From the Ground-Out: Security & Sovereignty in Great Power Conflict

February 2025: West Point Social Sciences Seminar, “Understanding the Base.”

Preface

From the Ground Out: Security & Sovereignty in Great Power Conflict was a limdist policy paper presented at the 2025 West Point Social Sciences Seminar to senior US leadership. Its purpose was to sound the alarm about China’s overwhelming dominance in the mining, metals, and critical minerals supply chain. At the time, our proposals involved fast-tracking mine permitting, restoring domestic metals refining capacity, establishing a “War Production Board” for critical materials and metals, mobilizing public-private mining finance cooperation, and including gold as a critical mineral. All of these recommendations seemed bold, unrealistic, and perhaps even crazy at the time.

Fast forward less than a year, and those ideas have largely become reality. The Trump administration’s recent Executive Orders on permitting reform, domestic metals processing, and critical materials industrial mobilization directly echo the recommendations we outlined. Major companies have followed suit, repatriating refining capacity and prioritizing North American resource security. What was once a policy wish list has become the foundation of a continental strategy.

In our presentation and paper, we argued that metals are the new oil and further, that securing them was a matter of national defense. Here’s a summary of what we proposed:

• Reducing mine permitting timelines from 10–15 years to 1 year;

• Establishing a modern War Production Board for mining and metals;

• Securing financing and blocking foreign capture of domestic mining assets;

• Building infrastructure to remote mining regions;

• Revitalizing mining education and workforce training;

• Partnering with Indigenous communities for shared benefit;

• Countering the “weaponization” of environmental policy;

• Declaring Gold a Critical Mineral.

Since the paper was presented at West Point, here are some of the mining industry policies and business-related financing initiatives that have been enacted:

• EO titled “Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production” (March 20 2025). This order directs expedited permitting, use of federal lands for mineral production, delegation of the Defense Production Act (DPA) authority, deployment of investment/loan support for mineral production, and use of the National Energy Dominance Council https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/immediate-measures-to-increase-american-mineral-production/ and https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/05/trump-administration-boosts-domestic-mineral-production-adding-10-more-critical-mineral-production-projects-to-the-federal-permitting-dashboard/

• EO on refining and smelting: Proclamation granting two years of regulatory relief from a stringent Biden-Era EPA rule on primary copper smelting, an industry vital to national security and economic resilience. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/10/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-grants-regulatory-relief-from-burdensome-epa-restrictions-to-promote-american-copper-security/ and https://www.mining.com/web/trump-reverses-biden-era-rules-on-copper-smelters/

• Government Funding for Mines and Metals Through EXIM Bank and Other US Government organizations: https://www.exim.gov/news/exim-powers-america-first-22-billion-critical-minerals-commitments-secure-supply-chains and https://www.juniorminingnetwork.com/junior-miner-news/press-releases/3348-nasdaq/crml/182010-critical-metals-corp-secures-us-120-000-000-loi-for-a-15-year-term-loan-from-the-us-federal-government-bank-exim-bank-for-the-development-of-its-tanbreez-rare-earth-project-in-greenland.html and https://www.mining-technology.com/news/titan-mining-financing-interest-exim-graphite-project/

• Government/Private Investment Sector Cooperation on Mine Project Financing: “DFC Joins $1.8 Billion Consortium to Secure Critical Mineral Supply Chains and Bolster U.S. Economic Growth and Security”: https://www.dfc.gov/media/press-releases/dfc-joins-18-billion-consortium-secure-critical-mineral-supply-chains-and

Today, we have seen extraordinary progress on many of those fronts. The U.S. government and major industry players have embraced much of what we envisioned in our playbook. Though a World War 2 style War Production Board has yet to be formally constituted, the US Department of Defense’s (now called the “Department of War”) involvement in mining and metals production is interwoven into practically every mining related EO issued in 2025. As detailed in our playbook, a few crucial gaps remain to be addressed: 1) infrastructure linking remote mining districts still needs investment; 2) North American mining education remains underfunded in an environment where key mining skills are in critically short supply; 3) public opinion has not yet fully aligned with the new industrial reality; 4) environmental policies and a weaponized judiciary continue to work against mining; 5) gold has yet to be listed as a critical mineral. All of the above points need to be dealt with, urgently, if the U.S. and its allies wish to have a fighting chance of securing metal supply independence.

