The Brief

President Donald Trump spent most of 2025 hacking away at large parts of the federal government. His administration fired, bought out, or otherwise ousted hundreds of thousands of federal employees. Entire agencies were gutted. By so many metrics, this year in politics has been defined more by what has been cut away than by what’s been added on.

One tiny corner of regulation, however, has actually grown under Trump: the critical minerals list. Most people likely hadn’t heard of “critical minerals” until early this year when the president repeatedly inserted the phrase into his statements, turning the once obscure policy realm into a household phrase. In November, the U.S. Geological Survey quietly expanded the list from 50 to 60 items, adding copper, silver, uranium, and even metallurgical coal to the list. On Monday, South Korean metal processor Korea Zinc announced that the federal government is investing in a new $7.4 billion zinc refinery in Tennessee, in which the Department of Defense will hold a stake.

But what even is a critical mineral?

The concept dates back to the first half of the 20th century, especially World War II, when Congress passed legislation aimed at stockpiling materials vital to the United States’ well being. President Trump established the critical minerals list in 2018, with the defining criteria being that any mineral included be “essential to the economic and national security of the United States” and have a supply chain that is “vulnerable to disruption.” A mineral’s presence on the list can convey a slew of benefits to anyone trying to extract or produce that mineral in the U.S., including faster permitting for extraction, tax incentives, or federal funding.

As Grist explored in its recent mining issue, critical minerals are shaping everything from geopolitics to water supplies, oceans, and recycling systems. If there is to be a true clean energy transition, these elements are key to it. Metals such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel form the backbone of the batteries that power electric vehicles. Silicon is the primary component of solar cells, and rare earth magnets help wind turbines function. Not to mention computers, microchips, and the multitude of other things that depend on critical minerals.

Currently, the vast majority of critical minerals used in the United States come from China — some 80 percent. In his first term, Trump tried to increase domestic production of these minerals. “The United States must not remain reliant on foreign competitors like Russia and China for the critical minerals needed to keep our economy strong and our country safe,” he said in 2017. Securing a domestic supply was also a cornerstone of former president Joe Biden’s landmark climate bills, the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act.

Now, as Trump has taken office again, he’s made critical minerals an ever more central part of his policy platform. We’re here to demystify why this has been a blockbuster year for critical minerals in the United States — and where the industry may go in the future.

A highly unusual strategy

In March, Trump issued an executive order meant to jumpstart critical mineral production. “It is imperative for our national security that the United States take immediate action to facilitate domestic mineral production to the maximum possible extent,” he said. The executive order was just the first step in a coordinated effort by the Trump administration to strengthen U.S. control over existing supply chains for copper, lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and dozens of other critical minerals and to galvanize new mines, regardless of concerns raised by Indigenous peoples. The Trump administration has sought to accomplish these goals by both reducing the regulatory barriers to production and by investing in the companies poised to do it.

Since then, Trump has signed agreements with multiple countries to increase investments in critical minerals and strengthen supply chains. Most recently, the U.S. made a deal with the Democratic Republic of Congo, which holds more than 70 percent of the world’s cobalt. He has pushed federal agencies to make it easier for mining companies to apply for federal funding, and is inviting companies to apply to pursue seabed mining in the deep waters around American Samoa, near Guam and the Northern Marianas, around the Cook Islands, and in international waters south of Hawaiʻi — prompting global outrage and opposition from Native Hawaiian, Samoan, and Chamorro/CHamoru peoples. At the same time, Trump’s volatile tariff policies have made it harder for American companies to source minerals, and cuts to federal funding have harmed mining workforce training programs and research into critical minerals.

While the Biden administration provided grants and loans to various mining companies, Trump is deploying a highly unusual strategy of buying stakes in private companies, tying the financial interests of the U.S. government with the interests and success of these commercial mining operations. Over the past few months, the Trump administration has spent more than a billion dollars in public money to buy minority stakes in private companies like MP Materials, ReElement Technologies, and Vulcan Elements. In Alaska, that strategy has involved investing more than $35 million in Trilogy Metals to buy a 10 percent stake in the company, which is a major backer of a copper and cobalt mining project in Alaska.

