Showing posts sorted by date for query CANADA HISTORY. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query CANADA HISTORY. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, May 13, 2026

Fault Lines in a New Epoch of Crisis – Imperial Rivalry, Authoritarianism, and Resistance

Source: Tempest

We have entered a new epoch of global capitalism. It is characterized by crisis, imperial rivalry, authoritarian nationalism, and episodic, explosive resistance from below. The Trump administration’s brief year of misrule has brought all these to a head, particularly with its war on Iran. That war has put a definitive end to Washington’s imperial order of free trade globalization that it constructed within its bloc after World War II and expanded globally after the Cold War. Now the U.S. is a predatory imperialist state out for its own interests against nominal allies, rivals, regional powers, and subject nations.

Trump’s rise to power, like that of other authoritarian nationalists, did not come out of the blue. The electoral successes of the Right are the product of capitalism’s multiple crises and the establishment parties’ inability to overcome them. Their failure has triggered political polarization to the right and left. Given the revolutionary Left’s decline and reformist parties’ incapacity to deliver when in power, the new Right, in the form of authoritarian nationalism, has been the principal beneficiary. But their program of austerity, bigotry, and scapegoating has also failed to address capitalism’s systemic crises, undercutting their ability to secure hegemony and impose stable rule. As a result, political instability is the order of the day throughout the world.

These conditions have triggered wave after wave of resistance from below. But so far this resistance has been episodic and unable to win, largely because of the decomposition of class, social, and political organizations to sustain struggle and pose an alternative to the establishment parties and the Right. Nonetheless, these struggles open opportunities to rebuild the infrastructure of resistance, cohere a militant minority, and reconstruct a revolutionary Left for the 21st century.

Capitalism’s global slump

Capitalism is beset by multiple systemic crises from climate change to mass migration and pandemics like COVID. The other two, which are the most important ones for shaping our new epoch, are the global economic slump and the return of inter-imperial rivalry. The 2008 economic crisis triggered the Great Recession, which brought an end to the long neoliberal boom that began in the 1980s.

While capitalism survived, its recovery has been characterized by low profitability and slow growth, punctuated by recessions and weak recoveries. The heartlands of the system, from the U.S. to Europe and Japan, are either growing at a modest rate or are stagnant. As far as the U.S. is concerned, only the high-tech companies’ massive investment in AI data centers and the accompanying stock market bubble have kept the economy growing. But that is now in jeopardy as a result of the war with Iran. Even China, which was key to the global recovery after the Great Recession, has seen its growth drop from 10 percent a year in the 2000s to under 5 percent today.


As far as the U.S. is concerned, only the high-tech companies’ massive investment in AI data centers and the accompanying stock market bubble have kept the economy growing. But that is now in jeopardy as a result of the war with Iran.


Inflation in the wake of the COVID recession has forced the U.S. and Europe to maintain relatively high interest rates, hampering investment and growth. On the other hand, overinvestment, cutthroat competition, and low profitability have fueled deflation in China, forcing its corporations to seek out profitable sites for investment internationally through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), while exporting their surplus products and in the process undercutting their competition everywhere.

The combination of U.S. high interest rates and Chinese dumping has triggered a double crisis in the Global South. First, high interest rates have hammered indebted countries, which are now facing the prospect of another debt crisis like the one they suffered in the 1980s. Already, creditors are demanding austerity measures from governments in the Global South. Second, Beijing’s exports have undermined the Global South’s domestic manufacturing base, reducing it to exporting raw materials to China for China’s ongoing expansion.

Thus, we are in a global slump. It will continue until a deeper crisis clears out all the uncompetitive capital in the world economy. Up to today, the main capitalist states have stopped this from happening. They have bailed out corporations they consider too big to fail, fearing mass bankruptcies and a 1930s-style depression. That has propped up the so-called zombie corporations. These are so unprofitable that they are forced to take out ever more loans to repay interest on their existing loans. As a result, the system limps along.

By contrast, ruling classes have imposed austerity measures on their workers, cutting social welfare spending and attacking wages and benefits. As a result, class inequality has deepened throughout the world. At the same time, states have turned to protectionism and other beggar-thy-neighbor policies to protect their capitals against other states and their capitals.

The return of inter-imperial rivalry

Thus, the global slump is intensifying the second key crisis—inter-imperial rivalry, especially between the two biggest economies in the world, the U.S. and China. Washington no longer oversees the unipolar world order as it did after the Cold War. The long neoliberal boom produced new centers of capital accumulation from China to Russia and a host of regional powers.


Washington no longer oversees the unipolar world order as it did after the Cold War. The long neoliberal boom produced new centers of capital accumulation from China to Russia and a host of regional powers.


The U.S. attempt to defend its increasingly challenged hegemony through wars in Afghanistan and Iraq backfired, leading to disastrous defeats. On top of that, the Great Recession hammered the U.S., Europe, and Japan, in contrast to China, which used massive state investment to keep its economy booming, and with that, all its tributary economies expanding from Russia to Australia and Brazil.

These developments led to the relative decline of the U.S. against its rivals, especially China, ushering in today’s asymmetric multipolar world order. The U.S. remains the largest economy with the biggest military and greatest geopolitical influence. Its dollar remains the world’s reserve currency, it oversees an empire of 800 military overseas bases, and uses that power to bully allies, rivals, and so-called rogue states.

But it is no longer unrivaled. China is now a potential peer competitor, while Russia, with its vast nuclear stockpile and fossil capitalist economy, is an outsized regional power with global pretensions. In this context, regional powers exploit conflicts between the great powers to pursue their own interests. Iran, for instance, oversaw the so-called Axis of Resistance, which it used to build regional imperial influence against the U.S., the Arab states, and Israel.

Faced with this new order, successive U.S. administrations have abandoned Washington’s post-Cold War strategy of superintending capitalism by incorporating all states into a neoliberal world order of free trade globalization. Obama initiated a shift toward great power competition with China through his Pivot to Asia.

In his first term, Trump enshrined great power rivalry as Washington’s new grand strategy, naming specifically China and Russia. His America First foreign policy put what he perceived to be U.S. interests over and above those of both friends and foes. He began to abandon free trade for protectionism, particularly by raising tariffs on China. But his administration’s internal divisions, hostility to traditional allies, propensity to make transactional deals with rivals, and general incompetence prevented its coherent implementation.

The Biden administration retained Trump’s focus on great power but abandoned his unilateralism. Instead, it tried to rebuild Washington’s alliance structure, especially NATO, and unite its vassals against China and Russia in defense of the so-called rules-based international order. It paired that with strategic protectionism against Beijing and an industrial policy to ensure U.S. dominance in high-tech industries, especially microchips, which it wanted to onshore from Taiwan.

Biden capitalized on Russia’s imperialist war on Ukraine to rally NATO behind Kyiv’s national liberation struggle. His aim was not to defend Ukraine’s right to self-determination but to weaken Russia. However, his administration fatally discredited its claims to support international law, human rights, and oppressed nations by championing, bankrolling, and arming Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza.

Waves of resistance

The global slump, growing inter-imperial rivalries, and capitalism’s other systemic crises have combined to destabilize societies around the world. These conditions have set off waves of resistance from below by various classes, from the petty bourgeoisie to the working class and peasantry. The movements have been politically heterogeneous, spanning the gamut from right-wing small business revolts to uprisings of workers and the oppressed.

