Policy and Legal

​​​​​​The Trump administration has announced new funding for critical minerals projects in the U.S., seeking to award nearly $1 billion to key projects (Politico).

• In announcing the new funding, Energy Secretary Chris Wright “cited a March executive order that tapped a range of agencies for efforts to boost minerals production in announcing the award plans.”

How it works: The funding comes in part from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, one of manufacturers’ and the NAM’s many policy victories over the past five years.

• “The largest pot of funding, up to $500 million, comes from the Battery Materials Processing and Battery Manufacturing and Recycling grant program, which was established by the bipartisan infrastructure law,” according to Politico.
• “DOE said Wednesday its Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management also plans to award up to $250 million under the Energy Act of 2020 and the infrastructure law for industrial facilities to pilot initiatives to produce critical minerals as byproducts from their existing processes.”

Rare earths: Also notable is the $135 million in funding that the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains will award to rare earths demonstration projects.

Concerted efforts: The NAM has urged President Trump to support critical minerals projects since his election, and the administration has been swift to act.

• As NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons said in response to the March EO, “For too long, red tape and burdensome regulations have stood in the way of the basic building blocks that power manufacturing in the United States, especially mining and processing the minerals manufacturers rely on to create jobs and dominate on the world stage.”
• “The administration is addressing those barriers, making it easier for manufacturers to access the resources we need to build the future in America.”

Manufacturers are hard at work on next-generation nuclear reactors and getting ready to scale up nuclear enrichment activities, but challenges lie in their way (POLITICO’s ENERGYWIRE).

What’s going on: Though it made sense at the time, the privatization of the United States Enrichment Corporation in the years following the Cold War (done due to “the anticipation that the U.S. would always have access to foreign enrichment supplies”) is now putting the American uranium enrichment market and reactor development at a disadvantage.

• This presents a problem given the U.S. ban on Russian uranium imports due to the Ukraine war.
• To shore up the American nuclear industry, the Energy Department “has started to pull startup nuclear companies into the uranium enrichment business.”
• Just this month, California-based General Matter announced that it would construct an enrichment facility in Kentucky on the site of a former U.S. government enrichment plant, saying it “can produce at a lower cost the type of enriched uranium sought out by developers of advanced nuclear reactors.”

A changing tide: In 2023, the Maryland-based Centrus Energy (U.S. Enrichment’s name since 2014), made its first batch of high-assay, low-enriched uranium, or HALEU, which is the fuel needed for next-generation nuclear reactor designs.

• “With Centrus’ inaugural batch and plans to expand their centrifuge cascade, the U.S. might yet break Russia’s de facto monopoly on advanced reactor fuel.”

Challenges: Scaling up Centrus’ Ohio enrichment site will necessitate billions in investment dollars, as well as “a [high] level of sustained political backing,” according to ENERGYWIRE.

• Another hurdle: the relatively weak market signals for HALEU, said former Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chair Dale Klein, who noted “that North America doesn’t yet have any commercial reactors operating that would use HALEU. That’s a problem for the dozen-plus entities planning to build [next-generation] reactors.”
• “It is a chicken and egg,” Klein told the news outlet. “The fuel enrichers are not going to make the fuel unless they know they’ve got a market.”

Moving forward: But Centrus is ready to get to work on enrichment, it told ENERGYWIRE.

• “Our facility is already licensed. We’ve secured $2 billion in customer contracts. As soon as federal funding is awarded, we’ll pair it with private dollars and get to work,” Centrus Vice President of Corporate Communications Dan Leistikow said.
• “Centrus offers a fully American solution: proven U.S. technology, built by American workers.”

The Trump administration is easing requirements for states’ construction of electric vehicles charging stations (POLITICO’s ENERGYWIRE, subscription).

What’s going on: “The new guidance from the Federal Highway Administration swept away Biden-era dictates that stations be built at certain intervals along highways, and removed goals both big, like uplifting disadvantaged communities, and small, like requiring plans for snow removal.”

• The changes also have the potential to get more than $2 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program funds to various projects starting in September, months after the administration halted the funding.

What it does: The new National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program rules—which grant states 30 days to submit new EV charging facility construction plans—“give states broader latitude in how they spend their portion of federal money … [which] are allocated to states by formula.”

