Trump wants to fast-track sulfide-mining. MN has the power to say NO

By Kathryn Hoffman, MCEA CEO

A few weeks ago, MCEA’s board asked me to brief them on the Trump administration’s push to fast-track domestic sulfide mining — and what it could mean for Minnesota.

They were especially interested in how these changes might affect our work to keep permanent acid and toxic metal pollution out of the Lake Superior and Boundary Waters watersheds.

There’s no simple answer. As I told the board, our team is tracking federal actions closely. The flood of executive orders and actions from the administration is designed to overwhelm the public. Our job as lawyers is to separate legally meaningful changes from political noise meant to confuse and intimidate. 

But more importantly, I reminded the board, the future of copper and nickel mining in Minnesota isn’t for any one federal administration to decide alone, no matter who occupies the White House. It’s a decision that belongs to Minnesotans, and MCEA is committed to doing everything we can to protect our state’s precious waters.

That’s not to say the Trump administration’s actions don’t impact the landscape; they do. But it's one of several forces in play. This piece examines: 

• The federal administration’s actions on sulfide-mining and which appear to be legally binding vs. bluster
• Our assessment on how those actions may impact sulfide-mining proposals in MN 
• And finally, how MCEA will continue to protect our water and state from flawed sulfide-mining proposals and the permanent and irreversible pollution that comes with them.

(Stay tuned for a future post on what this could mean more specifically for the PolyMet mining proposal near Lake Superior.) 

Unpacking the executive orders

On his first day in office,  Donald Trump signed two executive orders – “Unleashing American Energy” and “Declaring a National Energy Emergency” – designed to make it easier for mining companies to bypass environmental protections. Among other things, the actions direct federal agencies to fast-track permitting, weaken rules that protect water and wildlife, and open up previously protected public lands to mining, like the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. 

The latter order, as well as subsequent executive orders, alleges that the national security of the United States is harmed by the lack of domestic mineral resources, and prioritizes mineral exploration on federal lands. The intended effect is twofold: to allow President Trump authority to give both loans and access to federal lands to mining companies, and to weaken the environmental review process that mining companies need to undergo to obtain the federal permits necessary for their proposed mines. 

In April, the Department of the Interior followed with new guidelines urging agencies to cut environmental reviews called Environmental Impact Statements down to just 28 days—a drastic shift from the typical year or more needed for a thorough review.

Then, in May, the administration announced, to great fanfare, that it was adding 20 projects to its so-called “Fast-41 dashboard” -- a list of projects designated for supposed fast-tracking. Among those on the list was the PolyMet project proposed for northeastern Minnesota, now known as New Range. PolyMet was listed as one of 10 “transparency projects,” 10 others were deemed “covered projects.” 

Other federal actions

Other federal actions are also shaping mining prospects—both globally and here in Minnesota. Most notably, the Trump administration recently announced its intent to reverse the ban on mining in the Boundary Waters watershed using executive authority, after efforts to repeal the ban failed in Congress. Chilean mining giant Antofagasta, behind the proposed Twin Metals project, has long pushed to mine near the BWCA.

The new federal landscape has also emboldened state lawmakers. During the last legislative session, some senators tried to repeal key state mining laws that protect  water from sulfide-mining pollution. Thanks to advocacy by MCEA and our partners, those efforts stalled.

We’re also seeing mineral access surface in military discussions—most recently in a minerals deal with Ukraine, possibly tied to U.S. military aid in the conflict with Russia. Another Trump Executive Order attempts to streamline deep-sea mining.

Separating talk from tangible impacts  

It’s easy to get overwhelmed by everything happening. It’s called a “flood the zone” strategy, and one of the many challenges of dealing with it is that it can be difficult to separate out substantive legal impacts from bluster. That’s by design. This administration thrives as much on confusion in its messaging as it does on meaningful changes in the law. This is because people often change their behaviors voluntarily out of fear.