Most important for the Left have been the progressive class and social struggles throughout the world from the Arab Spring revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa to the Red State Teachers Revolt, Black Lives Matter, and Palestine solidarity in the U.S. These movements have been the largest since the 1960s and have a class content more like that of the 1930s, expressing rage against the deep economic and social inequalities of our epoch.

But they all have been hampered by the weaknesses inherited from the previous period of defeat and retreat. These include everything from the collapse of the revolutionary Left to the dramatic drop in trade union density and retreat of social movements from membership-based groups to grant-funded NGOs with all their golden chains.

As a result, workers and the oppressed have gone into struggle bereft of class, social, and political infrastructures of dissent. That has impacted the character of movements today. They tend to seemingly come out of nowhere and explode in size, challenging capital and the state. Their demands are usually negative in character, like the slogan of the Arab Spring, which was “the people want the fall of the regime,” and lack a positive alternative. In the words of one analyst, they are revolutions without revolutionaries.

That makes them vulnerable in all sorts of ways. The states and capitals can crush them with brute force as the regimes succeeded in doing throughout the Middle East and North Africa. They can also co-opt them as the Ford Foundation did with key leaders of Black Lives Matter. Reformist parties can also channel uprisings into the dead-end of electoral attempts to use the capitalist state to overcome systemic crises and inequalities. The movements can also dissipate in demoralization over the difficulties of winning victories faced with the intransigence of the state and capital.

That said, more and more activists have drawn lessons from these experiences that it’s necessary to build more serious class, social, and political organizations capable of sustaining struggles for positive demands and reforms on the way to systemic change.

Political polarization to the right and left

Global capitalism’s crises and the waves of resistance have intensified political polarization to the right and to the left. The various regimes and parties of the capitalist classes offer no solutions either to the system’s intractable problems or popular grievances. Undemocratic regimes have turned to increasing authoritarianism to enforce their rule in countries like China and Russia. In bourgeois democracies, angry electorates have voted out capital’s traditional parties, searching for alternatives on the right and the left.

The chief beneficiary of this polarization has been the Right for obvious reasons. The revolutionary Left is far too weak to offer an alternative. The reformist Left has ridden the resistance to win elected office in various countries, but constrained by capitalism’s crisis and the intransigence of the capitalist class, their electoral strategy has been unable to deliver reforms to improve people’s lives. They have, at best, administered neoliberal capitalism with a human face or, worse, broken their promises and turned on their working-class base. The examples of this are legion, from Syriza’s betrayal of Greek workers to the collapse of the Pink Tide in Latin America.

The authoritarian nationalist politicians have reaped the rewards of disappointment with establishment and reformist parties. The Right’s parties represent at best a minority of capital but are mainly an expression of petty bourgeois radicalization. They have found a base in the atomized, defeated, and demoralized sections of the working class. As a result, authoritarian nationalist regimes have multiplied throughout the world, from Putin in Russia to Modi in India, Orban in Hungary, Kast in Chile, Milei in Argentina, and, of course, Trump in the United States.

But their “solutions” of class war, bigotry, and scapegoating, especially of migrants, have also failed to solve the system’s crises and address mass popular grievances from their own petty bourgeois base to the much larger popular classes. So, they too have not been able to establish stable regimes and have even been driven out of power. For instance, Hungarian voters recently voted Orban out of office. Authoritarian states also have faced resistance from below as well as other forces. President Xi Jinping faced a mass uprising against his brutal Zero-COVID policy, and Vladimir Putin faced a coup attempt by the Wagner Group.

In bourgeois democracies, when the new Right has faced governmental crises, some have been tempted to turn to authoritarian rule, like Brazil’s Bolsonaro, who tried to organize a coup after he lost the election to stay in power. He failed. In reality, few democracies have yet fallen to such seizures of power. Instead, the old capitalist parties have exploited the failure of the reformists and the Right to return to power, often by adopting elements of the authoritarian nationalists’ program, especially its attacks on migrants.

But such triangulation only confirms the arguments of the Right, giving them a new lease on life. With bourgeois rule unstable, states across the board are becoming more authoritarian, enforcing rule through coercion, not consent. At the same time, they are becoming more aggressive internationally, the great imperial powers in particular.


With bourgeois rule unstable, states across the board are becoming more authoritarian, enforcing rule through coercion, not consent. At the same time, they are becoming more aggressive internationally, the great imperial powers in particular.


Trump’s authoritarian nationalism

The Trump administration is part of this global pattern of the rise of a new Right. Trump’s victory in the 2024 election was entirely the fault of the Democratic Party and its commitment to capitalism and imperialism. The Biden administration failed to address the system’s crises, oversaw the immiseration of workers through inflation, and carried out mass deportations. Abroad, it ramped up inter-imperial conflict and backed Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza.

Trump exploited disappointment with the Democrats, but still only managed to squeak out a narrow victory over Harris, winning around half of those who bothered to vote, only about 33 percent of the overall electorate. Like other authoritarian nationalists, he does not represent a capitalist consensus, but a rogue clique of billionaires and the radicalized petty bourgeoisie. And, at best, he won a weak mandate in the 2024 election.

But that does not make his administration any less vicious. Unlike his first term, Trump now has a coherent program in Project 2025 and a unified cabinet of sycophants that, despite their differences, support their leader, including his wildest impulses and without question. They are aggressively implementing their authoritarian nationalist project.

In the U.S., they have launched a class war, cutting taxes on the rich, firing government workers, stripping the rest of union rights, gutting social welfare, and deregulating the economy. They are carrying this out through classic divide-and-rule tactics, blaming the oppressed and scapegoating them, especially immigrants, for the system’s failures. He has poured $85 billion into ICE’s budget over the next four years to hire and unleash thousands of new agents to occupy cities and arrest hundreds of thousands of migrants, detain them in new concentration camps, and deport them back to their countries of origin

In a fit of irrationalism, Trump is also carrying out revenge on the deep state, slashing entire parts of the government bureaucracy essential for reproducing U.S. capitalism, like the National Institute of Health, and managing U.S. imperialism like the State Department. In place of professional managers, he is appointing right-wing hacks, ideologues, and lackeys.

He’s extended this assault into the private sphere as well, targeting, for example, elite higher education, which trains future CEOs, scientists, professionals, and state managers, all personnel essential for U.S. capitalism and its state. He really seems to want to Make America Stupid Again.

Ripping up the imperial order

Abroad, largely in defiance of the capitalist class and state managers, Trump has ripped up the entire order that the U.S. built after World War II and expanded globally after the Cold War. His administration’s project is not isolationist, but one of predatory dominance in pursuit of its conception of U.S. interests against both allies and rivals. Trump’s representatives laid out this in their National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, and a series of speeches by JD Vance and Marco Rubio.

Their stated goal is to Make America Great Again by putting America First, definitively abandoning all their predecessors’ project of superintending global capitalism. In geopolitics, they are withdrawing from multilateral bodies like the UN and World Health Organization that the U.S. set up to oversee the world. Trump has even gutted funding for humanitarian aid programs like USAID that used to garner support from countries in the Global South. He dismissed those as corrupt welfare schemes, essentially abandoning any use of soft power.

