American mineral sovereignty, a constant of the Trump administrations [2025]
On Wednesday, June 30, 2025, in Washington, the agreement on the mining of Ukraine's subsoil was signed by the United States. The document was initially scheduled for signing on February 28, 2025, during a meeting between the American and Ukrainian leaders, before tensions worsened after the meeting, particularly with Vice President James D. Vance. Canceled, deemed unfair, but subsequently pressed by the American authorities, the Ukrainian presidency decided to give in on a few points while claiming to safeguard national sovereignty over its underground resources.
Although the terms of this agreement are not
yet known [1], the broad outlines revealed suggest that the United States will
have precedence over any other state regarding the prospecting, exploitation
and development of Ukrainian subsoil.
Publicized abroad due to highly proactive diplomacy, this policy nevertheless
begins with the national territory and has its roots in Trump 's first
presidency in 2016, reflecting a desire for energy autonomy and geoeconomic
power through raw materials.
A domestic energy strategy
To understand the American president's insistence, it is essential to return to his inauguration speech of January 20, 2025. Which, as a reminder, stated this :
“ The inflation crisis was caused by massive
overspending and escalating energy prices, and that is why today I will also
declare a national energy emergency. We will drill, baby, drill.
America will be a manufacturing nation once again, and we have something that
no other manufacturing nation will ever have — the largest amount of oil and
gas of any country on earth — and we are going to use it. We'll use it. We will
bring prices down, fill our strategic reserves up again right to the top, and
export American energy all over the world… With my actions today, we will end
the Green New Deal …” [2].
And if mineral resources were not
actually mentioned directly, the obsession with energy resources (fossil fuels
in this case) opened the door wide to mineral resources. This will formally be
the case on March 20, 2025 in an executive order specifically addressing this
topic. From the outset
, the statement is blunt :
“ Our national and economic security are
now acutely threatened by our reliance upon hostile foreign powers' mineral
production. It is imperative for our national security that the United States
take immediate action to facilitate domestic mineral production to the maximum
possible extent…
The Secretary of Defense shall utilize the
National Security Capital Forum to facilitate the introduction of entities to
pair private capital with commercially viable domestic mineral production
projects to the maximum possible extent.
Further, within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense
shall add mineral production as a priority industrial capability development
area for the Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment Program. »
It should be noted specifically that both civil and military sectors will be involved in order to achieve the objectives as quickly as possible [3].
Supplemented by constant diplomatic activism since 2016
While the Ukrainian minerals deal is currently making headlines, the emphasis on Canadian and Greenlandic territorial ambitions (under Danish tutelage, let us remember) cannot be a specific feature of the Trump administration . Thus, as I reported in 2019 following the first American proposal to buy Greenland from Denmark:
" As
scandalous as this may seem, it nevertheless appears that the argument - from
the American point of view - is amply justified by a history based on the
appropriation and then the development of the territory through military
conquest... and cessions.
Some of these were through a commercial transaction: territory in exchange for
cash . Thus, Louisiana was ceded in 1803 (understood in the very broad sense
since it extended into thirteen current states); the extension of Arizona and
New Mexico in 1853 (initially planned to promote the transcontinental
railroad); Alaska in 1867 (carried out by the Tsar for reasons of logistical
difficulties in the event of aggression by the United States or the United
Kingdom); Puerto Rico in 1898 (following the victorious war against Spain, but
the cession was nevertheless carried out with financial compensation) and
finally the Virgin Islands in 1917. This last example must be highlighted in
relation to the present proposal since these maritime territories belonged
precisely to... Denmark (yes, there was Scandinavian and Baltic colonization in
the North American and Caribbean zone, but that is another story). » [4] .
An additional element that can partially explain this pronounced interest:
Greenland is said to contain 25% of the world's reserves of rare earths (17
critical metals used in advanced technologies). Not to mention ores containing
copper, gold or zinc, which would be greatly appreciated by the beneficiary of
their exploitation. It should also be noted that many of the figures put
forward in the media are extrapolations, not confirmations [5].
While the appropriation of Greenland's estimated (and fantasized) resources is
currently a distant prospect, Ukraine, with its recent agreement, is a proven demonstration
of the success of American diplomatic "battering blows." Since the
latter would establish the United States as co -manager of the subsoil, and
while Ukraine would nominally remain sovereign over its territory and what is
found in the subsoil, the truth is that the United States will have a foothold
in the land and especially in Ukrainian mines. Lithium, graphite, titanium,
manganese, rare earths: strategic metals are not lacking. Added to this are
quantities of gas and oil, the exploitation of which is currently complicated
by the presence or proximity of Russian troops, and, as a corollary, the
uncertainty over the delimitation of post-conflict territorial zones.
