There is a long list of things that Trump II can do to promote America's mining industry consistent with the national interest.

Each year, about this time, the federal oversight committee of the Alaska Miners Association gets together to prepare an Issues of Concern document to share with interested federal agencies in coordination with other mining and resource development organizations around the country.

Generally, it is a document that constitutes guidance to the AMA executive director and others who purport to speak for the AMA. To a certain extent, it is a useful tool; however, it rarely contains surprises and soon makes its way from the in-basket to the file cabinet for future reference.

In all likelihood, the future of this year's Issues document is destined to the same fate; however, like Charlie Brown, the miners have once again initiated the project with boundless hope.

What makes 2025 different – by the way, Happy New Year! – is that we have a populist administration stepping up to the plate. For the first time since 1981, when Ronald Reagan was sworn in, there is a genuine sense that how the miners feel about government may materialize into some form of action.

What makes the 2025 Trump Administration different from Trump I, hopefully, is the context.

Among other things, there is an apparent commitment to actually making some changes in the administrative state, especially due to changes in the attitude of the courts and changes in the focus of the government with regard to economic issues.

In the case of resource development, the federal government has had a long-term love affair with the environmental industry, which has driven international mining companies offshore, vitiating our national security.

Mining companies must go where the minerals are; however, there are lots of mineral provinces around the world, so cost factors are critical.

Where labor is cheap (often due to a lack of significant regulation), the cost of labor is central to decision-making.

Where political stability is an issue, the most stable venue may be dispositive.

Where regulatory hurdles can be accommodated, those costs generally can be absorbed.

Where public support is an issue, mining companies must often endure expensive and dilatory litigation.

The United States is blessed with untold mineral deposits. Likewise, it has an available and efficient workforce primarily because health and safety regulations work. The political environment is, no pun intended, rock-solid.

Even the regulatory environment in the U.S. is generally tolerable; however, when it comes to public support, the regulators are often twisted by indefensible biases that precipitate litigation.

At the moment, the litigation environment is divided. For the most part, where you sue or are sued dictates the outcome of the case. For many years, the Ninth Circuit was a place where mining companies went to die.

Occasionally, a case would make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the direction of the Court was deemed by the administrative state as a challenge rather than a direction. In brief, the agencies were motivated to do indirectly what the Court said it could not do directly.

The Trump II administration implicitly seems to understand that.

It implies that it will give binding directions to the bureaucracy with the expectation that those directions will be followed.

Time will tell.

Ronald Reagan told the nation that "government is not the solution; government is the problem." Can Trump II do any better?

The Alaska Mining Association is preparing to step up and point the way.

According to the miners, there must be a national commitment to a favorable domestic mining policy. Regulations interpreting the National Environmental Policy Act must adhere to Congressional intent. Federal lands open to mineral entry must be accessible. The EPA cannot be allowed to veto Clean Water Act permits arbitrarily. In Alaska, the spirit and language of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act must be complied with.

In addition, land managing agencies cannot and should not extrapolate their statutory mandates to accomplish ethereal objectives such as critical habitat designations or landscape health preservation.

Finally, the federal government should ensure that the affected states have a formal voice in regulatory decisions and international negotiations.

It is a new year and a new administration. The public has spoken. The issues are on the table. Successful, well-regulated domestic mineral development is in both Alaska's and the national interest.

Make it happen.