In economics, he has abandoned free trade globalization, establishing a protectionist trade regime against both allies and rivals. But he has run into international and domestic opposition. China, unlike most other states, stood toe to toe with his administration, imposed crippling restrictions on its exports of processed rare earths, and left Trump no choice but to lower his tariffs.

In the U.S., the capitalist class and Trump’s own petty bourgeois base of farmers forced him to grant them carve-outs. And the Supreme Court ruled against his use of the International Emergency Powers Act to impose his tariffs, forcing the administration back to the drawing board to use other powers to maintain the new protectionism.

Finally, on the military front, the administration has doubled down on hard power, jacking up the Pentagon’s budget to over $1 trillion. And now Trump is proposing to raise it to $1.5 trillion. At the same time, his regime has retreated from enforcing global order. It is demanding that its nominal allies in Europe and Asia shoulder the burden of their own security so that the U.S. can focus on carving out a sphere of influence in Latin America through crude gunboat diplomacy for naked economic gain.

The goal of its new “Donroe Doctrine” is to lock the region under its dominion, crushing opponents, and pushing out China. Already, Trump bullied Panama into withdrawing from China’s BRI, carried out a coup in Venezuela to seize control of its oil, threatened to take over Greenland to establish bases and stake claim to the Arctic’s resources, and has imposed a brutal blockade on Cuba, threatening it with regime change to open it up for U.S. real estate capital.

While that sphere of influence is Trump’s top priority, he has three others—Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. In Europe, he is supporting the far Right to restore “white civilization” and imperialist pride, pressuring the EU to deregulate, and bullying NATO to increase its military spending and manage its own security, including against Russia. He has all but sold Ukraine down the river, conceding to Moscow its old sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.

In Asia, he has stated that he intends to maintain the status quo standoff with China, but he’s also hinted that he might cut a deal with Beijing to concede it a sphere of influence. And in the Middle East, he backs Israel to finish off Hamas in Gaza, impose a predatory “peace” there, and dismantle the rest of the so-called Axis of Resistance, including its headquarters in Iran. After that, Trump wants to expand the so-called Abraham Accords to normalize relations between Israel and the region’s regimes, all under the thumb of the U.S., not China and Russia.

Survival of the most vicious

With this project, the Trump administration has put the world on notice that it has abandoned the so-called rules-based order to advance its narrow economic interests without disguise. It is establishing a new world disorder where might makes right, the great powers struggle for dominance, and the weak, in the words of Thucydides, “suffer what they must.”

While other powers like the EU may pine for the rules-based order, they have no choice but to adapt to the pressure from the U.S. and other great powers to abide by their dog-eat-dog rules. In a stunning speech at the World Economic Forum, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney laid out the new global disorder in stark terms. He eulogized the old rules-based order. While he recognized that it was always a sham, he argued that at least there were some political and economic restraints on great powers.

But Trump, he noted, has laid waste to it and so-called middle powers like Canada must recognize that fact and respond accordingly, otherwise they “won’t be at the table but on the menu.” Whether he liked it or not, Carney argued, Canada has to put its imperial interests first. Already, he is advancing that project, increasing his state’s military budget, staking claims to the Arctic, and cutting economic deals with U.S. rivals like China. Other U.S. allies are doing the same. In a shocking example, Denmark actually made plans to deploy its troops to Greenland and blow up its airport runways to stop a U.S. invasion.

All states are adapting to Trump’s contest for the survival of the most vicious. The EU, NATO, and individual states, especially France and Germany, do not trust the U.S. and recognize that they have no choice but to stake out their own path. The European powers are cutting trade deals with China and Latin America in defiance of the U.S., jacking up their military budgets, and imposing austerity on workers with cuts to social welfare spending, wages, and benefits. Russia has already established a war economy to fuel its imperialist invasion of Ukraine. In Asia, Japan is doing the same. So is China, Washington’s key rival. We are thus in the midst of a new global arms race.

Iran—A turning point in world history

The so-called rules-based order was already in tatters in the wake of Russia’s imperialist war in Ukraine and the U.S. and Israel’s genocide in Gaza. And now with his war on Iran, Trump destroyed what remained of it. Flush with success after kidnapping Maduro in Venezuela and turning the remnants of his regime into a servant of U.S. imperialism, Trump thought he and Israel could do the same in Iran. Instead, it has blown up in his face with Tehran launching a regional war in response.

While the U.S. and Israel started this war together, they have different war aims. Trump had sought a Venezuela-style solution; he wanted to find a figure in the regime that would play the role Delcy Rodriguez did in Caracas and cut a deal to survive on the condition of obeying U.S. dictates. He hoped a reconfigured Iranian regime would then join the Abraham Accords along with the Arab states and normalize relations with Israel.

By contrast, Netanyahu intends to destroy the entire regime, balkanize the country, and wipe out its allies to ensure that none can pose any challenge to Israel’s regional hegemony. Thus, as Trump admitted, Israel undermined Washington’s goal by killing the Iranian leaders Washington hoped to cut a deal with. Unsurprisingly, Israel has paired its blitzkrieg in Iran with a new offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon to go with its ongoing genocide in Gaza and settlement expansion in the West Bank. It aims to carve out its own mini-empire—Greater Israel.

Of course, Israel pressured Trump to launch the war, but it did not sucker him into doing it. The tail does not wag the dog. Even Netanyahu ridiculed that idea in an interview with Sean Hannity. When Hannity said, “There are people that say, ‘Wow, the prime minister of Israel dragged him into it,” Netanyahu laughed. “That’s ridiculous,” he said. “Donald Trump is the strongest leader in the world. He does what he thinks is right for America.”

Thus, Trump launched the war for his own stupid reasons. He is no puppet of Israel. But he catastrophically miscalculated. Iran is not Venezuela; it is a battle-tested, theocratic regime with a loyal base in a minority of the population. It has carried out a regional war and repeatedly crushed every democratic uprising of its workers and the oppressed peoples. And it had been elaborately prepared not only to survive a U.S. and Israeli war but also to launch a devastating counter-attack.

Catastrophic consequences

So, when Trump started this war, Iran withstood the assault and responded by firing missiles and drones at Israel, all the Arab states, and even NATO powers. It attacked Turkey and British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia. And they shut down the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off shipment of oil and natural gas to the world. That sent fossil fuel prices spiraling upwards, threatening global economic growth and setting off inflation—the capitalist nightmare of stagflation.

And the danger to the world economy could get far worse if the conflict escalates. Already, when Israel struck Iran’s natural gas field, Tehran responded by attacking Qatar’s liquid natural gas (LNG) processing plant in Ras Laffan, which supplies Asia with much of its LNG. That provoked Trump to tell Israel to refrain from further strikes. But the damage may have already been done. Qatar reports that it will take 3 to 5 years to repair its massive plant. One analyst said this will lead to the Armageddon scenario—the biggest oil and natural gas shock in history.

But the impact of the war will be even greater than that. Contrary to stereotypes, the importance of the region’s economy to the world extends far beyond fossil fuels. The Gulf states have transformed themselves into centers of industry, international travel, commercial shipping, and finance capital. The disruption of all this will be devastating for the system and, more importantly, for the working class and peasants of the world.

