America's Buried Treasure: A New Battle Brews Over Federal Lands

WASHINGTON, D.C. – January 09, 2026 – A new video presentation by economist and former CIA advisor Jim Rickards is drawing attention to a decades-old question with urgent modern implications: the vast, untapped mineral wealth lying dormant beneath America's federal lands. Rickards argues that recent shifts in policy and legal interpretation could finally unlock these resources, heralding a new era of domestic industrial activity and supply chain security. However, a closer look reveals a landscape fraught with complexity, where every step toward development is met with legal challenges, regulatory hurdles, and fierce ideological opposition.

In his presentation, Rickards frames the issue in terms of unrealized economic value. He posits that the United States is not resource-constrained, as is often believed, but possesses massive deposits of critical materials that have been rendered inaccessible by a slow, uncertain, and restrictive regulatory framework. According to Rickards, this is beginning to change, potentially shortening project timelines that have historically stretched for decades and making domestic development economically feasible once more.

This potential pivot comes at a critical geopolitical moment. The global demand for minerals like lithium, cobalt, copper, and rare earth elements—the building blocks of everything from electric vehicle batteries to advanced defense systems—is surging. As nations vie for control over these strategic assets, the conversation around America's domestic capacity has shifted from a niche industrial topic to a matter of national security.

The Shifting Regulatory Landscape

While Rickards' analysis points to a potential loosening of restrictions, the reality on the ground is a tug-of-war between competing federal priorities. On one hand, the government has shown a clear intent to bolster domestic supply chains. President Biden's Executive Order 14017 on "America's Supply Chains" and funding through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) have funneled resources into identifying and securing domestic sources of critical minerals.

Yet, other recent actions are pulling in the opposite direction. In June 2024, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) enacted its controversial "Conservation and Landscape Health Rule," commonly known as the Public Lands Rule. This regulation formally elevates conservation to a "use" on par with energy development and grazing under the government's long-standing "multiple use" mandate. Environmental groups have lauded the rule as a necessary step to protect ecosystems, but mining industry advocates warn it creates significant new hurdles and uncertainty for future projects.

Legal precedents are also creating a complex and sometimes contradictory picture. A 2022 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding the proposed Rosemont Copper Mine in Arizona sent shockwaves through the industry. The court ruled that using federal land for storing mining waste was not a valid use of a claim under the General Mining Act of 1872, challenging a century-old practice. This has forced companies to rethink project designs and has fueled calls for Congress to amend the antiquated law.

"The goalposts seem to be constantly moving," one industry analyst commented. "One part of the government is telling us to produce more critical minerals domestically, while another is creating new rules that could make that impossible on the very lands where those minerals are located."

A Nation Rich in Resources, But Tied in Knots

The stakes are immense. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) updated its Critical Minerals List in late 2025 to include 60 essential materials, adding key industrial metals like copper, lead, and silver, underscoring their growing strategic importance. The deposits of these minerals are not theoretical. For example, the area around California's Salton Sea is known to hold one of the world's largest lithium reserves, estimated to be sufficient for over 375 million EV batteries.

This is the "unrealized economic value" Rickards speaks of. He argues that by unlocking these physical assets, the U.S. could dramatically reduce its reliance on foreign sources, lower manufacturing costs, and stimulate a new wave of industrial growth. This dependence is stark; for many critical minerals, the U.S. relies on imports for over 50% of its annual consumption, with some materials sourced almost entirely from geopolitical competitors.

However, accessing these resources is anything but simple. The permitting process for a new mine in the United States can take anywhere from seven to ten years, and often longer when legal challenges arise. This contrasts sharply with timelines in countries like Australia and Canada, where permitting can be completed in as little as two to three years. This disparity, industry experts argue, deters investment and pushes development overseas, even when domestic resources are abundant.

The Battle for America's Public Lands

The debate over mineral development is ultimately a battle over the future of America's 640 million acres of public lands. For every argument in favor of economic growth and national security, there is a powerful counterargument centered on environmental protection and cultural preservation.

Environmental organizations are deeply skeptical of claims that modern mining can be done without significant ecological damage. They point to a legacy of abandoned mines that continue to pollute waterways and scar landscapes. For these groups, actions like the BLM's Public Lands Rule and the 2023 decision to withdraw over 225,000 acres of the Superior National Forest in Minnesota from mineral leasing are crucial victories in protecting irreplaceable natural habitats.

Tribal nations also hold a critical stake in these discussions. Many proposed mining projects are located on or near lands that are culturally and spiritually significant to Indigenous communities. Citing a long history of broken promises and destructive extraction projects, many tribes are demanding more than just consultation; they are seeking co-management authority and the power to veto projects that threaten sacred sites or vital resources. The San Carlos Apache Tribe's long-running legal fight to block a massive copper mine in Arizona, which they say would destroy a sacred site, exemplifies this deep-seated conflict.

This social and political friction ensures that even if regulatory hurdles are lowered, the path for new mines will be paved with litigation and public opposition. Achieving a "social license to operate" is becoming as challenging for mining companies as securing a federal permit.

The entire situation remains highly fluid and intensely political. The direction of U.S. resource policy could pivot dramatically with a change in administration, as demonstrated by the stark contrast between the current focus on balanced use and conservation and a hypothetical future administration's platform to rescind the Public Lands Rule and invoke the Defense Production Act to fast-track mining projects. As Jim Rickards notes in his presentation, policy changes have historically reshaped resource development and led to long-term economic consequences. For now, the nation's buried mineral wealth remains a source of immense potential and profound disagreement, with its future being written in courtrooms, regulatory agencies, and the halls of Congress.