For Canada, this unique neighbor of the United
States, the understanding has not always been cordial throughout their history,
despite their geographical proximity. Europeans are often ignorant, for
example, of the failed attempt to invade Quebec in 1775 by the very young
American forces (independence would be formally declared in 1776), as well as
of the War of 1812 which took place on both territories, recording the refusal
of Canadian subjects to leave the bosom of the British crown and putting to
sleep the dream of a North America free of all European interference. The
Treaty of Washington in 1871 helped to reassure both parties by settling the
still outstanding territorial disputes. The 20th century was one of
rapprochement, particularly on the military (example of NORAD, North American Aerospace Defense Command in 1958) and commercial
(NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994) levels. Before a
return of friction at the beginning of the 21st century, as illustrated by the
cancellation of the Keystone XL project or the status of the Northwest Passage.
But even more so by the constant rhetoric of making Canada the 51st state of the United
States of America. On
January 7 , while its
taking office was not yet effective, Trump declared notably this :
“ You get rid of that artificially drawn
line, and you take a look at what that looks like, and it would also be much
better for national security. Don't forget, we basically protect Canada. But
here's the problem with Canada. So many friends there, I love the Canadian
people. They're great, but we're spending hundreds of billions a year to
protect it. We're spending hundreds of billions a year to take care of Canada. We lose in trade deficits .
Military and financial visions are officially put forward, but the mineral reality, obsessing the new presidency, cannot be ignored due to proven reserves (example: the 500,000 tons of uranium in Saskatchewan mines). As for fossil resources, and more specifically oil, the 171 billion barrels seem very tempting for a head of state whose speech was precisely to support the policy of extracting them.
Head-on mineral diplomacy
Biden 's international policy has been a more watered-down parenthesis of Trumpian policy (and it is still necessary to underline the signing of texts which are nevertheless very restrictive for the economic partners of the United States such as the Inflation Reduction Act or the CHIPS and Science Act in 2022), the vengeful return of his predecessor signified strong diplomatic voluntarism to ensure his country access to fossil and mineral resources at lower cost, or even possession of them.
This policy could, however, provoke vigorous counter-attacks, starting with its direct competitor, China, angered by the tariff war launched by its counterpart across the Pacific.
Let's take, for example, the official suspension of production of the humanoid robot Optimus (also known as Tesla Bot) due to the embargo – or rather the export licensing policy – imposed by China on neodymium-iron-boron (Nd 2 Fe 14 B) magnets, crucial for powering the miniaturized motors of said robot. However, even the United States is dependent on such manufactured elements. This collateral effect is all the more striking given that Tesla CEO Elon Musk , is also a very close advisor to Donald Trump . For other examples, I refer to my study on China as an affirmed and claimed metallurgical power [6], which incidentally reinforces the US executive in its obsession with capturing new sources of supply and relocating metallurgical activities [7].
Trump administration's highly aggressive mineral sovereignty policy run out of steam and be amended in the long term? At the margins, yes, in an effort to avoid damaging side effects for the American economy rather than to spare the sensitivities of the countries concerned. However, there is every reason to conjecture that until the end of his term, the current president will strive to guarantee himself access – direct and indirect – to a maximum of resources, at the best prices, and through friendly or " friendly " logistical channels, as expressed by his pressure on the Hong Kong group CK Hutchison, present at both mouths of the Panama Canal [8].
The thunderous nature of the new American leader should in no way mask the reality of the imperative of mastering the value chain, from cradle to grave, of all contemporary technologies and those in development for the powers of the future.
[1] The Kyiv Independent media outlet released a version of this text on May 1st that should be considered with caution, pending an official full version from the respective executives bound by the agreement. The Kyiv Independent, The full text of the US, Ukraine minerals agreement , May 1, 2025, Link: https://kyivindependent.com/the-full-text-of-the-us-ukraine-minerals-agreement/
[2] Donald J. Trump, The Inaugural Address , The White House, January 20 , 2025, link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/remarks/2025/01/the-inaugural-address/
[3] Donald J. Trump, Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production , The White House, March 20, 2025, link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/immediate-measures-to-increase-american-mineral-production/
[4] Yannick Harrel , Purchase of Greenland by the United States : a continuity geohistorical [Purchase of Greenland by the United States: a geohistorical continuity] , Researchgate , October 12, 2019, link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387059404_Achat_du_Groenland_par_les_Etats-Unis_une_continuite_geohistoire
[5] Rare earth deposits, such as those at Kvanefjeld (1.1 billion tonnes of estimated resources, containing 11.1 million tonnes of rare earth oxides) and Tanbreez (28 million tonnes of resources) are estimated resources, not proven reserves. Similarly, the Isua iron ore deposit is believed to contain about 1 billion tonnes of estimated, but at this stage unconfirmed, resources.
[6] Yannick Harrel , The affirmation of China as a metallurgical power , March 14, 2025, La Vigie, link: https://www.lettrevigie.com/laffirmation-de-la-chine-comme-puissance-metallurgique-y-harrel/
[7] The US Geological Survey produces annual reports on the production, consumption, and import of strategic materials by the United States, as well as an updated list of critical raw materials. Link: https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/mcs2025/
[8] Op. Cit .