The war and the closure of the Strait are blocking the export of the region’s fertilizer industry. That will lead to shortages and drive up prices of fertilizer right as planting season starts over the next few months across the world. Farmers in the Global North may be able to stomach the costs and gobble up the bulk of the supply, but farmers in the Global South will be priced out of the market, suffer shortages, and produce lower crop yields. The combination of increased fertilizer and fuel costs will trigger a spike in food prices in the Global North and famine in the Global South.

The war is also blocking the region’s export of all sorts of fossil fuel byproducts that are essential for the global economy. For example, its plants produce naphtha, one of the key components for the global manufacturing of plastic, which corporations use for almost everything from packaging to cars and fighter jets. Another example is helium. It is essential for the manufacture of microchips, without which today’s high-tech economy can’t function.

Moreover, the region’s ports and airports are essential hubs for both international travel and commercial transit. Their disruption is causing all sorts of problems in the world economy. Even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens along with the airports, corporations will now distrust them as reliable hubs for transport and commerce, throwing into question their vast investments, infrastructure, and trade and travel routes.

Finally, the Gulf states like the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia have turned themselves into major centers of international finance capital. They have used their funds to invest in all sorts of things, but especially AI data centers, not only in their region, but also in the United States. Now, companies will doubt the security of data centers in the Gulf states. And the Gulf states will have to pull back from their international investment and use their capital to rebuild their own infrastructure. Such a drawback will undercut the U.S. data center boom and could pop the high-tech bubble, the main prop for U.S. capitalism’s growth. Thus, the war is disrupting the whole system.

The logic of escalation

Trump has thereby stumbled into the biggest imperialist crisis since Iraq and potentially a far worse one. The U.S., Israel, and Iran, up until the ceasefire, were locked in a logic of escalation with no clear end in sight. The Iranian regime faced an existential threat and will fight to its death. It therefore expanded the war to force states throughout the region and world to compel the U.S. and Israel to stop it and prevent another one. No doubt they will be determined to build nuclear weapons after the war to deter any future attack.


Trump has thereby stumbled into the biggest imperialist crisis since Iraq and potentially a far worse one.


Iran’s counterattacks forced the U.S. and Israel to respond, prolonging what Trump had hoped would be a quick victory. Thus, like the sorcerer’s apprentice, Trump lost control of a spiraling war. And his decision to stage his own blockade of the Strait of Hormuz to cut off Iranian exports has intensified the conflict’s damage to the world economy.

Faced with this crisis, Trump relented, agreeing to a ceasefire with none of his goals achieved. Iran’s regime remains in power, it still has nuclear stockpiles, it retains significant missile and drone capacity to threaten attacks on the region, and it has promised to continue support for its regional allies in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen.

At this point, the Strait of Hormuz remains blocked, the talks are at stand still, and the world economy stands at the precipice of an even greater crisis. The Iranian regime clearly believes it can weather the standoff longer than the U.S.. While Trump clearly wants to cut a deal, he cannot accept one that further humiliates the U.S. Meanwhile, Israel is braying for more war in Iran and Lebanon.

Regardless of what happens, the U.S. is in the midst of a metastasizing economic, geopolitical, and military crisis. The world economy has been hammered. No one in the region can now trust the United States. All its military bases and defense systems have not protected its vassals like Saudi Arabia but have made them targets for attack. And no regime will risk normalizing relations with Israel against the wishes of the masses of the population in the region, who are now furious with the U.S. and Israel. That puts Trump’s Abraham Accords in jeopardy.

Trump has thoroughly alienated all of Washington’s allies, whom he kept in the dark about his plans to launch the war. Now, with the U.S. in crisis, none of them has agreed to bail Trump out. They all have refused to join his war and send ships to open the Strait of Hormuz. At this point, they want to keep out of it and have become increasingly critical of it. The German chancellor’s remark that Iran had humiliated the U.S. drove Trump in a fit of rage to threaten to withdraw all of Washington’s troops from Europe, threatening the entire NATO alliance.

Even worse for the U.S., Trump’s war has benefited Washington’s main rivals, Russia and China. In a desperate attempt to lower fossil fuel prices, Trump lowered sanctions on Russia’s oil exports. Putin has thus scored a victory, securing desperately needed funds to aid his ailing economy. That will enable him to escalate his imperialist war on Ukraine. Trump lowered sanctions on Russia even though it is aiding Iran by giving it military intelligence. Sensing his advantage, Putin even offered to suspend its intelligence sharing if the U.S. stops doing the same for Ukraine.

China is happy to see the U.S. bogged down in yet another catastrophic war. While it has lost oil and natural gas from Iran, it can, for now, draw on its huge fossil fuel reserves and can expand contracts for more supplies from Russia, further consolidating their “friendship without limits.” But China is not immune to the war’s consequences. It will find difficulties securing key materials for its manufacturing, the global slump will weaken its export markets that are its main engine of continued growth, and countries in its debt will find it ever more difficult to repay their loans, putting Chinese financial capital in jeopardy.

Trump’s intensifying domestic crisis

Trump’s war will intensify his domestic political crisis. Already deeply unpopular, he now faces splits in his MAGA leadership with figures like Tucker Carlson opposing the war. He has also alienated sections of his base that voted for him, believing naively that Trump would keep the U.S. out of “forever wars.” With no end in sight, this war dooms the Republican Party to defeat in the upcoming midterm elections, if they are free and fair. The Democrats will take the House, possibly the Senate, tie Congress up in hearings, block all legislation, and try to impeach Trump and members of his cabinet.

Trump knows that. So, he is turning to more and more authoritarian means to maintain power. He is trying to rig the election through gerrymandering and voter suppression, most recently with the Save America Act, which would effectively disenfranchise millions. The Supreme Court also helped Trump in its recent ruling that overturned Louisiana’s congressional map that afforded Black voters a majority in two districts. Their decision effectively guts the Voting Rights Act, risking a return to electoral white supremacy not seen since the Jim Crow era. Already, in a dangerous precedent, Louisiana has suspended the primary election to enable redistricting to the advantage of the GOP.

In an even more ominous sign, some on the right, like Bannon, have argued for Trump to deploy ICE at polling locations. Trump has already tested the water by deploying ICE to the airports across the country. Thus, U.S. norms of bourgeois democracy hang in the balance. Lest anyone think this to be an exaggeration, three new studies found that the U.S. is slipping toward an autocracy at astonishing speed.

Faced with this spiraling crisis, the Democratic Party spent the last year practically in hiding. They adopted James Carville’s “possum strategy”—literally playing dead when faced with a predator. While outliers like Bernie Sanders and AOC agitated for action against the billionaire class, the establishment Democrats bided their time, hoping Trump would punch himself out and discredit the GOP so that they could sweep the midterms. Then they could find some new corporate standard bearer like Gavin Newsom or JB Pritzker or even worse turn back to genocidaire, Kamala Harris, to win back the White House in 2028 and restore the status quo ante.

Truth be told, the Democratic Party did next to nothing to resist Trump until the Minneapolis mass strike against ICE. Only then did they challenge the funding of ICE and Homeland Security. But just like they have done with police, their demand was not for the abolition of ICE’s racist goon squad, but that its agents wear body cameras, get more training, and stop wearing masks. With those “reforms,” they have promised to grant ICE more funding! That should surprise no one since the Democrats have bankrolled DHS and ICE with billions since their creation in 2003. And, under Obama and Biden, they used ICE and Border Patrol to deport millions of people.

