On Tuesday, April 15, 2025, the President issued an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Commerce to initiate an investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232) to determine the effects of imports of processed critical minerals and their derivative products on U.S. national security. Critical minerals are defined by relation to the existing U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) list, plus uranium. Derivative products, however, are broadly defined to encompass "all goods that incorporate processed critical minerals as inputs." The Executive Order also prescribes a quick 180-day timeline for the investigation, making action by the end of the year likely. A public comment period has not yet been announced. However, taking into account that comment periods in other recent Section 232 investigations have been less than a month, parties may consider preparing points for comment now, based on the standards identified in the Executive Order as well as other relevant factors.
The Investigation Has a Very Broad Scope
The Executive Order directs the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) to consider the national security effects of "imports of processed critical minerals and their derivative products." It is noteworthy at the outset that the focus on processed critical minerals (PCM) moves the analysis past the starting point of the supply chain.
"Critical minerals" are defined by reference to the list of fifty critical minerals published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and annexed at the end of this article, plus uranium. Those that are "processed" are defined as having "undergone the activities that occur after critical mineral ore is extracted from a mine up through its conversion into a metal, metal powder or a master alloy." Specifically, these activities "occur beginning from the point at which ores are converted into oxide concentrates; separated into oxides; and converted into metals, metal powders, and master alloys."
The Executive Order also defines "derivative products" as "all goods that incorporate processed critical minerals as inputs." Specific examples mentioned include "semi-finished goods (such as semiconductor wafers, anodes, and cathodes) as well as final products (such as permanent magnets, motors, electric vehicles, batteries, smartphones, microprocessors, radar systems, wind turbines and their components, and advanced optical devices)." These product categories overlap with those covered by other ongoing Section 232 investigations, such as the Section 232 semiconductor investigation, and it is not clear how the investigations or ultimate remedies may account for that.
The Executive Order Prescribes Additional Factors to Guide Decisionmakers
The Executive Order directs the investigation to consider the following, in addition to factors specifically named in the statute:
- Identify U.S. imports of all PCM and derivative products incorporating such PCM, and break out the dollar value of such imports by country of export;
- Identify foreign PCM and derivative product import sources by percent and volume, the specific types of risks associated with each source by country, and which source countries are "of significant risk";
- Analyze distortions caused by predatory economic, pricing, and market manipulation practices used by countries that process critical minerals exported to the U.S., including the effects on domestic investment and the viability of U.S. production, and assess how such strategies and practices permit such countries to maintain their control over the critical minerals processing sector and distort U.S. market prices for derivative products;
- Analyze derivative product manufacturers' PCM demand, in the United States and globally, including the extent to which such manufacturers' PCM originate from countries identified under #2 and #3;
- Assess risks in global PCM and derivative product supply chains;
- Current and potential capabilities of the United States to process critical minerals and derivatives.
These additional factors are a reflection of the broad concerns that the Executive Order identifies related to national and economic security which are cited as motivations for directing the investigation. For example, the Executive Order describes critical minerals as "key building blocks of our manufacturing base and foundational to sectors ranging from transportation and energy to telecommunications and advanced manufacturing."
Potential Remedies Previewed
In comparison to the Executive Orders directing copper and lumber investigations, the critical minerals Executive Order is more specific in suggesting remedies for evaluation. It mentions tariffs, "other import restrictions" (which may include quotas), measures to avoid circumvention, and policies to "incentivize domestic production, processing, and recycling." Also, in a novel interaction, the Section 232 executive order directs Commerce to consider additional measures to mitigate U.S. national security risks under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the basis for "reciprocal" and "fentanyl" tariff actions.
Since April 2019, Commerce has published reports in other Section 232 investigations into Uranium, Titanium Sponge, Vanadium, and Neodymium-Iron-Boron Permanent Magnets. The first two were undertaken under the first Trump Administration, but none of these more discrete investigations resulted in the imposition of tariffs on the investigated products. For example, the Titanium Sponge Working Group formed out of that Section 232 investigation recommended considering a reduction of the tariff on titanium sponge and an increase in tariffs on certain finished titanium products from "adversarial producers." That same group also recommended domestic stockpiling and recycling, and maintaining idle facilities as well as a strong relationship with allies producing titanium sponge. This menu of options may inform the Administration's approach to critical minerals more broadly.
Quick Process Envisioned
From a process standpoint, unlike the recently noticed Section 232 investigations concerning semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, the critical minerals investigation has not yet been formally initiated. A notice to that effect will likely be published soon. Recent notices in other Section 232 investigations have requested public comment. However, as comment periods were less than one month in the copper, lumber, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals investigations, interested parties may consider preparing comments now, by reference to the statutory factors and the additional factors summarized above.
After initiation, the statute provides Commerce with up to 270 days to issue a report, but the Executive Order prescribes a faster timeline. The Executive Order instructs Commerce to provide a draft interim report within 90 days, for internal comment by the Departments of Treasury, Defense, and USTR, as well as certain economic and trade advisors. The Executive Order also directs Commerce to provide its final report within 180 days of the investigation's initiation. Once the final report is issued, the statute provides the President up to 90 days to determine a course of action and up to a further 15 days for implementation. This timeline suggests that action could be forthcoming by the end of this year.
ANNEX I: List of Critical Minerals
As Defined by USGS: Aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barite, beryllium, bismuth, cerium, cesium, chromium, cobalt, dysprosium, erbium, europium, fluorspar, gadolinium, gallium, germanium, graphite, hafnium, holmium, indium, iridium, lanthanum, lithium, lutetium, magnesium, manganese, neodymium, nickel, niobium, palladium, platinum, praseodymium, rhodium, rubidium, ruthenium, samarium, scandium, tantalum, tellurium, terbium, thulium, tin, titanium, tungsten, vanadium, ytterbium, yttrium, zinc, and zirconium.
Additional Critical Mineral Defined by the Executive Order: Uranium
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