• States can now spend their money on light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicle charging, and unlike in the previous administration, which required having facilities every 50 miles, will be allowed to “determine for themselves when their highway charging efforts are done.”
• Plus, by urging states to use their money “at locations where the charging site host and the company operating the chargers are the same entity,” the new regulations also direct funding to existing truck stops and gas stations, which “favors existing traditional filling stations.”

The NAM says: “Manufacturers appreciate the Department of Transportation’s updates to the NEVI program requirements to provide greater flexibility to states and businesses to get this program up and running,” said NAM Vice President of Domestic Policy Chris Phalen.

The Department of Energy announced the start of its pilot program, which will partner with 11 advanced reactor projects, aiming to bolster the nuclear energy industry (E&E News, subscription).

Big goals: The program aims to get a minimum of three reactors deployed by July 4 of next year.

The background: “The announcement comes as the Trump administration looks to reinforce domestic supply chains and expand U.S. nuclear energy capacity to 400 gigawatts by 2050.”

• “The June announcement of the program came shortly after Trump’s executive order calling for reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”

The participants: Companies involved in the program include advanced nuclear energy company Oklo—which is conducting two advanced reactor projects.

• The 10 companies in total will cover all the costs related to the test reactors, from design through construction all the way to decommissioning, according to the DOE.

The DOE says: “President Trump’s Reactor Pilot Program is a call to action,” said Deputy Secretary of Energy James P. Danly. “These companies aim to all safely achieve criticality by Independence Day, and DOE will do everything we can to support their efforts.”

The NAM says: “Nuclear energy is a safe, emissions-free component of America’s energy dominance strategy. It’s also essential for meeting additional energy needs that have arisen with the growth in data centers and the use of AI,” said NAM Vice President of Domestic Policy Chris Phalen.

• “This program will give the nuclear energy industry an important boost—to the benefit of manufacturers and all Americans.”

One of the largest midstream energy firms in the world will build a 516-mile natural gas pipeline from West Texas to Arizona (POLITICO Pro’s ENERGYWIRE, subscription).

What’s going on: The planned Desert Southwest line by Energy Transfer —a company best known for its development of the Dakota Access pipeline in the Midwest—”is slated to run along existing pipeline routes, the company said last week, and the project is expected to be completed by the end of 2029.”

• The new line is necessary to serve “population growth, high-tech industry demand and data center expansion,” Energy Transfer said in a statement.
• The Houston, Texas-based company “has a network of 140,000 miles of pipelines and related infrastructure across 44 states” and is developing a liquefied natural gas export terminal in Louisiana.

Significant interest: Arizona utilities have already announced commitments to get gas from the pipeline, which is currently slated to be three-and-a-half feet in diameter but could increase to 4 feet given the significant interest in the endeavor.

• That increase would double the expected capacity of the pipeline.

Prioritizing manufacturers in the U.S.: The new pipeline will create 5,000 new jobs, and Energy Transfer said it would be “prioritizing U.S. steel pipe manufacturers” for the project.

• In addition, the gas from this project will help supply energy to key manufacturing and AI investments being made across the Phoenix metropolitan region—including in semiconductors, automobiles, aerospace, healthcare and biosciences.

The word from Arizona: “Arizona’s economy is growing and becoming more diversified than ever, including a significant increase in advanced manufacturing,” said Arizona Public Service President and CEO Ted Geisler.

• “This new pipeline represents a long-term commitment to reliability, resilience and affordability for customers and supports the unprecedented economic momentum that makes Arizona a great place to do business.”

The NAM says: “Desert Southwest is a prime example of what can be achieved when we embrace an all-of-the-above energy strategy—one that includes harnessing our abundant natural resources,” NAM Vice President of Domestic Policy Chris Phalen said.

• “The pipeline will not only create jobs and business for U.S. manufacturers, it will also help reinforce the regional electrical grid at a critical time of explosive growth so more Americans can enjoy reliable baseload power.”

President Trump signed an executive order that keeps the 10% additional International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff rate on China until Nov. 10 while negotiations continue.

The background: On March 5, IEEPA Fentanyl tariffs of 20% went into effect on goods from China. An additional IEEPA Reciprocal tariff rate of 10% was imposed on goods from China on April 9, which quickly escalated to 125% as China retaliated and the U.S responded in tit-for-tat announcements.

