Merve Suna Özel Özcan [1]
Donald Trump’s potential second presidential term coincides with a period of intensifying global conflicts and wars, a time when the international system is in dire need of stability and peace. Against this backdrop, Trump attempts to position himself as the leader who will ensure global peace, yet the underlying motives for this role and the realities on the ground diverge significantly. A critical aspect of this dynamic is Trump’s energy policy decisions and their less visible repercussions on the international stage, particularly in Gaza and Ukraine. These regions, where conflicts initiated during the Biden administration, are directly linked to underground energy resources and potential wealth. Intriguingly, a powerful network of energy companies is also backing Trump’s election campaign. A report by Climate Power indicates that fossil fuel companies contributed $96 million to political action committees and $243 million to lobbying Congress. [2] Thus, it was evident even at the donor stage that energy’s influence within the system would increase.
Energy-related considerations are also discernible in Trump’s Gaza policy. As detailed in Professor Joseph Pelzman’s report, reportedly presented to him in July 2024, the tripartite model for Gaza’s reconstruction emphasizes tourism, agriculture, and high-tech fields. [3] It is evident that the energy sector will be integrated into these high-tech advancements, even if implicitly. This, coupled with Trump’s supporters, reveals a shared interest between Gaza and Ukraine: underground resources. However, this study will concentrate on Ukraine rather than Gaza. A brief brainstorming session is warranted here. Despite global calls for a ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine war, a struggle for control over minerals and elements is, in fact, underway.
Trump’s Energy Policy and the Subjectivization of China
Trump’s actions in the energy sector foreshadow his future policies. These decisions will impact international balances and lead to significant shifts in the US’ global energy and geopolitical strategy. Notably, Trump reinstated the energy emergency declared by President Jimmy Carter during the 1970s fossil fuel shortage, asserting that the US must combat high global energy prices while simultaneously safeguarding its energy security.
The 1973 Oil Crisis profoundly affected the world. The US experienced severe energy supply disruptions, realizing energy’s power as a foreign policy tool. The OPEC oil embargo exposed the West’s energy dependence. Energy prices soared, economies suffered, and the West confronted an energy crisis. However, while the US isn’t currently facing a 1970s-style global energy shortage, two crucial factors are being overlooked. This situation isn’t solely about the effects of drilling activities in Alaska; it’s also a US move to strengthen its global position. This increased influence should be considered not only in terms of fossil fuels but also concerning precious metals.
To solidify its energy position, the US has rapidly initiated drilling activities, reminiscent of 19th-century aggressive capitalism. This can be seen as an attempt to break Russia’s dominance in the global energy sector. However, Russia isn’t the sole power; OPEC countries also hold significant sway over energy markets.
While Trump’s campaign promise to reduce energy prices by 50 percent is noteworthy, its feasibility in international markets is questionable. Nevertheless, a slight market decline is a targeted outcome for the US. Furthermore, the liquefied natural gas (LNG) policy includes export incentives. Within the context of Trump’s tariff wars, China’s 15 percent additional tax on LNG imports from the US was an unwelcome development. [4] However, despite being a major global LNG exporter, the US doesn’t export significant quantities to China. According to the US Energy Information Administration in 2023, these US exports constituted approximately 2.3% of China’s total natural gas exports. [5] This is an unfavorable situation for the US, particularly for Trump. Indeed, Trump might impose new tariffs on LNG sales, not only to China but also to the EU, which is indirectly connected to the matter. In this regard, it’s crucial to recognize that China is likely the unseen but most critical subject behind Trump’s energy policies.
The Move to Overtake China in Energy and Mining
In connection with the Russia-Ukraine War, Trump’s February 3rd announcements regarding rare earth elements (REEs) and critical minerals (CMs) are a significant systemic development. Trump, who initially labeled the war as “premature” and “a war that would never have happened if someone else had been president,” also claimed he could end it within 24 hours if elected. However, the central question is: Will this result in genuine success, or will it lead to a frozen conflict zone? The answer will largely align with Trump’s interests, as he has not exhibited a particularly warm stance towards Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky throughout the war.
Indeed, Zelensky, recognizing this continued trend after Trump’s potential presidency, received perhaps the quickest response from Trump while opening Ukraine’s underground resources to allies as an investment opportunity. Trump, approaching the issue with a businessman’s mindset, announced his demand for $500 billion worth of rare earth elements from Ukraine, viewing this as a return for US aid during the war.