Their supposed opposition to Trump’s catastrophic war on Iran has been even more pathetic. Why? Because they share with the GOP U.S. imperialism’s determination since Iran’s 1979 revolution to topple the Islamic Republic. So, their initial objections were procedural—that Trump had not made the case for war, had not secured support from Congress under the War Powers Act, and had no plan or clearly stated goals. And their main concern is that Trump’s idiotic war has weakened U.S. imperialism and its capacity to fight China and Russia.

While some reformists in the party have denounced the war, they remain trapped in an imperialist party, which is both reactionary and incapacitated in a moment of emergency. As a result, despite the fact that the Democrats are likely to win the midterms, if the elections happen in any normal fashion, they remain deeply unpopular and offer no solutions to the system’s crises and popular grievances.

In resistance, there is hope

Unlike the Democratic Party, workers and the oppressed have risen up against Trump, producing a mass heterogeneous resistance. Some of its currents predate Trump’s presidency, like the Palestine solidarity movement, which persists despite state repression and hostility from liberal and Zionist forces. Most other currents have been galvanized by Trump’s unrelenting class and social attacks, particularly on ICE’s war on immigrants. All these converged in Minneapolis, culminating in a mass strike and protest that forced Trump to retreat, fire his commander of the Border Patrol, Greg Bovino, demote Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, and withdraw hundreds of ICE and Border Patrol agents.

That uprising against ICE was based on a developed infrastructure of resistance forged over the last couple of decades. That included the George Floyd uprising against police brutality, union organizing and strikes, immigrant rights struggles, and indigenous-led climate justice campaigns. But most parts of the country lack this infrastructure of resistance. And even there, the militant minority and revolutionary Left remain small as elsewhere. These hamper the organization and politics of the resistance.

Nevertheless, the struggle is forging new organizations and a new Left. The two main organized currents of the national resistance are Indivisible and May Day Strong. Indivisible was formed by two Democratic Party organizers who explicitly conceived the project as a means to galvanize its base in struggle and then turn it to elections to defeat Trump and Republicans. It is thus a popular front formation, wedding workers and the oppressed to a capitalist party in the hopes of securing liberal reforms.

It has staged three massive No Kings rallies. But, because of its ties to the Democratic Party, it has tended to exclude Palestine solidarity activists and has proved reluctant to even include opposition to the war on Iran. Its strategy is to turn the millions on its demonstrations into campaigners for the Democrats in the midterms and 2028 presidential elections. But, as we know from bitter experience, the Democrats are no alternative for the vast majority. Nevertheless, the people at those demonstrations are open to much more radical ideas and strategies.

The other formation, May Day Strong, was spearheaded by the Chicago Teachers Union. It has brought together unions, immigrant rights groups, other social movement organizations, and NGOs in a potential united front of working-class forces. It does include Indivisible and another liberal formation, 5051, and it is limited by the horizons of the left union bureaucracy. Nevertheless, it has put May Day back on the map, encouraged solidarity schools to prepare unions to stage political strikes against Trump, and pushed the slogan, “no work, no school, no shopping,” for this year’s May Day.

May Day Strong offers the Left a national vehicle to advance the argument for a general strike to challenge Trump’s increasingly authoritarian regime. Its explicit model is the South Korean strike that blocked a coup and toppled the government. That said, it does not exist in all cities and towns. It is also not immune from co-optation by the Democrats through the trade union officialdom’s alliance with the party’s reformist wing. And it is an ominous sign that Indivisible plays such a prominent role in its midst. Nonetheless, May Day Strong is an important strategic orientation for the revolutionary left in building the resistance. Our challenge is how to forge similar local formations aligned with the national coalition. It is our best shot to agitate for mass, independent working-class action to topple the Trump regime.

 Rebirth of the revolutionary Left

This new epoch of crisis, imperialist rivalry, authoritarianism, and resistance is opening up space for the construction of a new socialist Left. Indeed, all political organizations are now growing from reformism to neo-Stalinism and revolutionary socialism. The struggle is on to shape a new generation’s politics, strategies, and tactics for an epoch of crisis and class struggle.

Tempest argues that the tradition of socialism from below offers the best way to fight here and now on the road to international socialism. We aim to embody these politics in an organization with branches that avoid the traps of the micro party that has paralyzed our forebears—ideological uniformity, sectarianism, ultraleftism, and organization building in isolation from the living struggle. Join us to build a socialist organization, forge new infrastructures of resistance, cohere a militant minority, and eventually found a revolutionary party. These are tall tasks, but necessary ones in our apocalyptic times.

This article was originally published by Tempest; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.

 

Source: Inside Climate News

This investigation was reported in collaboration between Inside Climate News and Columbia Journalism Investigations.

BLACK HILLS, S.D.—Trina Lone Hill wasn’t surprised that mining companies had found lithium in South Dakota’s Black Hills. Gold and uranium had drawn drillers to the Lakota Sioux tribe’s hallowed ground in these western highlands years ago. Now, with this new mineral powering the global green-energy transition, the tribe’s historic preservation officer had one thought: “Here we go again.”

About 1,000 miles away in southwest Nevada, Joe Kennedy, of the Timbisha Shoshone tribe, watched a sacred stream fade after a lithium-mining company began drilling in search of the mineral—all while his tribe fought to prevent a second company from boring into the aquifer beneath its reservation.

And in western Arizona, Brandon Siewiyumptewa, of the Hualapai Tribe, witnessed fissures crack open the earth and drain a spring sacred to his people after another mining company had drilled into land they warned would be too fragile to touch.

Scenes like these have played out across the country as the U.S. ramps up production of lithium—a key metal for electric vehicle batteries. By 2030, at least sixnew mining projects are projected to extract lithium from American soil and another 13 will soon follow—mostly in the dry Southwest. That’s a huge jump from the single one currently in operation. And it’s just a fifth of the more than 100 projects to which companies have staked claims, according to a unique database compiled by Columbia Journalism Investigations (CJI) and Inside Climate News (ICN). 

Using public records and corporate filings accessed through the financial firm S&P Global, CJI and ICN have identified roughly 540 proposed lithium mines worldwide, as well as operators and shareholders behind them. The original dataset underscores how quickly the U.S. is becoming a player in the global lithium market: An analysis of the data shows U.S. lithium’s global market share rising from less than 1 percent today to as high as 8 percent in the next five years alone. 

Touted as a way to strengthen U.S. energy independence, the rush for lithium gained momentum during the Biden administration. But under the banner of “Drill, Baby, Drill,” President Donald Trump has supercharged it. Records and interviews show mounting pressure on federal officials to fast-track permits and greenlight lithium projects in a fraction of the standard timeline. To push projects forward, the Trump administration has taken the unprecedented step of buying shares in lithium mines to guarantee federal loans. 

On the ground, dozens of proposed mines manifest as wooden stakes marking land claims or massive drills boring into rock or brine. Yet as mining companies seek permits and lure investors, frontline communities must grapple with the fallout of the so-called “white gold.”

Socially and economically vulnerable communities are bearing the brunt of this boom, according to an analysis by CJI and ICN. The newsrooms mapped lithium mines with tribal lands and county demographic measures, such as income and race. Nearly two-thirds of all lithium projects are located in vulnerable counties—many of them places where people in poverty and people of color disproportionately live. 