• In mid-May, the U.S. agreed to reduce its additional IEEPA Reciprocal tariff rate on China to 10% from 125%. China also reduced its retaliatory rate to 10%.

Other tariffs: The U.S. will retain all tariffs imposed on China prior to April 2, including Section 301 tariffs, Section 232 tariffs, IEEPA Fentanyl tariffs and Most Favored Nation tariffs.

CBP Guidance: U. S. Customs and Border Protection has already issued guidance which can be accessed here.

Washington, D.C. – Manufacturers rolled out the welcome mat this week for House Republican Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain (R-MI) and local Reps. Tom Kean (R-NJ-7), Rob Bresnahan (R-PA-8) and Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA-7), thanking them for their support for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act during a series of factory tours as part of Chairwoman McClain’s One Big Beautiful Tour.

National Association of Manufacturers Executive Vice President Erin Streeter hit the road with lawmakers, showcasing how the Manufacturing Law is already having positive impacts on local manufacturing.

Speaking for manufacturers nationwide, Streeter reiterated the significance of the tax package on the industry: “Manufacturing is the backbone of the American economy—and with the leadership of Chairwoman McClain, Reps. Kean, Bresnahan, Mackenzie and their colleagues in Congress—that foundation is stronger than ever. By championing the Manufacturing Law, Congress has protected nearly 6 million jobs and more than $500 billion in wages for hardworking Americans. We thank them for their leadership.”

In New Jersey, Chairwoman McClain and Rep. Kean toured Bihler of America, a manufacturer of precision automation systems in Phillipsburg.

Bihler CEO Maxine Nordmeyer expressed her appreciation for Congress’ action on tax policy: “Manufacturers thrive when we have the certainty we need to plan major investments in our facilities and our people. That’s exactly what this tax package delivers. We thank our partners in Congress and the administration—and we look forward to working with them on a full comprehensive manufacturing strategy. Through energy, trade and workforce policies that drive our competitiveness, deliver certainty and empower manufacturers, we will build on the success of the One Big Beautiful Bill.”

In Pennsylvania, Rep. Bresnahan joined Chairwoman McClain for a tour of i2M, a manufacturer of flexible polymers in Mountain Top. i2M Founder Chris Hackett conveyed how a key provision of the tax package will help businesses like his continue to succeed: “Manufacturers are innovators. By restoring immediate R&D expensing for manufacturers across America, Congress has empowered manufacturers like i2M to innovate and create. That’s how we keep our competitive edge—not just as a company, but as a country.”

At another stop in the Keystone State, Rep. Mackenzie joined the tour at U.S. Metal Powders in Palmerton. Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association President and CEO David N. Taylor thanked Chairwoman McClain and Rep. Mackenzie: “Thanks to this transformative tax legislation, U.S. Metal Powders has already broken ground on adding another production line—which will soon double the company’s workforce. This is pro-growth tax policy in action.”

-NAM-

The U.S. is making huge strides in the medical and biopharmaceutical fields, but price controls threaten this progress, a recent Wall Street Journal editorial asserts (subscription).

What’s going on: “President Trump … last week threatened drug companies with price controls or worse if they don’t cut prices as he wants,” the editorial board wrote. “Mr. Trump’s excuse is that other countries are ‘free riding’ on American innovation. His solution: Demand manufacturers give Americans their “most-favored nation” (MFN) price—i.e., the lowest in other developed countries like Canada and the U.K. If drug makers refuse, he may yank their drug approvals, harass them with lawsuits and more.”

Why it’s a problem: While nations with single-payer health care systems, such as Canada and the U.K., pay less for prescription pharmaceuticals than American private insurers and Medicaid, “[d]rugs aren’t the main driver of health care premiums, patient costs or government spending.”

• “Manufacturers benefit for a few years from patent protection after medicines launch, but then they face stiff competition from follow-on medicines and generics.”
• Unbranded generic medications account for 90% of all prescriptions in the U.S. and cost just one-third less here than they do in other countries.

What really works: Market competition, not price controls, is what will bring costs down for consumers, the editorial continues.

Discouraging innovation: It isn’t true that pharmaceutical manufacturers get “generous research subsidies,” as the president recently claimed.

• In fact, “the pharmaceutical industry spent $141 billion on research and development in 2022, nearly 40 times as much as the National Institutes of Health did on research directly related to drug development.”
• Harassing companies the way Trump is doing, according to the piece, could make them move more of their intellectual property to China—and that’s a move that would “likely result in fewer new drugs developed and sold in the U.S., especially in riskier research fields like neurologic and rare genetic diseases.”