In September, the Trump administration finalized another deal with the Canadian company Lithium Americas behind Thacker Pass in Nevada, which is expected to be the largest lithium mine in the U.S. The Biden administration approved a $2.23 billion loan to Lithium Americas in October 2024; the Trump administration then restructured the loan and obtained a 5 percent stake in the project and another 5 percent stake in Lithium Americas itself. (A top Interior Department official has since been reported to have benefited financially from the project.) That’s despite allegations that the mine violates the rights of neighboring tribal nations and is proceeding without their consent, which Lithium Americas has denied.

The outlook for critical minerals

Historically, the federal government has only taken equity stakes in struggling companies, such as through the Troubled Asset Relief Program that sought to stabilize the auto industry and U.S. banks during the 2008 financial crisis. “What we’re talking about here is something very different, which is an industry that has not yet launched,” said Beia Spiller, who leads critical minerals work at the nonprofit research group Resources for the Future.

“Whether that’s going to work, I think is unlikely,” Spiller continued. “The best way to get an industry up and running is to have policies that raise the tide for everyone, not just choosing winners.”

In reference to Lithium Americas, Spiller said, “If you actually look at the cost fundamentals, it’s not a very competitive company.” Lithium Americas mines metal from clay, an old process that requires a lot of land, open pit mines, and heavy machinery — whereas some newer operations use direct lithium extraction, which is more cost effective in the long term. “So we just took an equity stake in a company that is going to face headwinds in terms of costs — now the American public faces that downside.”

It must also be stressed that the Trump administration’s rapid push to shore up the U.S.’s control over critical minerals isn’t about transitioning the country away from fossil fuels. Instead, the whole effort seems to mostly be geared toward military uses. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” allocated $7.5 billion for critical minerals, $2 billion of which will go directly to the national defense stockpile. Another $5 billion was allocated for the department of defense to invest in critical mineral supply chains.

In October, a former official at the defense department told the Financial Times that the agency is “incredibly focused on the stockpile.”

“They’re definitely looking for more, and they’re doing it in a deliberate and expansive way, and looking for new sources of different ores needed for defense products,” the unnamed official said.

Last week the administration announced that it plans to take equity stakes in more mining companies next year. It’s possible, Spiller said, these investments could extend to outfits that are piloting deep-sea mining. That carries a new set of risks, as many banks refuse to insure deep-sea mining operations, it’s unclear whether seabed mining operations will be able to even get off the ground before the end of Trump’s term, and the legal repercussions associated with undermining the Law of the Sea could fracture the stability among global powers — and make global climate action that much harder.

Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the name of MP Materials.

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/energy/the-year-the-us-doubled-down-on-critical-minerals/.

Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

Southern California summers aren’t exactly known for mugginess.

But uncharacteristic humidity has been clinging to the region for almost a month, and it looks like there’s little relief coming our way.

It’s not enough moisture to create much, if any, rain, but it is abnormal for this time of year

The dew point in Southern California is normally around 60 degrees at this time of year, forecasters say. But in downtown Los Angeles yesterday, the dew point hit almost 70 degrees.

Scientists say humidity generally becomes uncomfortable in the summer when the dew point is higher than 65.

“We do get these prolonged periods of heat, but what is unusual is the humidity,” said National Weather Service meteorologist Bryan Lewis.

So, what’s causing this mugginess?

A confluence of atmospheric forces, some hundreds or even thousands of miles away, is collecting and trapping moisture in Southern California.

“It's basically the combination of the warm ocean temperatures, as well as we've just been in the right pattern for some tropical moisture" to be sent our way, Lewis said.

Storms in the Pacific

Storms are to blame, at least in part, for the uncharacteristic humidity in the region this summer.

Two in particular have contributed to moisture levels in Southern California as they traveled across the Pacific Ocean in recent weeks.

Tropical Storm Fausto formed off of Central America earlier this month before moving off into the open ocean and moving toward Hawaii. It briefly was elevated to a Category 2 hurricane over the weekend before weakening again into a tropical storm.

Fausto is expected to continue weakening as it passes to the north of the Hawaiian Islands over the next few days.

The other, stronger storm, Hurricane Genevieve, also formed off the coast of Central America and has been moving relatively parallel to the Mexican coast, several hundred miles offshore.

Genevieve was elevated to a Category 5 hurricane on Monday.

The storms aren’t solely responsible for sending moisture hundreds of miles across the ocean.

Other weather patterns closer to home, including the system of high pressure air currently settled over the Western U.S. and the North American monsoon, siphon the tropical moisture from the storms into our region.