Trina Lone Hill, historic preservation officer for the Oglala Lakota, wears beaded earrings passed down from her great-great-grandmother, who fought at the Battle of Little Bighorn (Greasy Grass), where Lakota and allied tribes defeated U.S. Army forces in 1876. She brings her children to the site each year to mark the anniversary and teach them that their heritage is not only defined by loss. Credit: Carla Samon Ros/CJI
Trina Lone Hill, historic preservation officer for the Oglala Lakota, wears beaded earrings passed down from her great-great-grandmother, who fought at the Battle of Little Bighorn (Greasy Grass), where Lakota and allied tribes defeated U.S. Army forces in 1876. She brings her children to the site each year to mark the anniversary and teach them that their heritage is not only defined by loss. Credit: Carla Samon Ros/CJI

Indigenous communities are hard hit: Roughly one in 10 proposed mines sits within 10 miles of a tribal reservation, even though reservations comprise 2 percent of U.S. land overall. And that doesn’t take into account the millions of acres of lost tribal territory. 

Many Native Americans, like Lone Hill, fear getting caught up in yet another mineral’s development for what the extraction industry calls the “greater good,” they say. Tribes forced off ancestral territory by past mining activities say their cultural and historical sites remain at risk today. Federal regulators’ inability to protect tribal interests—coupled with an outdated mining law that lacks safeguards—has given companies near-total freedom to exploit public land, according to one 2023 government report assessing the mine-permitting process. 

The combination paves the way for history to repeat itself. 

“All those minerals … are right in our sacred sites,” Lone Hill said. The pattern of sidelining tribal voices and dispossession, she added, “has always been oppressive.”Red dots show lithium projects from our dataset, including proposed, developing and operating mines. Blue dots show sites detected by an algorithm trained to identify features that resemble lithium operations. These detections can help identify discrepancies with public records or uncover unreported activity, but it’s imperfect, so use with caution. Hit the “i” button for more information about this Lithium Atlas.

The U.S. Department of the Interior did not respond to multiple requests for an interview for this story, or to a list of written questions. In a statement, the department said it “is taking urgent action to strengthen America’s supply of critical minerals and domestic energy to protect national and economic security and reduce reliance on foreign sources.” 

While it has streamlined permitting, the department said it will continue to comply with the law, including for environmental review and tribal consultation. 

“Honoring our trust and treaty responsibilities to tribes and engaging communities early and meaningfully remain core to our mission,” the statement said.

Kate Finn, who founded the California-based nonprofit Tallgrass Institute—formerly known as First Peoples Worldwide, which works to create equitable partnerships between Indigenous peoples and the private sector—said there’s still time for federal officials to consult tribes on new lithium projects. But with so many mines in development and officials scaling back practices meant to include tribal perspectives, she believes the U.S. government is facing a critical moment in its relationship with Indigenous nations.

“There are incredible risks that are not being viewed in total,” said Finn, noting potential legal battles and other conflicts with Indigenous peoples. “To skip over those [risks] is detrimental and really shows that the green transition may not live up to its promise.”

“A Very Aggressive Schedule”

The move to accelerate domestic lithium production dates to the first Trump administration. In 2017, the Interior Department ordered faster reviews of proposed projects on public land. Within three years, Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the permitting process, reduced environmental assessments from four years to 15 months, on average, BLM told a congressional committee at the time.

“In addition to the faster review time, this reform has resulted in enhanced coordination with elected officials, tribes, other federal agencies and the public,” said William Perry Pendley, then chief of the BLM, in written testimony. 

But the sole lithium mine approved by the BLM during Trump’s first term suggests otherwise. Developed by the Canadian company Lithium Americas, Thacker Pass sits near the Oregon–Nevada border. In 1865, U.S. soldiers massacred several dozen Paiute people around here. Every year, tribes gather on this land—which the Paiute call Peehee Mu’huh, or “rotten moon”—for a prayer horse ride to honor the victims.

An aerial view of Thacker Pass near the Oregon–Nevada border. Credit: EcoFlight
An aerial view of Thacker Pass near the Oregon–Nevada border. Credit: EcoFlight

Agency emails uncovered in a lawsuit later filed by the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony against BLM show staff scrambling to meet a one-year deadline to issue Thacker Pass a permit.

“I’m thoroughly frustrated trying to keep this process moving given the complexities of this proposal,” one employee wrote in an April 2020 email to BLM’s Nevada office, explaining a draft of the unfinished environmental study was due in a day.

Employees ended up approving the project five days before Trump left office in January 2021—at the expense of this historic tribal site, critics say.

Tribal and local parties, as well as environmental groups, sued the BLM that year, alleging the agency hadn’t properly consulted federally recognized tribes affected by the project, among other claims. A judge ruled there was “no question BLM could have done more” to contact tribes, according to a 2021 ruling, but found the agency had made a “reasonable” decision about who it should consult.

The Biden administration fueled the lithium rush further by funneling billions of public dollars into clean-energy projects—including $2.26 billion for Thacker Pass.

In a statement provided to CJI and ICN, Tim Crowley, Lithium Americas’ senior vice president for government and external affairs, notes the company “has worked extensively with the local community and tribes,” and is proud of the community benefits agreement it has signed with the Fort McDermitt Tribe.

“The Thacker Pass project complies with all applicable state and federal laws and has undergone rigorous environmental review,” Crowley said. “Any assertion to the contrary is baseless.”

Another beneficiary of this windfall was the Australian company Ioneer, which is planning a lithium mine on Nevada’s Rhyolite Ridge, home to a rare, endangered wildflower. Environmental and tribal groups have argued the Rhyolite Ridge mine—which is expected to produce enough lithium to power 370,000 electric vehicles annually—could drive the flower to extinction and threaten a spring sacred to the Western Shoshone.

Tiehm’s buckwheat is a rare wildflower found only at the site of the proposed Rhyolite Ridge mine, thanks in part to the soil being rich in the minerals the mine seeks to extract. Credit: Wyatt Myskow/Inside Climate News
Tiehm’s buckwheat is a rare wildflower found only at the site of the proposed Rhyolite Ridge mine, thanks in part to the soil being rich in the minerals the mine seeks to extract. Credit: Wyatt Myskow/Inside Climate News

While Biden’s Interior Department replaced his predecessor’s rule on fast-tracked reviews, internal emails show BLM employees remained under pressure to advance Ioneer’s project. In a December 2023 email to Ioneer, one BLM employee noted the company’s groundwater model would have to be approved “without any edits or comments” to meet the agency’s deadline.

“This is a very aggressive schedule that deviates from other project schedules on similar projects completed recently,” the employee said.

Ten months later, BLM greenlit the Rhyolite Ridge Lithium Boron Project—the only lithium mine authorized during Biden’s presidency. In January 2025, three days before Biden left the White House, his administration gave Ioneer a $996 million loan guarantee to break ground on the mine. 

The Western Shoshone Defense Project and other groups filed a 2024 lawsuit over the mine’s approval. In March, a judge upheld the BLM’s action. The Indigenous rights and environmental groups appealed. 

Bernard Rowe, Ioneer’s managing director, told CJI and ICN that the volatile lithium market and funding issues have delayed the project, but it’s only a matter of time before the mine gets built. At the site, Rowe has examined the lithium-rich clay abundant in the area. 

