• The administration has elevated critical minerals to a national security issue, launching trade negotiations and regulatory actions under Section 232, with tariffs still on the table.

• Rebuilding U.S. mining and processing capacity is a central policy goal, aimed at reducing foreign dependence and stabilizing volatile mineral markets.

• Companies should expect increased oversight and potential trade or pricing measures as negotiations proceed and federal supply-chain monitoring intensifies.

On January 14, 2026, following an investigation by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce (“Secretary”) under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. 1862) (“Section 232”), into the effects of imports of processed critical minerals and their derivative products (“Critical Minerals”) on the national security of the United States. After concurring with the Secretary’s determination that the quantities and circumstances of current Critical Minerals imports “threaten to impair the national security of the United States,” the President has authorized actions to be taken to adjust the imports of Critical Minerals to address the identified threat.

Overview of the Federal Action

The President has officially concurred with findings that the United States lacks a secure and reliable supply chain for Critical Minerals. In making this determination, Section 232 directs the Secretary and the President to consider factors related to national defense (including required domestic production needed for defense requirements, capacity of domestic industry to meet such production needs, and availability of supplies and raw materials) as well as factors related to the national economy (including impacts of foreign competition, and displacement of U.S. products by “excessive imports”).

Consequently, the administration has initiated the following:

1. Negotiations with Trading Partners and Potential Trade Restrictions: The U.S. Trade Representative and the Secretary are directed to negotiate with foreign nations to adjust imports and mitigate security vulnerabilities. If negotiations are unsuccessful within 180 days, the administration may implement further measures, including tariffs or minimum import prices (price floors) for specific minerals.
2. Additional Regulatory or Deregulatory Actions: The Secretary, U.S. Trade Representative, and the Secretary of Homeland Security are directed to effectuate the proclamation through the issuance, amendment, or temporary suspension of their respective regulations, rules, and guidance.
3. Supply Chain Monitoring: The Secretary will continue to monitor import levels and review their impact on national security to determine if further executive action is required.
4. No Tariffs—Yet: Unlike several other recent Section 232 investigations, the President did not (at this time) impose tariffs. 

Key Minerals Identified

The Secretary determined that Critical Minerals underpin critical military and economic applications, and found that Critical Minerals are essential to each of the 16 critical infrastructure sectors identified by of April 30, 2024 (Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience), including:

Chemical Sector: lithium, fluorite, and bromine;

Communications Sector: gallium, germanium, indium, and yttrium;

Energy Sector: cobalt, nickel, uranium, praseodymium, and terbium.

Why This Matters to Companies with U.S. Mining and Processing Operations

This federal shift is highly relevant to companies mining for Critical Minerals in the U.S. for several key reasons:

1. Focus on Domestic Capacity: The proclamation explicitly identifies the decline in domestic production and the offshoring of facilities as a strategic weakness. The federal government now views “sufficient domestic mining and processing” as imperative to reducing reliance on foreign actors.
2. Addressing Price Volatility: The Secretary found that extreme price volatility in mineral markets has historically hindered private sector investment and led to the closure of domestic facilities. The administration’s intent to consider “price floors” is a direct attempt to ensure the long-term viability of domestic mining and processing.
3. Bridging the Processing Gap: The proclamation highlights a critical vulnerability—even when minerals are mined domestically, they are often exported for refining due to a lack of domestic processing capacity. For example, while the U.S. is a major producer of rare earth oxides, it remains nearly 100% reliant on imported rare earth permanent magnets. This indicates a federal push to not only mine but also process materials within the U.S.
4. Alignment with Related Administration Trade Initiatives:  Under the United States-Japan Framework For Securing the Supply of Critical Minerals and Rare Earths through Mining and Processing, signed October 28, 2025, the United States and Japan jointly committed to work together on investments in critical minerals mapping, mining, recycling, and to arrange for mutually complementary stockpiling.  Japan has also announced investment commitments in the United States for critical minerals development, includes a $350 million investment in a lithium-iron-phosphate production facility in the United States. The proclamation potentially provides additional support for these commitments.

Next Steps

If action is taken by the President, Section 232 requires the President to provide a report to Congress within 30 days of the proclamation, explaining the President’s decision to take action under the statute. Moreover, the administration is required to provide an update on the status of trade negotiations within 180 days. We will continue to monitor these negotiations and any potential regulatory changes or guidance issued by the Department of Commerce or Homeland Security that may affect your operations or trade status.

About �鶹ֱ��’s Energy & Infrastructure Sector

�鶹ֱ��’s cross-disciplinary Energy & Infrastructure team of more than 200 attorneys regularly represents clients in the traditional and renewable power, oil & gas, nuclear, and infrastructure and energy transition industries. �鶹ֱ�� offers comprehensive legal services for energy and infrastructure companies and projects to guide clients through every phase—from development and site control to investment, commercial contracting and financing. �鶹ֱ�� can also assist companies involved in mining, processing, and disposal to navigate the various state and federal regulations, international agreements, and national security considerations.

The post President Trump Issues Section 232 Proclamation to Establish a Reliable Domestic Supply Chain for Critical Minerals: What You Need to Know Now appeared first on �鶹ֱ�� & Lardner LLP.

