at a lower rate. For example, the 15% 'reciprocal' tariff on the E.U. also applies to cars and car parts. Some sectoral tariffs predate Trump's second term. Trump introduced tariffs on various sectors and countries in his first presidential term. In January 2018, he imposed tariffs on all solar panels, for which China is the world's largest producer, and washing machines. In June that year he also introduced 25% tariffs on over 800 products from China. Trump also imposed a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum from Canada, Mexico and the E.U. These tariffs set off retaliatory moves from the impacted countries, though most U.S. and retaliatory tariffs from Trump's first term eventually expired or were rolled back. The U.S. and China reached a truce in January 2020 after escalating tit-for-tat tariffs, but former President Joe Biden extended the solar panel tariffs in 2022. Some countries might also be subject to additional tariffs based on political reasons. Trump announced on July 6 that he would tariff countries aligning themselves with BRICS at an additional 10% rate. Among the countries whose new rates have been announced so far, that includes Brazil, South Africa, India and Iran. It's not yet clear whether it affects countries that the U.S. has cut a deal with, like China or Indonesia. Trump has also cracked down on what was known as the de minimis exemption, which exempted small shipments valued at $800 or less from customs duties and declarations. The tax provision, which was introduced in 1938, has largely benefitted fast fashion giants like Shein and Temu, which have sent millions of packages a day to the U.S. Trump closed the exemption for shipments from China and Hong Kong in an April 2 executive order, tariffing the low-value shipments from those exporters effectively at a 120% rate from May 2 (after tit-for-tat tariff hikes). He then reversed course with a May 12 executive order that eased levies on low-value imports. Then, he reversed course again with a July 30 executive order, ending the tariff exemption for all countries around the world.
Business Insider
5 minutes ago
- Business Insider
How the US needs to prepare for a higher-level war, according to an American special ops trainer in Ukraine
To prepare for the next major conflict, the US military needs to forget nearly everything it has learned from two decades of fighting wars in the Middle East, an American veteran in Ukraine told Business Insider. Scooter, who serves as an instructor with the 4th Ranger Regiment of Ukraine's Special Operations Forces, said Russia's invasion offers lessons for the West about how it can prepare for future combat. The American could only be identified by his call sign for security reasons. "The first lesson I would recommend to NATO and the United States is to forget the last lesson they learned," the American said during a video chat from an undisclosed location in central Ukraine. A counterinsurgency, like the ones American forces fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, is "nothing like a conventional war" in terms of the intensity of combat and the types of threats. Scooter, a former US Navy sailor who fought Russia for two years alongside other foreign volunteers in Ukraine's International Legion before eventually joining the Ukrainian Special Operations Forces, said threats that soldiers face in this war — rocket fire from helicopters, fighter jet strikes, accurate artillery shelling — are vastly different from the scenes in the Middle East. "Commanders need to be training their people to deal with a threat, very similar to what we were expecting during the Cold War, with whoever we end up in a war with next," he explained. "They need to be training them for much of the same threat that we would've faced in the 1980s." 'Airpower wins wars' In a modern war, achieving air superiority through the suppression or destruction of enemy surface-to-air missile systems is critical. In the Middle East campaigns of the past couple of decades, this mission was much less of an issue for US forces, which could operate relatively uncontested in the skies. Russia failed to achieve air superiority during the early stages of its invasion despite fielding a force of fighter jets and bombers vastly superior to that of Ukraine. This would come back to haunt Moscow, which is locked in a grinding, attritional fight, unable to make significant battlefield gains. Advanced air defenses on both sides prevent Russia and Ukraine from operating their aircraft too close to the front line, providing the kind of close-air support needed to facilitate maneuvering. Most strikes are carried out from standoff ranges. For US and NATO military planners, the ability to suppress enemy air defenses and establish air superiority — the ability to control the airspace without restrictive interference — will be key in a conventional war against a peer adversary like Russia. And they know that. US Air Force Gen. James Hecker, who served as the commander of NATO's air command before he retired this year, said previously that "if we can't get air superiority, we're going to be doing the fight that's going on in Russia and Ukraine right now." "And we know how many casualties that are coming out of that fight," he said. Given the dangers of failing to achieve air superiority, Scooter said he "would suggest to our leadership to make the quality of our pilots, maintainers, and logistics core a huge priority — if not number one." "In this type of conflict, airpower wins wars," he continued. "Infantry take and hold ground. It's really hard to take and hold ground when you have to contend with enemy artillery and aircraft. The party holding air superiority and the ability to suppress enemy air defense is typically the party doing the bombing of ground troops." Scooter stressed that ensuring squadrons are well-maintained and at solid readiness levels is a significant capability to chase. Even then, there's no guarantee that air superiority can be achieved. Some military leaders have said that there may only be windows of opportunity rather than persistent dominance in the air, but those bursts can be exploited for potential breakthroughs on the battlefield. 'Throw the book away' Lessons learned from Ukraine extend beyond the leadership level and run down to the unit level, down to the soldier. For individual soldiers, it's important to be quick, stay mobile, and avoid drawing unnecessary attention. This means concealing weapons or anything that can make someone a target. Others in the war have told BI that appearing important on the battlefield is definitely something to avoid. Sitting around in a spot can also be a bad decision. "Speed saves. The faster you go, the longer you live," Scooter explained. He said that it's good practice for special operations forces in the US to think outside the box. This might mean working against the training manual or standard operating procedures in situations that might call for it, like evacuating wounded soldiers from the battlefield. "Throw the book away, throw the manual away. Get rid of it, and pay attention to how things are actually done here," Scooter said. "So much of what we train in the United States is completely not applicable to reality." Scooter isn't the first US vet in Ukraine to arrive at that conclusion. One told BI last year that "we've gotten so used to the idea of just fighting guerrilla wars and fucking fighting terrorists and everything else that we kind of forgot what it means to actually fight a war." A critical area of focus for the US will need to be keeping pace with drone warfare, which is rapidly evolving in Ukraine, as Kyiv and Moscow routinely adapt their tactics and unveil new innovations to one-up the enemy. Officials and analysts have said that the US is unprepared for the type of conflict that Ukraine and Russia are locked in — specifically, the drone conflict — and that dramatic steps will need to be taken to step up readiness for that kind of fight.