“There isn’t another lithium deposit like that that we know of anywhere in the world,” he said. 

Bernard Rowe, Ioneer’s managing director, holds a piece of clay filled with lithium near the site of the Rhyolite Ridge Mine. Credit: Wyatt Myskow/Inside Climate News

Rowe examines the site of the Rhyolite Ridge mine in an area where a rare wildflower found nowhere else in the world grows. Credit: Wyatt Myskow/Inside Climate News
Rowe examines the site of the Rhyolite Ridge mine in an area where a rare wildflower found nowhere else in the world grows. Credit: Wyatt Myskow/Inside Climate News

Steve Feldgus, Interior’s deputy assistant secretary for land and minerals management from 2021 to 2024, said his team aimed to prevent permit approvals that later could be delayed by legal challenges.

“We wanted things to be done right,” he said. “But it’s totally possible that individual staff felt there was pressure to move faster than they wanted.”

Now more than a year into Trump’s second term, the accelerated reviews proliferate. In March 2025, the president signed an executive order to speed up permits for new lithium mines and other critical-minerals projects that can be “immediately approved.” The order makes no mention of BLM’s longstanding practice of consulting Native American tribes affected by proposed mines on public land.

One month later, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, the former North Dakota governor and an oil industry ally, introduced a radical change: Regulators will get roughly 28 days to review and comment on projects’ environmental impacts. Indigenous tribes? Seven days to respond.

Under these guidelines, BLM announced it would give the public just five days to comment on a proposed lithium drilling site on the Oregon side of the McDermitt Caldera, a volcanic depression containing one of the world’s largest known lithium deposits and home to the Thacker Pass mine on the Nevada side. A subsidiary of the Australian mining company Jindalee Lithium, HiTech Minerals Inc., plans to drill 168 exploratory holes in this biodiverse region, affecting the same tribes as Thacker Pass. Tribal members have long hunted and gathered traditional medicines in the area. 

​​Public outrage ultimately prompted BLM to extend the public comment period to 30 days. But by then, the agency had added Jindalee’s project to a new federal effort meant to streamline development, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, known as “FAST-41.” To date, the Trump administration has flagged nine lithium mines for the program. It approved Jindalee’s drilling in December; three environmental groups have since sued.

Jindalee CEO Ian Rodger said in a statement to CJI and ICN that the company was not aware in advance of the BLM’s decision to shorten the public comment period for the proposed drilling. Jindalee supported BLM extending the deadline, he said, and the company will join the agency in its defense of the project approval.

The project is only for exploratory drilling, not yet a full-scale mine, Rodger added. He said the company is committed to continued community and tribal consultation. In April, Jindalee’s HiTech Minerals merged with Constellation Acquisition Corp. to form US Elemental Inc. and announced plans to go public.

“It’s my backyard there,” said Myron Smart, an elder in the Fort McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone tribe who has advocated for the region’s protection. “It really bothers me. But what can I do? I’m just at the bottom of the totem pole. I don’t have no say over anything. The only thing that I rely on is my prayer.”

Despite Smart’s prayers, mining developments at nearby Thacker Pass march forward. In September, the Trump administration renegotiated the Biden-era loan with Lithium Americas, giving the U.S. Department of Energy a 5 percent stake in both company and project. 

In a statement on the deal, Energy Secretary Chris Wright thanked the president for his “bold leadership.”

“American lithium production is going to skyrocket,” Wright said.

“The Last Checkbox” 

The legal framework for BLM’s permitting process dates back more than 150 years, when, following California’s Gold Rush, Congress passed the General Mining Act of 1872. The act allows American citizens and companies to stake mining claims on public land—using literal wooden stakes. Federal officials will grant exclusive mining rights to any entity if it shows the ground beneath has minerals. Established mining claims are treated much like private property—almost impossible to revoke even for conservation purposes.

“It’s like, ‘Here, go [prospect for minerals]. If you find anything, it’s all yours,’” said Feldgus, the former Interior official.

Regulators can intervene if environmental damage exceeds what’s considered “necessary” for extraction, a subjective threshold that’s rarely met. Unlike other federal laws, the act doesn’t require the U.S. government to consult with tribes about how mining might affect their health, environment and heritage on ancestral territory outside reservation boundaries, a safeguard enshrined in international law.

The BLM has issued a patchwork of policy manuals instructing staff on how to carry out the environmental reviews and limited tribal consultations required by modern laws. These policy documents stipulate that such consultations should be “meaningful,” reflect a “government-to-government relationship” and involve a “reasonable and good-faith effort” to consider tribal concerns.

In practice, the agency rarely enforces its own policies, Indigenous leaders say. Typically, tribal consultations occur too late to make a difference, if they happen at all.

“It’s insufficient,” said Finn, of the Tallgrass Institute. Better consultation would help, she said, but even more than that, “we need consent.”

At the tribal headquarters on Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota—home to the Lakota people, who are part of the Sioux Nation—Lone Hill serves as the key liaison between the tribe and the federal agencies. On a visit to her office last spring, her desk brimmed with documents. None involved the lithium activities occurring in the Black Hills, which are on private land located within the tribe’s ancestral territory. 

Framed photos in Trina Lone Hill’s office show her father, Mel Lone Hill, a former tribal vice-president and cultural leader, and her great-grandfather, Chief Frank Fools Crow, a prominent Lakota spiritual leader and fierce advocate for treaty rights. Credit: Carla Samon Ros/CJI
Framed photos in Trina Lone Hill’s office show her father, Mel Lone Hill, a former tribal vice-president and cultural leader, and her great-grandfather, Chief Frank Fools Crow, a prominent Lakota spiritual leader and fierce advocate for treaty rights. Credit: Carla Samon Ros/CJI

On public land, federal agencies should notify tribes about proposed lithium projects that might affect them and give tribal members at least 30 days to comment. But official notice doesn’t always arrive. And when it does, tribes may not have the resources or expertise to respond.

When Lone Hill gets a call, she said, she’s learned to remind regulators: “This [phone call]isn’t a formal consultation.” Regulators must reach out to the tribal councils to kick off the official process.

“They just want to say, ‘We sent you the notice, so you know about it …we’re done,’” said Lone Hill, who calls tribal consultation “the last checkbox.” 

“It’s just all a play,” she added.

Some foreign firms have tried to change that. Take Integra Resources, a Canadian company developing a gold and silver mine on several tribes’ ancestral homeland, including the Shoshone-Paiute, in Idaho. Several years ago, Integra sought to initiate a tribal consultation much like it would have in Canada, said Mark Stockton, its vice president for external affairs and sustainability. Unable to obtain a comprehensive list of tribal contacts from the local BLM office, Integra did its own research, relying on old maps and asking tribal councils for help.

BLM employees “just don’t know, and they don’t have contacts,” Stockton said. “They don’t know who to call.”

A roadside sign marks the entrance to the Oglala Lakota Nation on South Dakota’s Pine Ridge Reservation, southeast of the Black Hills. Credit: Carla Samon Ros/CJI
A roadside sign marks the entrance to the Oglala Lakota Nation on South Dakota’s Pine Ridge Reservation, southeast of the Black Hills. Credit: Carla Samon Ros/CJI

Despite an executive order issued in 2000 and subsequent White House directives calling for more consistent tribal consultation standards and annual training, former BLM employees note that the agency’s policy standards remain vague, with little guidance on what tribal consultations should entail. As a result, interpretations can vary among district offices; often, tribal engagement falls to staff archaeologists rather than chief administrators. A universal training standard doesn’t exist, Feldgus confirmed. 