Still, it’s hard not to reflect on how quickly the ground has shifted. What began as an academic warning at West Point has evolved into an operational doctrine — a blueprint now guiding national policy. We now release From the Ground Out publicly in hopes of pressing home further policy reform, and ultimately, securing metals independence.

— Mike St-Pierre and George Salamis
West Point Seminar on Great Power Conflict, 2025

Introduction

“Over three decades the People’s Republic of China became the global industrial powerhouse in many key areas – from shipbuilding to critical minerals to microelectronics – that vastly exceeds the capacity of not just the United States, but the combined output of our key European and Asian allies as well.”[1]

-U.S. Department of Defense, “National Defense Industrial Strategy 2023”

China has strategically positioned itself as the dominant force in the world of critical metals, refining, and manufacturing. Through aggressive investment, control over mining operations, and refining processes, China has secured a significant share of the global marketplace both up and down the supply chain. This dominance not only affects global supply chains but also gives China considerable geopolitical leverage. By restricting exports or increasing prices, China can influence international markets, technology development, and national security, highlighting its pivotal role in what has become a new-to-us battleground in geo-economic strategy.

As trade, tariff, and currency wars escalate, the US and its partners must expect that key components of its defence and industrial sectors will face shortages of essential and non-essential inputs alike.^[2] Despite several key policy documents and some investment to spur on-shoring of critical metals extraction, refining, and manufacturing, few new mines have been permitted, metals processed, or notable shifts in manufacturing competitiveness can be measured. The US and its partners face an economic war. The US controls the financial system while the PRC boasts supply chain dominance from minerals through to production, transshipment, and discharge at port.^[3] Securing metals and mines in the developing world, once a more cost effective and simpler means to avoid regulatory and environmental hurdles, is no longer viable.^[4] While turning the tide of the PRC’s industrial advantage is a multivariate problem, the following paper focuses from the ground-out: unleash the power of North America’s metals, mining, and refining, to drive a powerful onshore manufacturing sector capable of competing, and winning, against a Eurasian Axis. North America’s geological reserves were once the envy of the world. It is time to regain this strength and combat the PRC and its proxies from the ground-out. This paper describes the critical metals battlespace and offers recommendations to rapidly accelerate North American metals, mining, and refining, to ensure the US is on a secure war footing.

Metals, Mines, and the PRC

China holds the commanding heights in the production of metals from steel to critical minerals, gold, and rare earth elements (REEs).^[5] The PRC produces over half of all steel, between 35% to 98% of critical minerals (depending on specific mineral), and 70% of REEs.^[6] Between 2019 and 2022, the U.S. imported more than 95% of the total rare earths it consumed.^[7] The PRC’s control extends to many materials vital to national defense and modern essentials such as smartphones and automobiles.^[8] Beyond supply chains is a critical skills shortage: the west no longer produces mining engineers or geologists to meet the demand. As but a small example of the disparity in skills differentials, the China University of Mining and Technology alone enrolls more mining engineering students than all U.S. mining engineering programs combined.^[9] The U.S. and its partners are in a state of strategic dependency, as the talent, skills, and materials required to fight and win are dominated by the PRC.^[10]

Strategic Leverage

“We can de-risk but not decouple, [this is the case] for everybody…Think about the $500bn of trade that goes from China to the US every year. More than 95 percent of rare earth materials or metals come from, or are processed in, China. There is no alternative.”^[11]