Although there might not appear to be a direct connection between the National Energy Plan and REEs initially, it’s crucial to understand that REEs and CMs are ubiquitous in modern life. REEs and CMs enhance energy efficiency, particularly in electronic devices, and are vital for advanced technologies. REEs, especially used in magnet construction, are widely used materials with limited substitutes. This is because REEs, comprising 17 elements [6], are highly dispersed and challenging to process, rather than being inherently rare, hence their name. [7]
The US Geological Survey reports that approximately 50 CMs, including nickel and lithium, are currently considered strategically important. [8] While a direct link between the National Energy Plan and REEs might seem absent, REEs play a crucial role in sectors like renewable energy, battery technologies, and electric vehicles. Global competition for these elements, integral to numerous critical sectors from mobile phones to defense industry missiles, is intensifying.
Crucially, CMs and REEs are not only vital for electronics and industry but also for the green energy transition. These elements play a significant role in wind turbine magnets, electric vehicle batteries, solar panels, and energy storage systems. The International Energy Agency (IEA) highlights lithium, nickel, cobalt, and graphite as particularly critical for energy density and batteries. [9]
So, why is Ukraine significant? Deposits of 22 of these minerals are located in Ukraine. Therefore, Trump’s Ukraine move was a significant step. There is no doubt that the steps to be taken to ensure peace in the region will become a bargaining chip.
The most critical question is: Why did Trump focus on these elements, and what is the impact of this on the energy sector? As is well known, China dominates the raw material market in terms of REEs. This situation needs to be analyzed from several perspectives. The situation with regard to REE and CM increases the risk of slowing down the EU green energy transition in particular. Supply constraints, together with EU energy sanctions against Russia, could jeopardize alternative green energy options.
However, due to the importance of precious metals for energy storage systems, these elements are becoming even more critical in the energy field, especially as the EU sees China as its biggest obstacle and competitor in green energy and energy storage.
This situation could, in fact, benefit the US LNG policy. However, the US also holds a green energy card. While the Trump administration seeks to expand its global energy influence by increasing fossil fuel production, it may also aim to influence the green energy strategy through rare earth elements.
Secondly, Trump’s tariff wars against China have had a boomerang effect. Beijing, announcing additional export controls on rare metals, has also targeted minerals like tungsten, tellurium, bismuth, molybdenum, and indium, which the US Geological Survey considers critical. [10] The IEA, based on 2023 data, reported that China’s REE reserves held an 87% global share. [11] From this perspective, Trump aims to control these elements, crucial for electric vehicles and green energy, against China. However, owning and processing REEs carries environmental costs. While developing clean technologies for processing these elements is vital, its feasibility in the near future is questionable. Trump’s stance on environmental and climate issues in his energy and drilling policies is already evident. His withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement [12] clearly demonstrated this policy.
In conclusion, Trump’s primary approach will be to gain in every sense on the Ukraine axis. This entails monopolizing the REEs, which the EU deems critical for green energy and energy storage, and transforming the process into an energy race. Therefore, Trump is poised to convert his aggressive domestic energy drilling policies into an aggressive REE extraction strategy in Ukraine, continuing his aggressive energy drilling policies in his foreign policy. This approach will bolster the US’ hand not only in the energy sector but also in the global mining sector. Through these policies, the Trump administration aims to challenge China’s dominance over REEs in the trade wars, or at least weaken its position. In short, the approach of “Whatever happens, but to China” is also evident here.
[1] Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kırıkkale University, Department of International Relations, mervesuna@kku.edu.tr
[2] https://climatepower.us/research-polling/big-oil-spent-450-million-to-influence-trump-the-119th-congress/
[3] https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-man-with-the-plan-dc-prof-sent-trump-gaza-relocation-development-study-in-july/
[4] https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/article/texas-lng-trump-trade-tariffs-20146423.php
[5] https://www.ekonomigazetesi.com/ekonomi/kuresel-ekonomi/cin-enerji-ve-kritik-minerallere-nisan-aldi-55270/
[6] https://www.iisd.org/publications/brief/critical-minerals-primer?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiA8Lu9BhA8EiwAag16bxB2A0ePwBzIwqK98_03orz72TRmZMc6TkNdIiZOkhFupcTMkybsDBoCoGQQAvD_BwE
[7] https://enerji.gov.tr/infobank-naturalresources-rareearthelements
[8] https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/what-are-ukraines-critical-minerals-why-does-trump-want-them-2025-02-12/
[9] https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions
[10] https://www.ekonomigazetesi.com/ekonomi/kuresel-ekonomi/cin-enerji-ve-kritik-minerallere-nisan-aldi-55270/
[11] https://www.voaturkce.com/a/dunya-temiz-enerjiye-gecis-surecinde-cin-in-nadir-toprak-elementleri-uzerindeki-egemenligini-kirma-mucadelesi-veriy%C4%B1r/7209892.html
[12] https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/where-will-trumps-strategy-lead-energy-security-or-global-destruction