Thankfully, forecasters say, Hurricane Genevieve is not expected to create as much moisture as Fausto and other recent tropical storms.

Warming oceans

Forecasters also say warming ocean temperatures are adding to the humidity.

When the ocean is warmer than usual, the wind blowing inland off the water is also warmer. The warm seawater also evaporates faster, releasing more moisture into the air above it. That moisture is then carried inland by the wind.

Ocean warming is not new in Southern California, but it’s getting worse.

The region has been hit with a series of marine heatwaves over the last decade. They generally recede during the winter, but the current one has lasted for over a year. Scientists say these ocean heatwaves are likely being worsened by human-caused climate change.

But there is some short-term hope on the horizon for humidity-haters.

One, Hurricane Genevieve is not expected to pull as much moisture into our region as other recent weather patterns. And two, forecasters expect drier air to flow in from the northwest, cutting down the humidity a bit, especially inland.

That may not reach people who live along the coast, however, where the higher ocean temperatures will help keep the coastal humidity elevated, especially at night.

Los Angeles-area eviction lawyer Dennis Block has agreed to one year of probation after the California State Bar Court found he violated a court order and engaged in other misconduct.

The decision came through a stipulation — similar to a settlement agreement with the court — in which Block admitted to charging clients improper fees, representing a landlord and their tenant at the same time, signing off on an error-filled court document a junior attorney in his firm generated using ChatGPT and failing to pay court-ordered sanctions for nearly three years.

LAist first reported on these disciplinary charges in January.

Block, who runs a firm that claims to have evicted hundreds of thousands of tenants, is expected to be placed on probation for one year. He will also be required to take classes on ethics and proper handling of client funds if the State Bar Court’s recommendation is approved by the California Supreme Court.

The State Bar Court recommended Block be suspended from practicing law for one year, but allowed the suspension be stayed as long as he complies with ethics rules and his probation conditions.

David Bramante is one of the clients who reported Block to the bar. He said he paid Block $17,000 up front to work on a court motion that needed to be taken care of quickly.

“The Ellis Act work I paid for never got done,” Bramante told LAist. “And when I terminated him, his office wouldn't give me a real accounting of where the money went.”

Bramante said it was only after many months and the State Bar’s investigation that Block’s firm refunded him the money.

Three legal ethics experts told LAist the disciplinary actions the bar recommended against Block are in line with similar cases they have seen in the past.

“This is a pretty serious sanction,” Scott Cummings, a UCLA law professor who teaches legal ethics, told LAist.

Cummings said suspension and disbarment are the two highest forms of discipline given by the bar.

Even though the suspension is being stayed in this case — because Block cooperated with State Bar investigators and has had a long career without disciplinary issues — Cummings said it seems like the bar is sending a message to Block and other attorneys that they need to treat their clients’ interests and money with the highest level of care.

Still, others think the court didn’t go far enough.

Richard Zitrin, an emeritus lecturer with UC Law San Francisco, called it a “slap on the wrist" considering the level of wrongdoing in the case.

“The failure to suspend Mr. Block is letting him get away with clearly unethical conduct that harms his clients,” Zitrin told LAist.

Other clients who were not involved with the bar’s investigation also claimed they had negative experiences with Block’s firm.

Xavier Jones said he hired Block’s firm for a few months in 2025. He told LAist there were no issues at first. Then, he said he saw Block’s attorneys start coming to court unprepared for his case. He said he also felt Block was overbilling him for the firm’s services.

Block would hang up on him when he asked legal questions or about how much he was being billed, Jones said. He said there were two times the firm’s lawyers came to court without having a copy of the tenants’ lease, which he says he sent them.

“I'm paying for this, for them to show up, for them to do their back-end work,” Jones said. “It's just unprofessional, it's embarrassing, and it's costing me a lot of money.”

Jones said he stopped working with Block in November. He said he had lost about $70,000 in unpaid rent, legal fees and other costs he believes could have been avoided with proper legal assistance.

LAist reached out to Block and his attorneys this week for comment, but did not receive a response. Last month, Erin Joyce — Block’s defense attorney — told LAist that the State Bar Court’s investigation into her client was “thorough” and found “no conduct by the firm involved moral turpitude,” which had been alleged in the original charges.

A year ago at this time, the streets of Los Angeles and other American cities were the sites of highly visible, large-scale immigration raids. While those scenes have died down, immigration enforcement remains more quietly active.