-Greg Hayes, CEO, Raytheon

The economic war between the United States and China encompasses a broad spectrum of trade disputes, technological rivalry, and strategic competition. Initiated prominently during the Trump administration with tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in goods, this conflict has evolved into a complex battle for technological supremacy, especially in areas like semiconductors, AI, and 5G technology. Both nations have engaged in tit-for-tat measures, with the U.S. imposing export controls on advanced technologies to China, while China retaliates by restricting access to its market or leveraging its dominance in critical metals and rare earth elements. This ongoing struggle not only affects bilateral trade but also influences global supply chains, economic policies, and geopolitical alignments, with each country seeking to reduce dependency on the other, fostering a scenario of economic decoupling.^[12]

On December 3rd, China announced a ban on exporting gallium, germanium, and antimony to the United States, minerals crucial for military applications, intensifying trade frictions.[13] This decision came after the U.S. tightened its export controls on China’s semiconductor industry. These new restrictions reinforce previous export limits set by Beijing but are specifically targeted at the U.S.^[14] The probability of economic decoupling is high. Immediate action is required to accelerate the defence industrial base and manufacturing sector.

US Defence Industrial Strategy: Words, not Deeds

Several policy documents, Executive Orders, and recommendations have been proposed to steer the US towards greater self-reliance in metals and mining, yet the ways and means to achieve these ends are often unclear. Executive Order 14017, for example, directed the Department of Defense (DoD) to invest over $893 million under the Defense Production Act in five critical areas: kinetic capabilities, microelectronics, energy storage, strategic materials, and castings/forgings, aiming to bolster supply chain resilience.[15] The DoD also initiated the Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment (IBAS) program to tackle technological challenges and support vulnerable defense suppliers, while efforts to increase stockpiles of essential materials and develop an action plan for securing defense-critical supply chains have been undertaken.[16] This direction was further expanded in the 2023 U.S. DoD’s National Defense Industrial Strategy.[17]

However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has highlighted significant hurdles, particularly in implementing restrictions on National Defense Stockpile sales to nations like China and Russia, or their affiliates, when such transactions are against U.S. national interests. Despite agreement from the DoD, these restrictions remain unimplemented. Legislative actions have aimed at reducing dependency on adversary nations for critical materials, with limited investment in domestic supply chains.^[18] Yet, few new mines have been permitted or metals processed, underscoring a lack of progress in domestic production.

Challenges persist, including incomplete data on material requirements, limited oversight of buyer affiliations, and inadequate reporting to Congress. The GAO’s September 2024 report underscores the difficulty of reforming a free market system within the DoD framework. Despite investments, such as $439 million towards reestablishing domestic rare earth supply chains, there’s been little advancement in actual production.^[19]

The DoD’s failure to enact a 2019 law restricting sales from the National Defense Stockpile, due to staff unawareness, further complicates the situation. With over 90% of critical materials in shortfall in 2023 having limited domestic supply, the vulnerabilities in the supply chain are evident. The biennial reports to Congress lack detail on risks and shortfalls, which, combined with a 167% increase in material shortages from 2019 to 2023, paints a picture of a strategy struggling to keep pace with its objectives.^[20] While the DoD has embarked on initiatives to enhance supply chain security and manage the stockpile, significant gaps in policy execution, data management, and accountability. In short, America’s industrial base is exceptionally fragile and vulnerable to strategic shock.

A Pivot to Security and Prosperity: A North American Metals and Mining Strategy

The US and its partners face a stark choice: compete or fragment. While the US financial system is the strongest and most robust in the world, it has outsourced extraction, refining, production, and environmental concerns abroad. It must now reverse this policy choice at pace. The following section will detail how the US can compete and win the war for metals alongside its partners.

Canada, the US, and Mexico, are host to some of the richest mineral endowments in the world, including critical minerals, on the planet. The historic mining hubs of Sudbury Ontario, Bingham Canyon Utah, Morenci Arizona, and the Mexican States of Zacatecas and Sonora, are some of the largest metal reserves on the planet.^[21] Few continents can boast this concentration of world class mines in conjunction with most of the necessary infrastructure to support district scale mining operations. Canada and the US have vast untapped mineral potential in remote, mostly northern arctic/subarctic areas. North America has every metal required to sustain itself and to support its own industrial and military sectors, and those of its allies.^[22]

Despite the vast mineral wealth of North America, these nations have squandered their economic and national security by allowing adversarial states, specifically the PRC and Russia, to control both price and quantity of their supply chains. To regain North America’s geologic and industrial strength, significant and accelerated deregulation and policy reform is required.