Both models face regulatory hurdles. In many areas, rules for how storage participates in electricity markets are still evolving. For example, FERC’s Order No. 841 requires grid operators to let storage access wholesale markets, but implementation details vary by region[1]. Co-located projects may qualify for ITC credits under the Inflation Reduction Act, but developers must meet specific requirements to receive these benefits[2]. Because of this regulatory complexity, lenders often prefer projects in more tried-and-true markets, such as solar and wind.

A major challenge for storage-only projects is merchant risk; in other words, the uncertainty of relying on shifting market prices for most of their revenue as the catalyst to sell energy. To reduce this risk, developers may seek long-term contracts or diversify income through services like capacity support and frequency regulation[3]. Co-located projects can lower merchant risk because they combine steady renewable generation sales with battery services, leading to more predictable income streams.

From the lender’s point of view, financing depends on confidence in the project’s revenue model, compliance with regulations, and proven technology performance. Stand-alone storage often faces more scrutiny and might require higher developer equity. Co-located projects may seem more attractive due to their combined revenue sources, but they also require careful operations to maximize both generation and storage potential. As policies and markets mature, lenders are expected to grow more comfortable with both models, especially those backed by stable contracts and clear regulatory approval[4].

The post The New Frontier: Financing Storage-Only and Co-Located Projects appeared first on �鶹ֱ�� & Lardner LLP.

1. What is the Clinton Clean Energy Center?

The Clinton Clean Energy Center’s singular nuclear reactor was , and had originally been set for closure in 2017. In their , Constellation indicated that the Clinton Clean Energy Center was able to remain operational through 2027 by relying on the Zero Emissions Credit program established under the Illinois Future Energy Jobs Act. The PPA will now allow Constellation to not only keep the Clinton Clean Energy Center online for another 20 years, but also to add an additional 30MW of incremental capacity and preserve local jobs. In parallel with these efforts to maintain the Clinton Clean Energy Center, Constellation is considering seeking Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval of construction permits for new small modular reactors to be located at the Clinton, Illinois site. For more information on small modular reactors, see our article on the Tennessee Valley Authority’s recent application.

News of the Meta PPA comes after Constellation’s that it had entered into a similar 20-year PPA with Microsoft for the Crane Clean Energy Center which involves restarting Three Mile Island Unit 1. Unit 1 shut down in 2019 due to economic reasons; once reactivated with modernized infrastructure, it will provide 835MW of energy. from the plant as part of its goal to offset power used by its data centers, which are responsible for powering AI and cloud computing. 

2. Why is Meta Interested? 

In , Meta indicated AI growth was a key driver for their interest in nuclear generation beyond just this individual deal, in addition to clean energy goals, noting “[a]s we look toward our future energy needs in advancing AI, we recognize the immense value of nuclear power in providing reliable, firm electricity, and the role nuclear projects can have in supporting local economies and strengthening America’s energy leadership.” Underscoring this goal, in December of 2024, “to identify nuclear energy developers to help us meet our AI innovation and sustainability objectives”, with the target of adding 1-4GW of new nuclear generation capacity in the early 2030s. 

3. What is in the PPA?

Through the PPA, Meta will purchase the clean energy attributes from the 1,092MW Clinton Clean Energy Center (rather than purchasing the energy itself to power data centers directly) to support Meta’s “.”  While price/MWh has not been disclosed, both and ’s announcements estimated a contribution of $13.5 million in annual tax revenue to be generated, along with the preservation of 1,100 local jobs. Because this is a merchant plant agreement with a private entity, the parties are not required to obtain certain regulatory approvals that might otherwise apply. The PPA term will begin in 2027.

4. Are Other Companies doing Similar Deals?

Other companies are engaging in similar agreements to the PPA signed by Constellation and Meta. For instance, to supply 1,920MW of nuclear energy to Amazon Web Services data centers across Pennsylvania. This energy will be generated from a power plant located in Susquehanna, PA, and will support AI and other cloud-based systems. Additionally, Talen and Amazon plan to explore the construction of new small modular reactors and increase the nuclear plant’s energy output through uprates. It is expected that full volume will be achieved by 2032, but the contract is set to run through 2042 with an option to extend its duration. The agreement will support 900 existing power plant employees and create new construction job opportunities. 

This PPA and others like it demonstrate that tech companies view preservation of existing nuclear generation as an important element of their ongoing AI growth strategy and clean energy goals. Please reach out to any of the authors here or another member of your �鶹ֱ�� team if you have any questions about these topics. 

The post Constellation and Meta PPA: Tech AI and Clean Energy Goals Preserve Existing Nuclear Generation appeared first on �鶹ֱ�� & Lardner LLP.

The post IRS Releases Proposed Regulations for Section 45X Advanced Manufacturing Credit appeared first on �鶹ֱ�� & Lardner LLP.

The post IRS Opens Tax Credit Transfer Portal appeared first on �鶹ֱ�� & Lardner LLP.

The post IRS Releases Proposed Tax Regulations for Clean Hydrogen appeared first on �鶹ֱ�� & Lardner LLP.

The post The Rapid Acceleration of Energy Convergence appeared first on �鶹ֱ�� & Lardner LLP.

The post NY PSC Again Modifies Utility Procurement Requirements to Support ‘Ambitious’ Energy Storage Roadmap appeared first on �鶹ֱ�� & Lardner LLP.