What the Executive Order Says
Executive Order (EO) 13817 is entitled "A Federal Strategy To Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals" and was issued on December 20, 2017. It has 5 sections.Section 1
This section lays out the background about issues with certain critical minerals; some of which are present in the USA but are not being mined. The argument presented states that in some cases, mining companies will not endeavor to mine because of too much regulation which would make the mining operation unprofitable.Section 2
This section defines what a critical mineral is. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to publish a list of critical minerals in the Federal Register within 60 days.Section 3
This section defines actions to be taken. Subsections (a) and (b) are throwaway comments. Subsection (c) commits to providing electronic access to all government topographical data. I would like to be sure that this access is given to all and not just mining companies. Subsection (d) beats on that same drum of deregulation that the administration has been pounding on since the beginning.Section 4
This section asks for a report and lists specific items, consistent with section 3, that have to be reported on. Given the national security implications of some of this, I would not be surprised if there is a need to have a classified version of this report generated. Why advertise to the world where the weaknesses are? Subsection (b) indicates that the implementation of this EO is to be done consistently with previous EO's such as 13771, 13783, 13807 and 12866.Section 5
This section includes the necessary fine print to assure the constitutionality of the EO.My Commentary
One of the standard lines of argument that is presented by authoritarian leaning figures is that security trumps all. Anything that needs to be done in the name of securing the nation should be done because it is countering an existential threat and countering the threat is worth sacrificing ideals for since if the threat is successful, we won't be here any longer to practice the ideal we tried to save. I see this argument in the part where it directs that streamlining and simplifying the permitting process should be done for enhancing access to critical, national security required, minerals.The lessons of World War II include the reality that starving your opponent of critical resources does give one an edge in the fight. We acknowledge this in the current foreign policy of sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Because there is a need to keep secrets, real objective justification of the need for the kind of action that is included in this EO cannot be presented to the average person. Therefore the administration is operating on trust and based on what they have done in the past, the argument for national security just seems more likely to be pretense than reality. The questions is whether it is to advance the deconstruction of the administrative state or, rather, as a give-away to political allies in the mining industry.
The lessons of the environmental damage sustained by convenient disposal of industrial wastes and by-products that were learned in the 1970's came at a high cost to the communities affected and it was pretty clear that the people rejected these practices. Are we going to have to re-learn these lessons over the next 5-10 years?