Conditions on the ground in North America must not only be favourable to mining but must be the most competitive in the world at attracting capital and talent. Governments must link with the private sector, military, mining engineers, and geologists to speed rapid extraction and development. Inefficiencies and regulatory capture by foreign interests must be removed and capital incentivized. Public opinion must be prepared for the risk of decoupling, but also also to the significant opportunity presented for their economies.

To operationalize the US Industrial Strategy, policymakers should consider resurrecting the War Production Board (WPB), last implemented in 1942, to oversee and prioritize the production of war materials.[23] The WPB coordinated efforts to redirect resources from civilian to military use, including critical metals like steel, aluminum, copper, and nickel. The WPB allowed allied governments to work closely with mining companies to allocate raw materials efficiently and ensure priority for military applications. Executive orders and legislative acts granted governmental authority to requisition facilities, allocate funds and materials, and regulate production processes. Executive Orders and directives from the WPB would facilitate and accelerate metals discoveries, development, extraction, refining, and sale to the industrial base on ranked priority.

Operationalizing a Metals & Mining Strategy

In an era where metals and minerals are critical to national security and economic resilience, North America faces significant challenges in scaling up domestic mining operations. The following policy recommendations aim to address these issues by streamlining regulatory processes, securing financing, bolstering workforce capabilities, respecting and partnering with Indigenous communities, enhancing infrastructure, countering organized environmental opposition, enabling a productive education system, and constructive public support ensure social license for mining. These steps are designed to ensure that the United States, Canada, and Mexico can swiftly and sustainably leverage their mineral resources to maintain technological and industrial supremacy.

1. Expedite Exploration & Mine Permitting

The leading challenge to metals extraction in North America is directly linked to lengthy environmental assessments, restrictive land use permits, and public consultations. New mine permitting processes can take up to 15 years.^[24] The impact of these delays is incompatible with the urgency of wartime needs. Executive Orders, emergency authorizations, or orders issued by the WPB must supersede any regulatory impediments to initiate new mine exploration, development and production. A WPB must prioritize projects for “fast-tracking” permits and cut permitting times for new mines from 15 years down to 1 year, or less.

Navigating regulatory complexity is a major issue that currently plagues metals explorers and producers at all levels, with the key challenges relating to overlapping federal, state/provincial, and local regulations that complicate project approval and compliance. The impacts of coordination between jurisdictions creates bottlenecks that further exacerbate regulatory permitting complexity. Via Executive Order or under the direction of the WPB, a “one-stop” regulatory system would eliminate regulatory hurdles for mining projects that have the potential to supply key strategic/critical minerals at a substantial and economic scale Federal and State/Provincial agencies would need to have identical norms and standards, with agencies acting as one as opposed to a regulatory labyrinth of overlapping of Bureau of Land Management, US Forestry Service, US Army Corps of Engineers, State and Provincial regulatory agencies, among many others. Additionally, a WPB would eliminate or make redundant inexperienced permitting authorities at the federal, state/provincial regulatory bodies – those in WPB approval positions must be technically proficient. Appointing or drafting expertise into the WPB should be considered.

A WPB or similar body would need to become quickly armed with an essential list of resource projects and metal deposits of strategic importance. These projects would be prioritized for permitting within one year or less and built within one year or less with government and military cooperation.^[25] Lastly, such an endeavor to cut bureaucracy and restrictive permitting “red tape” is consistent with the incoming US administration’s stance on fast-tracking projects that are in the best economic interests of the US.

2. Financing: Metals & Mining Accelerator

Metals must be controlled within a circle of trust. North America loses its ability to control and leverage its own metal supplies once they are shipped offshore. From financing, corporate capture, to naked short selling in the stock markets that they trade in, North American mining interests are either manipulated or captured by the PRC.^[26] In order to remove North American producers and developers from regulatory and financial attack, a vetted and defended Metals & Mining exchange platform must be formed to buy/sell/trade metals to confirmed end users.