With that in mind, it’s useful to sort the impacts into two categories – actual legal effects as we understand them, and the potential social or “precompliance” effects that could result in changed behavior even if there is no legal requirement, or if the executive actions are ultimately invalidated by the courts.

Real Effects

The gutting of the federal government’s environmental review process and push to fast-track key projects is real. It is very possible the Trump administration will do an extremely abbreviated (and entirely inadequate) environmental review of one or more sulfide-mining proposals in Minnesota, as soon as this year. For example, if PolyMet, aka NewRange, attempts to apply for a new federal permit to destroy wetlands to replace the one revoked by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers under Biden’s administration, our team thinks there is a strong possibility the new administration would seek to rush that application and review. This may well be the first test of the proposed “28 day” environmental review executive order.

However, relying on abbreviated and insufficient processes, likely based entirely on documents generated by the mining companies themselves, will fall short of even the most basic standards of environmental review. That means any permits approved through those means will end up in court. Moreover, our state agencies are unlikely to view such an abbreviated EIS as compliant with state law, let alone public notice and comment period requirements. Therefore, the mine would likely still have to go through a robust state environmental review process.

Regarding mining in the BWCA, the impact of the administration’s announcement is less straight-forward at this point. Federal agencies said they are starting the process of reversing the mining prohibition but what exactly that entails is not yet known. Senator Tina Smith said in a statement that the federal government’s justification for lifting the ban was based on unsupported “pseudo science” and would likely end up in court. We agree. 

Either way, the development underscores the importance of MCEA’s continued work to shore up and defend our state laws, which are a critical bulwark against polluting mining operations near the Boundary Waters.

“Social” effects (or “precompliance”)

Let’s start with the easiest one. Adding PolyMet (now rebranded as “NewRange”) to a list of “transparency” projects has no actual legal effect. The entirety of the action is to add the project’s name to a website. It is designed to bring attention to the project, but has no force of law. In other words, “fast-tracked,” in the case of PolyMet, means “on the website.” 

That said, it’s safe to assume mining proponents will point to the designation as proof that the PolyMet/Northmet project has federal backing and therefore deserves special treatment at the state level too. While that’s not technically true—even federal agencies have acknowledged this—the company and its lobbyists have already shown a propensity to bend the truth to push their agenda.

We expect other mining companies to do the same should their proposals receive expedited review at the federal level. For example, they may argue their projects already passed federal scrutiny, making additional state review redundant and even irresponsible, given the Trump administration’s emphasis on minerals for national security and AI dominance. They may try to insist there isn’t time or need under the circumstances for meaningful Tribal consultation or public input. They may continue using greenwashed clean technology rhetoric about using their minerals for wind turbines and electric vehicles, though that will likely be downplayed federally, as it holds no political weight with this administration. 

As we’ve seen with PolyMet in Minnesota, no amount of evidence, court rulings, or company missteps will stop mining companies from blaming “delays” on the state, the Tribes, civic society, and all who care about our water. Under this federal administration, we expect that tactic to escalate.

The work ahead

First and foremost, we must remember that we still have a system of checks and balances in this country—the President is not a king. The courts remain a critical check on executive power and have already proven effective in many cases. We must continue to use the judicial system to challenge executive overreach and speak out against any attempts to undermine its independence. Lawyers, of course, are the key to accessing the courts.

Second, we must hold our state government accountable to the law and resist any shifts in policy based on federal threats or bluster. The administration appears to have Minnesota in its sights—our Governor ran against Trump, after all, and our progressive laws on everything from environmental justice to climate go against this administration’s agenda. Now is not the time to back down. We must continue to stand up for Minnesota’s environment and its natural resources in the face of these threats. 

Our state laws are a crucial line of defense against polluting mining projects in Minnesota. MCEA, in coalition with others, used those laws to win critical court victories against the PolyMet proposal. We’re going to need to use them again.

The Trump administration cannot unilaterally decide how or whether copper and nickel mining happens in Minnesota. That decision belongs to us, and MCEA will do everything in our power to ensure our water remains protected.