Federal data show Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained more people in June, at 43,000, than in any month since January 2025. Locally, Los Angeles Police Department officials say June had the highest tally of potential unlawful conduct by federal immigration officers. The 12 incidents investigated mark the most since the department began reporting the data in March.

German Hurtado, LAPD immigration affairs liaison, said in an interview that he noticed the uptick of reported immigration enforcement incidents, but could not say what caused the increase.

In February, Mayor Karen Bass issued a directive requiring the reporting. Police commissioners approved the most recent report at their meeting Tuesday.

Hurtado said the increase seen in June might be reflective of the department’s efforts to capture more of the potential issues.

“We’re finding better ways to improve how to capture these incidents,” Hurtado said. “It could be a combination of everything, but I did see that it was a large increase.”

He said those efforts include changes in how they label calls related to federal immigration enforcement actions and adjustments to the way department computers store the information.

What’s in June’s report

Here’s how that process worked, according to the department’s report:

The LAPD first identified 45 potential federal immigration enforcement actions by searching internal reporting systems for immigration related search terms. The immigration affairs liaison determined 33 of those incidents were unrelated to immigration enforcement.

At the commission's meeting on Tuesday, Lisa Ridoutt, assistant inspector general, explained these incidents included:

• 26 notices from federal agents conducting surveillance in the area
• 2 reports of protests
• 2 medical related incidents
• 1 report of DHS agents executing a search warrant unrelated to immigration
• 1 federal task force meeting
• 1 call reporting someone believed they were pushed from behind by a federal agent. LAPD reviewed security footage and determined no crime had occurred.

The department then looked deeper into 12 enforcement incidents that qualify for reporting under Bass’ executive directive, which asks the LAPD to report when officers document or receive reports of suspected unlawful conduct by immigration officers. Two of those incidents involved an LAPD response in the field, according to the report. The department also says neither resulted in officers being on the scene for an active enforcement action.

The report states the LAPD does not know the overall number of immigration enforcement actions that happened in June.

The 12 reported incidents are a significant increase from previous months. The department reported just four incidents in May, four in April and none in March.

Hurtado said the number of incidents has increased every month since March, potentially because the department is getting better at documenting them.

“It takes a while to teach 8,700 people exactly what to do, so as we are rolling out different training, the officers are now being more observant of it, documenting it more," Hurtado said.

The increase, he added, could also stem from federal authorities communicating with LAPD more. He said federal immigration authorities have not asked LAPD for support during enforcement actions.

The backstory

For decades, the LAPD has refrained from directly enforcing immigration laws. That’s because policing experts say doing so could deter witnesses or victims from cooperating with law enforcement.

State and local laws have codified that policy in recent years and further prohibited California law enforcement from assisting in federal immigration enforcement.

The mayor issued two executive orders last year with instructions for how city departments interact with federal immigration officers.

Executive directive 17 mandates the monthly immigration reports from the LAPD and instructs officers to activate their body-worn cameras whenever they respond to potential immigration-related incidents.

Ridoutt, of the Office of Inspector General, said that while officers did activate body-worn and in-car video systems, the OIG found some recordings were not properly titled or tagged and that some videos or photos from community members were not uploaded to the department’s evidence database as required by department policy.

The Inspector General’s Office reviews the LAPD’s reports to ensure compliance with the directive. Ridoutt said the office will be releasing a more comprehensive report in October or November.

Calls for increased transparency

At previous meetings, commissioners have asked for more details about what calls for service or incident reports entail.

Hurtado said the executive directive just requires the department to release aggregate numbers.

Shiu-Ming Cheer, deputy director of immigrant and racial justice at the California Immigrant Policy Center, said the directive calls for greater transparency than what the LAPD’s monthly reports currently provide.

The June report, for example, notes that LAPD twice dispatched officers in response to a report of ICE activity, but provides no description of the department’s role once officers arrived. Cheer said the public should know whether officers were responding for crowd control, interacting with federal agents or serving some other purpose.

Cheer said the LAPD’s monthly reports should explain what happened during the incidents the department counts.

Sophia Wrench, an attorney with Public Counsel, agrees.

“A central purpose of Executive Directive 17 was to provide increased transparency and build public trust, but LAPD’s reporting month after month falls short,” she said in a statement. “The lack of information in its monthly reports only creates more confusion in the community, building greater fear and mistrust of the police.”