Mining projects require large upfront investments with long payback periods, which deter private and public investment. Delays in financing can stall mining exploration and production alike, for years if not indefinitely. Direct government-backed funding or wartime subsidies for critical mining projects, from cradle (exploration) to grave (mine site reclamation) is required. While some government funds have been allocated to resource companies, the size, scale, and utility of the funding is minimal when compared to the PRC.^[27] Funding should be based on analysis by the WPB who maintain seats on a firm’s board of directors to maintain the integrity of the assessment process, ensuring funding is directed to premier projects that are in the best interests of the nation and not subpar ones.

One means of financing in Canada the U.S. should replicate is to provide significant tax incentives to investors in mine projects by flow through financing. In Canada, under the Flow-Through tax regime (Specified Investment Flow-Through or SIFT), investors receive significant tax advantages of up to 50% or more of the value of their investment, leading to greatly enhanced stimulation of the Canadian resource sector. ^[28] No such tax break or regime exists for US investors in the United States. Additionally, 401k/RRSP incentives should be incentivized to invest in domestic mines, refiners, and manufacturers. Pension plans must be mandated away from investing in foreign adversaries and towards on-shore assets.^[29] By removing regulatory hurdles domestically, and instituting restrictions on foreign metals, free-market investors will be encouraged to invest in domestic extraction and production^[30]

3. Mining Workforce and Skill Set Shortages

The United States is grappling with a significant challenge due to its aging mining engineering and geological workforce. There is an imminent shortage of skilled individuals to replace these professionals, which could disrupt the mining industry crucial for sourcing essential minerals for technology and infrastructure. Enrollment in mining programs is declining across the US and Europe, with some schools shutting down. In contrast, China boasts 45 mining engineering programs, educating 12,000 students and producing 3,000 graduates each year.[31] Meanwhile, the US has only 14 accredited institutions, graduating just 600 mining engineers annually, a number that has decreased by 40% over the last eight years. Of note, up to 50% of new mining engineering graduates in the United States are employed at aggregate producers.^[32] America is mining gravel while the PRC captures the metals.

The scale of skilled labor shortages in mining and exploration, especially in remote regions, limits the ability to ramp up mining operations. This phenomenon of skills shortages has been in play for decades. Mining recruitment and training takes time, delaying project scaling.^[33] Recruitment and retention strategies must be implemented at pace, with direct links to DoD to expand the talent base. “Best-in-class” compensation levels for resource workers linked to the Defence Industrial base should be explored. Active recruitment at post-secondary campuses must be encouraged and enabled, while also eliminating NGO weaponization of ideology, which further deters potential recruits.^[34]

4. Indigenous Rights and Land Claims

Mining projects, regardless of scale, frequently intersect with Indigenous lands, necessitating comprehensive consultation and the consent of Indigenous stakeholders. Legal disputes or unresolved claims can halt these projects at any phase—from exploration to development and operations—potentially indefinitely.^[35]

To expedite national security interests in metals and mining, rather than viewing Indigenous groups as obstacles, they must be recognized as integral partners in the solution.^[36] Proactive engagement and the establishment of mutually beneficial agreements with these communities before conflicts arise due to actions by Indigenous groups should be prioritized at a national level.

Canada provides exemplary models of successful engagement with Indigenous communities. The United States could benefit significantly by adopting similar approaches to enhance metal extraction operations. Currently, Impact Benefit Agreements (IBAs) with Tribal nations in the US are not standard practice. To change this, federal legislation should mandate IBAs for all mining projects on Indigenous lands, ensuring that First Nations are not just participants but key enablers in these initiatives.

