Restore the Bureau of Mines
What if I told you there was a policy the federal government could implement that would increase America’s domestic supply of the critical minerals that are needed for everything from smartphones to green energy? And what if I told you this policy would also make the United States less reliant on China, create jobs, enhance America’s global competitiveness, and accelerate climate action. And what if I told you that -as an added bonus for Democrats- it would signal to working class rural voters that we like them and we value what they do for the rest of us? Guess what? This policy option is real and we can do it.
It's time to restore the Bureau of Mines.
A Quiet, Baleful Demise
In the annals of American bureaucratic history, few dissolutions have been as consequential yet understated as the closure of the Bureau of Mines in 1996. Established in 1910 to promote mineral research and mine safety, the Bureau of Mines found itself in the crosshairs of budget-cutters seeking to streamline government operations and reduce expenditures as the Clinton administration and Congress grappled with the federal deficit.
The original mandate of the Bureau—to enhance mine safety and promote efficient extraction techniques—was viewed as expendable. Critics of the Bureau pointed to perceived redundancies within the federal apparatus. They argued that its functions overlapped with those of other agencies, such as the U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of Energy, rendering it a prime candidate for consolidation and so, in the aftermath of the Bureau's dissolution, its various functions were dispersed among other federal entities.
The Bureau had provided detailed technical assistance to mining companies. It helped identify promising deposits and coordinated the research and development of new mining technologies. It played a key role in training mining engineers and geologists. This served as a bridge between government, universities, and industry. Now, all of that is gone. Without the Bureau, no single agency had both the mandate and expertise to develop comprehensive critical minerals strategies
It was not the sole factor, but the closure of the Bureau of Mines was an important component in the decline of domestic critical minerals mining. And it has been a sharp decline. As recently as 1990, the United States was the largest producer of critical minerals in the world. Now we’re seventh and we produce very little. Instead of getting terbium from Montana, we get it from China. Instead of getting cobalt from Idaho, we get it from the Congo. Instead of getting niobium from Nebraska, we get it from Brazil.
A Sequel Even Better Than the First: What A New Bureau of Mines Could Do
This new Bureau of Mines would accomplish the tasks of the old one (fostering collaboration between government, industry, and academia, promoting workforce development, bringing together expertise and resources) but it could also be a force for permitting reform and leverage new technology to be even more effective and could help the U.S. compete better with China.
A modern Bureau could use AI, machine learning, and big data analytics to improve mineral exploration, extraction efficiency, and environmental monitoring. That could lead to more efficient operations and in so doing could give U.S. mining companies a technological edge over their international competitors.
A new Bureau could especially prioritize critical minerals essential for high-tech industries and national security, in particular those minerals currently dominated by China. Finally, a modern Bureau could help the U.S. develop next-generation mining technologies, thereby creating new export opportunities and potentially setting new global standards.
A 2020 study by the Department of Commerce on “A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals” includes six main calls to action related to R&D, supply chains and industrial base, trade and international cooperation, assessing domestic resource, reducing permitting timeframes, and growing the critical minerals workforce. Restoring the Bureau of Mines would help with all six of those.
Green Energy Benefits
There is no magic solution with zero tradeoffs when it comes to mining, green energy, and economic growth. Here are our choices: 1) give up on green energy and our modern economy, 2) source a lot of our critical minerals from China and places like the Congo where environmental and labor standards are thin to nonexistent, or 3) mine them right here in America, with rock solid environmental and labor standards and where those mines will provide good, high paying jobs for Americans. Those are our choices. There is no option #4.
Restoring the Bureau of Mines would catalyze America's green energy transition by securing domestic supplies of critical minerals essential for clean technology. The renewable energy sector depends heavily on minerals like lithium for batteries, neodymium for wind turbine magnets, and tellurium for solar panels—resources currently dominated by foreign suppliers, particularly China.
Consider lithium, where traditional extraction methods often raise environmental concerns: Bureau researchers could accelerate the development of more sustainable techniques like direct lithium extraction from geothermal brines, potentially transforming Nevada's lithium-rich basins into an environmentally responsible powerhouse of battery mineral production.
Moreover, modern mining projects like the Eagle Mine in Michigan, the country’s only nickel mine, shows that mining operations can abide by and implement strong environmental standards while delivering the critical minerals we need and providing good jobs in a rural area.
This wouldn't just secure supply chains for green energy technology—it would create a virtuous cycle where domestically sourced minerals, extracted under strict environmental oversight, fuel the production of clean energy infrastructure and bring economic opportunity to some rural areas. The Bureau could thereby address three pressing national challenges simultaneously: reducing dependence on foreign mineral supplies, accelerating the transition to renewable energy, and shrinking the urban-rural divide. And let’s not forget: the more energy we produce, the cheaper it is for the consumer. So this would have important benefits for all Americans.
Thank You Resource Extractors!
At some point, Democrats grew clearly skeptical of —if not outright hostile toward– resource extraction industries. The reason they did that is that we could not find the fortitude to say “No” to one of the groups inside our coalition, in this case environmental activist organizations.
They do not like mines. To give just a few examples: the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Earthworks have lobbied heavily against a silver and copper mine in Montana. The Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club fought a copper-nickel mining project in Minnesota. Environmental groups have even opposed new mining operations at an Idaho site that is already an old abandoned mine and would provide antimony, a hard to find but vital critical mineral. Other environmentalist organizations have tried to block mines in Nevada, Arizona, and more.
Beyond the particular mining sites though, this lobbying pushed Democrats into a more hostile posture toward mining specifically and resource extraction more generally. That was a mistake. Not only was it wrong on the merits (because it was anti-growth), it was also awful politics. Lots of people who work in and identify with those industries heard that loud and clear and started to vote accordingly (see West Virginia's huge shift to the right).
Then books like “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” popularized the argument that rural voters were voting against their economic self-interest. That thesis flattered certain far-leftists’ sensibilities, but it was totally wrong as it pertained to rural Americans who worked in resource extraction. If they worked in those industries, they weren’t wrong to get the sense that Democrats cared more about Berkeley and Birkenstocks than about them and their jobs. Restoring the Bureau of Mines would be a great opportunity to prove that era is over and that this is a new Democratic Party.
Championing the restoration of the Bureau of Mines gives the Democratic Party an opportunity to signal that, however much it might have lost its way in the past, here and now in 2025, we stand with the people who build, not the degrowthers or the protesters who throw soup on paintings.
The people who work in resource extraction deserve our thanks. When they cut down trees, that timber turns into houses. When they pull natural gas from the ground, that turns into heat and electricity for our homes. When they pull fish from the ocean, that turns into dinner on the table. When they raise cattle, that’s steak for the grill. When they descend into mines and come back with precious metals, that’s the guts of our modern economy. These people- the lumberjacks and the drillers, the fishermen and the cattlemen, the farmers and the miners, these Americans- they are awesome! We owe them a great deal. The Democratic Party should love them, thank them, and be for them.
For their sake and for the country’s sake, it’s time to restore the Bureau of Mines.