A raft of US policies related to mining has heralded a shift in approach away from tax credits and free trade agreements towards measures designed to stimulate home-grown supply, both mined and refined.

That is the message in a new White & Case report analysing US policy towards critical mineral resilience.

Partners Rebecca Campbell and Jamie Franklin have examined the country's measures designed to speed up permitting and secure supply.

"In nine months, the Trump administration's policy of energy dominance has reshaped the competitive landscape for the mining [and] metals sector in the US and beyond. American policy has pivoted from a focus on tax credits for critical minerals projects and preferences built around free trade agreements to a focus on expanding domestic mined and refined supply," Campbell said.

But while this approach shows promise in moving capital towards miners and processors, she added, the US government budget impasse means that mining projects need to plan for a window that may shut within 12-24 months. 

"If a project isn't shovel-ready, miners and processors must get it ready as fast as possible, before this window closes," Campbell said. 

Three-pronged approach

The report divides the US approach into three prongs: administrative interventions, such as deregulation, accelerated permitting processes and the executive authority of the National Energy Dominance Council; the use of federal bodies to fund and support critical national security projects; and tariffs and agreements, including the memorandum of agreement with Saudi Arabia. 

"Taken together, the current policy mix is a more supportive environment for investment into the mining [and] metals value chain in the US or in partnership with US allies elsewhere," Campbell wrote in the report. 

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) is supportive in the near-term, she said.

Companies building manufacturing projects before 2029 can deduct 100% of the eligible property's cost in its first year of operations as long as it's in service before January 1, 2031.

However, projects will still face challenges, including uncertainty over investment, the cost of capital, potential constraints on labour and inflation.

The race for critical minerals

White & Case described the US attempt to onshore extraction and processing of critical minerals vital to national security as "a dramatic reform effort."

The Unleashing American Energy executive order (EO) was identified by its lawyers as the first step, followed by further EOs.

The allocation of copper as a critical mineral was also highlighted.

"The National Energy Dominance Council formed in February 2025, a cabinet-level coordinating body chaired by the Secretary of the Interior, is explicitly tasked with improving permitting and accelerating projects deemed vital for national security. Acting on its mandate, the Council's deliberations and parallel action from the White House rescinded existing regulatory burdens imposed by the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) on June 30, 2025," Campbell said. 

This could however be at the expense of environmental outcomes, the report noted.

FAST-41 designation has further boosted projects stuck in limbo, according to White & Case, including the Rio Tinto Resolution Copper project.

This project could alone supply up to 25% of US copper demand.

Campbell said copper, uranium, rare earths and gold projects are likeliest to benefit most in the near term.

However, she noted that Northern Dynasty's Pebble Mine project in Bristol Bay, Alaska, is currently being blocked by the administration, due to fears over the impact on salmon fisheries.

Supporting projects

The report also detailed other support for miners, including the Department of Energy's loan programme office, which has seen its remit expanded.

Make More in America (MMIA) was also singled out.

Although MMIA does not only target mining projects, it is designed for any projects that strengthen US competitiveness.

"Trade policy has expanded into an instrument organising industrial policy through a broad array of carrots and sticks," Campbell said. 

"Each shift in the tariff regime alters domestic project economics—higher import costs can offset higher construction, labor and operational costs for US projects. But their application by executive order also creates the potential for negotiated exemptions with foreign partners in line with diplomatic and geopolitical initiatives."