Supporting Indigenous communities in establishing native corporations and businesses to manage joint ventures with both government and private sectors is crucial. This would require the government to enhance the capacity of Indigenous nations to thoroughly review and respond to mining and exploration proposals on their traditional lands.^[37] When Indigenous communities are adequately trained, they can significantly augment the mining workforce, transforming from perceived impediments to vital contributors. This shift in perspective would change the narrative from Indigenous groups being a challenge to national efforts to being pivotal allies and force multipliers in the mining sector.

5. Overcoming the Tyranny of Geography: Infrastructure & Logistics Accelerator

Most mining regions suffer from insufficient infrastructure, including roads, ports, railways, communities, and energy supplies, which hinder the rapid scaling of mining development and operations. These logistical challenges impede the efficient transport of materials and workforce to and from remote mining sites. In contrast, areas with significant mineral resources that have undergone extensive infrastructure improvements enjoy clear economic benefits. For example, the Ring of Fire in Ontario highlights the ongoing debate over necessary infrastructure upgrades, which has persisted for decades without resolution.^[38]

There is, however, a significant role where military engineering units could oversee the construction of both temporary and permanent infrastructure. This approach has historical precedence, notably during wartime, as exemplified by the construction of the Alaska Highway (often referred to as the Can-Alaskan Hwy) during World War II. This project, which traversed the remote regions of Northern British Columbia and Alaska, arguably did more to advance the North American mining industry in the last century than any other single initiative.

By leveraging military capabilities, not only can the infrastructure be developed efficiently, but it also provides an opportunity to kick-start economic development in these remote areas, setting a precedent for future mining operations.^[39]

6. Organized Environmental Opposition: Deprioritize, Investigate, and Prosecute

Mining, metals, and production have been outsourced to adversaries who not only have supply capture, but are using lawfare and third party opposition groups to defund and destroy western supply chains.^[40] Citizens of the west have been greenwashed into believing solar, wind, EVs, and the outsourcing of resource extraction, refining, and production to adversaries to its adversaries is heroic and virtuous– they are neither. Greener and safer is possible, but reality cannot trump faulty ideology. As opposed to NIMBY, YIMBY– yes, in my backyard.^[41] Education must be reformed to instill patriotism in not only the country and armed forces, but the means of production and those that produce essential products.^[42]

Sustainable Development Goals, Net Zero, and ESG propaganda has created a toxic domestic environment to pursue economic security. Activist groups and NGOs regularly oppose new mining projects, citing ecological damage, cultural degradation, and climate concerns to halt or delay mining operations.^[43] The NGO complex should be investigated, funding channels opened, and exposed as for-profit businesses; those found to be colluding with foreign actors prosecuted. Curtailing frivolous NGO directed litigation will accelerate permitting processes. Strict limits should be set on reasons to litigate, with the federal power to override implemented when opposition is encountered.^[44]

7. Gold: A Critical Mineral

Gold has an important role in international finance as a neutral reserve asset. China is the largest producer of Gold in the world with vast undeclared reserves. Moreover, they and other nations in the Eurasian Axis have been overt in their intentions to bypass the U.S. dollar and western sanctions using gold as a means of settlement. The U.S. and partners, by declaring Gold a critical mineral, can backstop the U.S. dollar system by developing its own vast reserves and competing directly with challengers.^[45]

Conclusion

The economic war between the United States and the PRC underscores a critical need for strategic reevaluation and action in metals, mining, and manufacturing sectors. The PRC’s dominance in critical industries presents both an economic and security challenge for the US and its allies, who have become strategically dependent on PRC supply chains for vital materials. To counter this, the U.S. must urgently reform its mining, refining and metals trading policies, expedite project approvals, invest in infrastructure, and cultivate a skilled workforce, while also fostering genuine partnerships with Indigenous communities. By leveraging North America’s abundant geological resources through a focused, ground-out approach akin to the historical War Production Board, the U.S. can enhance its manufacturing capabilities, reduce dependency on foreign adversaries, and secure a competitive edge in this new era of great power competition. This strategy not only aims at economic resilience but also at ensuring long-term national security by reasserting control over essential supply chains from the ground out.

---

Endnotes & Bibliography: Part II