By SANDY SZWARC
The most glaring contradictions of President Donald Trump’s seeming support for developing America’s energy independence lies in his failure to shutter Barack Obama’s Permitting Council.
Instead, Trump even created an additional council − National Energy Dominance Council − to advise him on permitting, production, generation, distribution, regulation and transportation for American energy. Its members are nearly identical to the pre-existing permitting council that has worked with previous administrations as arms of the EPA to block development of mining and energy projects as part of Obama-Biden’s climate change agenda.
The Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council was established in 2015 under Barack Obama as part of the “Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41)” of Title 41 Code of Federal Regulations. It created a 15-member agency under the executive branch, supposedly to improve the EPA permitting process. Permitting Council members include the same agencies and personnel that have played active roles in impeding energy development for years under the guise of environmentalism. The agency oversees any activity that requires environmental review or authorization concerning energy production and storage, renewables, electricity transmission, waterways, pipelines, manufacturing, computer technology; or sponsored by an Indian tribal organization; and is subject to the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Deputy Executive Director under former President Joe Biden and currently also under Trump, is Manisha Patel. She has a long history with NEPA and extensive roles at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, leadership positions at the EPA, and oversaw FAST-41’s initiatives and US Army Corps of Engineer’s red book of environmental reviews. Under Biden’s directives, her positions worked to revoke Trump-era environmental policies and enforce Biden’s climate change agenda, push EPA’s sweeping clean air and water regulations and net-zero renewable energy future, and restrict fossil fuel and mining development.
She proudly reviewed the extensive environmental overreach of NEPA in nearly every federal department during a seminar at the June 2023 Environmental Law Institute. Her Power Point illustrated its central goal of enforcing “environmental justice.”
The Permitting Council’s FY2025 budget request included $9 million, in addition to $10 million for FY1024. FAST-41’s portfolio of active projects in its 2025 budget (page 13) included 15 offshore wind projects, a solar project, three other renewable energy projects, one carbon capture and sequestration project — and only one mining project. That mining project, South 32 Hermosa, had none of three environmental review and permitting processes completed, with an estimated date of July 7, 2027. Hermosa mining project is located on private lands in the historic Patagonia Mountains of southern Arizona, with manganese and zinc reserves, as well as silver and lead.
Why didn’t Trump shutter the Permitting Council as part of DOGE and choose a team that would support his new energy policies?
Why did President Trump create another council − National Energy Dominance Council − with nearly the same members who’ve worked to block energy development and promote the climate change agenda?
Immediately upon coming into office, on Jan. 20, Trump declared a national energy emergency, stating that the development, production and generation of energy and critical minerals were far too inadequate to meet our nation’s needs. He called for expediting the completion of all appropriated and authorized energy infrastructure; and identify all permitting projects that could be threatened by the Clean Water Act and other statutes under EPA and Army Corps of Engineer regulations and other environmental policies.
Trump called to repeal unconstitutional regulations that violated people’s rights, attempts by the EPA Clean Water Act against property owners or to adopt unscientific and overly costly and detrimental regulations and procedures. Trump called out overbearing Federal regulations for eroding our nation’s mineral production, which has threatened our national and economic security and left us reliant on hostile foreign countries for critical minerals.
Trump specifically ordered the unleashing of Alaska’s extraordinary resource potential. That move was seen as setting the stage to advance dozens of critical mining projects.
He ordered every executive department and agency involved in mineral production permitting to provide a list of priority projects within ten days to his newly created National Energy Dominance Council for immediate approval review and expedited permitting. Within 15 days, the Permitting Council’s executive director was to publish the projects selected and establish schedules for expedited review.
That was eight months ago.
On April 18, the Trump White House announced the Permitting Council had released the first wave of critical mineral production projects in response to his executive order. But a close look at the selected Fast-41 Projects show that it currently includes primarily initial exploratory projects, few involving critical energy minerals, such as Michigan Potash’s fertilizer-grade potash project. And almost none had environmental reviews and permitting processes completed, let alone started. Only two were even in Alaska − a surface exploration project and an expansion of an existing zinc pit mine. No one would oppose consideration of any potentially valuable energy project, but do these selected projects really represent the most important projects for our country?
The richest reserves and resources in the world are located in Alaska, according to the Department of Natural Resources. Alaska’s minerals and metals are essential for a sustainable world, according to Alaska Metal Mines. Not one of Alaska’s mining projects that have completed advanced exploration (Bokan Mt, Graphite Creek, Livengood, Niblack, Palmer or Upper Kobuk), according to Alaska Miners Association, appear on Trump’s Fast-41 list.
AMA also reported that Alaska’s two mines that have completed exploration and environmental studies (Donlin Gold and Pebble Project) have been stuck in the permitting process since discovered in the 1980s – and neither of them appear on the Fast-41 list, either.
New US mines take an average of 29 years to develop from discovery, permitting to production, according to the latest S&P Global mining study. The US has the second longest permitting time in the world for new mines, yet is sitting on over $100 billion in critical minerals copper, gold, lithium and zinc and others, the study reported. Only three mines have come into production in America since 2002.
The mining study also noted that of the five identified notable projects in the US, all have been blocked from going into production since their development applications, submitted as long ago as 1978. Pebble Mine, the only one in Alaska, has continued to be blocked since 1990.
Despite the apparent support of the new Trump administration, as of Aug. 7, Pebble Limited Partnership reported it was still trying to negotiate with the White House to reverse the illegal Obama/Biden-era veto, while also pursuing necessary court action (plaintiffs include the state of Alaska, Pebble Partnership and Illiamna Natives, Ltd.). The present court schedule appears it will be well into next year before their case is heard.
Why is media silent about Pebble Mine? Pebble Mine and these other notable US projects long ago completed comprehensive scoping, explorations and environmental studies and are decades ahead of the Fast-41 projects selected to prioritize under the Trump and Biden administrations.
Why is no one asking: “Why have none of those projects appeared on Trump’s FAST-41 Transparency Projects list?”
Or more to the point: “Why are viable mining projects still being obstructed by the EPA− an independent agency within the Executive Branch of our government and directly under President Trump?”
Sandy Szwarc is a researcher and writer on health and science issues for nearly 40 years. Her work focuses on the scientific process and critical investigations of research and evidence, as well as the belief that people deserve the most credible information available, and that public policies should be based on sound science and reasoned risk-benefit analyses. No mining project contributed to, or had any role, in this submission.
Special report: Pebble Mine, the people’s story spanning more than two decades
Special Pebble report: A permitting process favoring mining opponents