The 2024 US presidential elections are shaping up to be a nail-biter, with Kamala Harris and Donald Trump vying for the nation’s top job. As the country gears up for the showdown on November 5, the stakes couldn’t be higher, especially for the mining sector. Polls are predicting a razor-thin margin, with seven swing states poised to tip the scales in favor of one candidate or the other. Both Harris and Trump have made it clear that they recognize the strategic importance of critical minerals, not just for the energy transition but also for national security.
In a world where the US and China are increasingly decoupling, the election outcome will play a pivotal role in determining the future of critical minerals policy. Christopher Granville, managing director at TS Lombard, asserts that this decoupling will continue regardless of who wins. However, the energy policy priorities of the two candidates differ significantly. Harris’s administration has focused on managing competition with China while fostering allied relationships, emphasizing nearshoring and friendshoring initiatives with key partners like the EU, Japan, and South Korea. Conversely, Trump’s approach could lead to a more aggressive decoupling, marked by proposed tariffs of 10-20% on global imports and even steeper tariffs on Chinese goods, which could stoke economic instability.
The implications of these tariff policies are far-reaching. Harris is likely to continue the Biden administration’s strategy of maintaining or increasing tariffs on Chinese imports in the strategic technology and green sectors. This includes the recent increases on electric vehicles and critical minerals, aiming to bolster domestic production. Yet, the US graphite industry still struggles to compete with China’s low-cost production, highlighting the uphill battle ahead.
As the tech decoupling intensifies, China is tightening its grip on critical minerals, producing around 80% of the world’s supply chains. This has led to concerns about the US’s reliance on Chinese resources, particularly in the wake of Beijing’s stringent export controls on materials like gallium and germanium. Harris has pledged to create a US critical minerals reserve and incentivize domestic production, but the success of these initiatives will hinge on the administration’s ability to ramp up manufacturing capacity.
If Trump secures a second term, expect a dramatic shift back to fossil fuels. His administration would likely prioritize the oil and gas sector, relax environmental regulations, and even attempt to revive the coal industry. This could spell trouble for clean energy initiatives, including battery EV supply chains, which are already vulnerable due to their ties with China. Interestingly, while Trump previously sought to cut EV subsidies, the backing of a major EV company owner for his campaign complicates the narrative.
Both candidates face a formidable challenge: breaking China’s stranglehold on the nation’s mineral supply chains. Rich Nolan, president of the National Mining Association, emphasizes the need for centralized governance, mine permitting reform, and a level playing field for domestic producers. As the election approaches, the mining sector—and indeed the broader energy landscape—stands at a crossroads. The decisions made in the coming months will shape not only the future of critical minerals policy but also the trajectory of the US’s energy independence and economic stability. The outcome of this election could very well determine whether the US emerges as a leader in the global energy transition or remains tethered to its past dependencies.