NAM says: “European-style price controls will stifle innovation—undermining R&D and limiting future access to breakthrough treatments,” NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons said in a statement last week.

• “Manufacturers and manufacturing workers are facing rising health care costs because of underregulated middlemen like [pharmacy benefit managers] and the 340B program, both of which have increased prices for patients without producing a single treatment. Rather than punishing the innovators who develop lifesaving and life-changing medicines, policymakers should focus on the real inefficiencies and distortions in the system.”

The Environmental Protection Agency’s move to repeal the previous administration’s 2024 Power Plant Rule is a positive one for manufacturing in the U.S.—but to truly unleash American energy’s potential, we need permitting reform, too, the NAM told the EPA this week.

What’s going on: In June, the EPA proposed a rule to repeal the previous administration’s 2024 greenhouse gas emissions regulations for certain traditional power plants.

• “Manufacturers commend the EPA for acknowledging the unworkability of the previous administration’s rule,” NAM Vice President of Domestic Policy Chris Phalen told EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin on Tuesday.
• Repeal of the 2024 rule is a crucial start in getting “as much electricity generation online as possible,” Phalen continued. “But without comprehensive permitting reform to enable the buildout of new and modernized plants of all types in a timely manner, including traditional generation and plants using lower emissions technologies like [carbon capture and sequestration] and hydrogen, there is a serious risk we fall short of our energy generation needs.”

Why it makes sense: The NAM laid out its primary reasons for supporting the proposed rescission, which include the following:

• The requirement that some achieve a 90% carbon capture rate was arbitrary and unfeasible given that carbon capture and sequestration technology is not yet at commercial scale.
• The plant closures that would result from the rule’s implementation would threaten grid reliability.

No relief without reform: Repealing the 2024 rule keeps many traditional plants online, which is a must as the national energy appetite grows due to data center expansion, Phalen said. Still, there are further steps we must take—and soon.

• “These include consolidating the permitting processes and putting enforceable deadlines for the siting of new energy projects and their infrastructure; speeding up the approval process for transmission, distribution and electrical generation projects; enacting commonsense guardrails on judicial review to ensure a speedy process that results in definitive decisions for all projects; and committing to developing our resources to strengthen U.S. supply chains for the energy infrastructure vital to national security.”

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held oral arguments last Thursday in the leading challenge to President Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs.

The background: In this consolidated case, V.O.S. Selections v. Trump and Oregon v. Trump, the question before the court is whether President Trump’s global reciprocal tariffs and fentanyl tariffs exceed his authority under IEEPA.

• The appeal follows a May decision by the Court of International Trade to enjoin the tariffs after concluding that IEEPA “does not authorize the president to impose unbounded tariffs”—a decision that the Federal Circuit put on ice pending appeal.

The arguments: The Federal Circuit argument focused on the text of IEEPA, which does not expressly mention tariffs and limits the exercise of executive power to address “extraordinary and unusual” threats.

• Although the court appeared split on whether IEEPA allows the president to impose tariffs, most of the 11-judge panel seemed unwilling to accept that IEEPA authorizes the sweeping global tariffs at issue here.

The precedent: The government’s case relied heavily on the closest relevant precedent—the 1975 decision in U.S. v. Yoshida International—which upheld President Nixon’s use of the Trading with the Enemy Act (IEEPA’s predecessor) to place a 10% ad valorem tariff on all imports after the U.S. withdrew from the gold standard.

• The judges accused the administration of “ignoring the parts of Yoshida” it doesn’t like, including the Yoshida court’s express limitations on the president’s tariff authority.
• The court in that case carefully distinguished between a time-limited tariff “as a temporary measure calculated to help meet a particular national emergency, which is quite different from imposing whatever tariff rates he deems desirable.”

What’s next: “Although it is always difficult to predict judicial outcomes, we expect a decision against the Trump administration though not unanimous,” said NAM Vice President and Deputy General Counsel Erica Klenicki.

• “Nearly two dozen amicus briefs were filed in the case, including by members of Congress, legal scholars and think tanks from across the country. Given the high stakes and novel legal questions involved, we fully expect this case to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court next term.”