In 2022, Feldgus headed an interagency working group that examined how to improve the permitting process for mines on public land. A year later, the group released a report outlining broad reforms, such as establishing training policies and providing tribes with resources to ensure they can participate. The report concluded these efforts would fall short without a fundamental overhaul of the country’s 1872 mining act.

Feldgus said the act is “so unfathomably beneficial” to the mining industries that they “fight to the death to keep it, and they have enough supporters in Congress who really care [to preserve it].” 

During his tenure, he said, the BLM worked to expand informal tribal consultations before the official permitting process started and to hire additional BLM tribal liaisons. But the agency was still recovering from the hollowing out of its workforce during the first Trump administration. The COVID-19 pandemic and complex federal hiring procedures made rebuilding harder.

The second Trump administration’s push to streamline permitting threatens to undo it all. “Now the situation is going to be that much worse,” Feldgus said.

Never Trading Land for Lithium

As lithium development accelerates, new mining claims can appear and vanish so quickly that residents struggle to keep track. In the Black Hills, longtime Custer resident Meg King monitors locations where companies drill for lithium, piecing together what information she can. The forested mountains, central to the Sioux Nation’s ancestral territory, consist of a hodgepodge of public and private land that enables exploration to remain largely hidden. As her car crept along a gravel road near the town of Custer in the southern Black Hills, she looked for the place where she’d spotted the latest drilling site. 

“Down there between the trees—you can see the delivery trucks!” King said, motioning toward a clearing where snow remnants clung to the hills.

Inching toward a tangle of trees, she found a path blocked by signs that read “Private Property,” alongside others bearing the name “IRIS Metals,” an Australian lithium mining company that has turned a Custer storage unit into its field office. 

A mural on a military recruiting facility in the historic mining town of Custer, in the center of the Black Hills, features imagery that echoes and celebrates narratives of American expansion, patriotism and military power. Credit: Carla Samon Ros/CJI
A mural on a military recruiting facility in the historic mining town of Custer, in the center of the Black Hills, features imagery that echoes and celebrates narratives of American expansion, patriotism and military power. Credit: Carla Samon Ros/CJI

Understanding why this land matters to the Lakota Sioux requires confronting the history of land ownership in the Black Hills, King says. She’s learned about it through her work as a tribal lawyer and from spending time on the tribe’s Pine Ridge Reservation, immersing herself in its heritage.

From 1778 to 1871, the U.S. government signed more than 350 treaties with Native American tribes to formalize relations between sovereign nations. The treaties assigned distinct borders to tribal territory in exchange for peace, but did little to protect tribal interests once settlers moved west. Many treaties were rewritten without tribal consent. Others shattered when military troops seized tribal land, killing and displacing thousands of Indigenous people.

When federal officials signed the treaty with the Sioux Nation in 1868, they promised to set aside land encompassing the Black Hills for the tribe’s “absolute and undisturbed use and occupation.” But gold seekers soon trespassed on this territory; in 1875, officials tried to purchase land to settle conflicts. Lakota Sioux’s chiefs vowed to sell the Black Hills only for a price high enough to provide for their tribe’s women and children in perpetuity. 

In response, U.S. soldiers stormed the Black Hills and blocked the tribe from hunting on its land. They forced starving tribal members to sign a new agreement that would nullify the Sioux Treaty of 1868. As a result, the Sioux, including the Lakota, lost roughly two-thirds of their treaty land, including the revered Black Hills.

“Once they found that gold, they didn’t care,” said Lone Hill. “They gave us those lands, and then they said, ‘We’ll take it back now.’”

Tribes lost additional territory when federal legislators passed a law dividing all reservation land into farm plots for individual Native American families. Land deemed “surplus” became a real estate free-for-all, sold or leased to white settlers, cattle ranchers and miners. Many Indigenous people, often assigned the low-quality plots, struggled to grow crops on their farms and had to sell, tribal historians explain. By 1934, Native land holdings had shrunk from 138 million acres to 48 million. 

At the Indigenous-led nonprofit organization NDN Collective’s headquarters in Rapid City, South Dakota, which borders the eastern Black Hills, then-staff organizer Taylor Gunhammer noted in an interview last year that this chapter of American history is rarely recognized in the mythology of westward expansion.

“At a certain point, operating these mines and establishing these settlements stopped being about pure capitalism, pure greed, and it started to be about harming Indians,” said Gunhammer, a Lakota Sioux member who presses for Indigenous empowerment. “The wealth accumulated from all that extraction was a self-awarded prize for harming Indians, which was at the time, and possibly still is, the most American patriotic thing.”

About 50 miles southeast of Custer—named after George Armstrong Custer, the Army general who led the first mineral expedition into Sioux territory—what remains of the tribe’s land emerges on the horizon: Pine Ridge Reservation. The 2.2 million acres stretch across open and sparsely settled grasslands, punctuated by deteriorating housing, clusters of abandoned vehicles and potholed roads. Nearly 30,000 Lakota Sioux people live here—more than half under 18, according to Lone Hill, sitting in her office flanked by portraits of her great-grandfather.

Graves mark the site of the 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre on the Pine Ridge Reservation. Trina Lone Hill, who has ancestors who were killed here, recalls driving by the cemetery with her 10-year-old son after he kept asking why the killings happened. “They wanted our land,” she told him. “It was politics.” Credit: Carla Samon Ros/CJI
Trina Lone Hill, who has ancestors who were killed at Wounded Knee in 1890, recalls driving by the memorial site (pictured) with her 10-year-old son after he kept asking why the killings happened. “They wanted our land,” she told him. “It was politics.” Credit: Carla Samon Ros/CJI

She considers her historic preservation officer job to be a sacred responsibility, guided by her ancestors’ voices to protect their land from mining. But she says it’s hard to rally community members when daily life is shaped by poverty. According to the U.S. Census, only a third of working-age adults on the reservation are employed.

“Food, general welfare, health,” said Lone Hill, ticking off issues that loom large for tribal members. The environment often comes last, she said, because people are too busy trying to survive. 

Lone Hill remembers a time when the Lakota people moved with the seasons: spring brought the tribe out of the Black Hills after sheltering in its trees all winter; summer meant traveling back to sacred sites like Devils Tower in Wyoming. Families came together on summer solstices for sun dances and spiritual renewal. The Black Hills was their “little sanctuary,” she recalled—open for hunting, fishing, prayer gatherings.

Now, because of national monument and forestry designations, tribal members say federal regulations have limited those ceremonial practices. Often, they need permits to leave traditional offerings like prayer bundles full of tobacco and herbs.

Reflecting on all that past mining has taken from the tribe without giving back, she said they would never trade their land for lithium development. “This is our tribal footprint—we’re still fighting for these lands to be left untouched.” 

Other Indigenous communities share this conviction. Near Wikieup, Arizona, Brandon Siewiyumptewa, the Hualapai tribesman, worked for about a month overseeing the tribe’s sacred spring and the ranch before noticing something strange: Water stopped flowing. Eventually, the spring dried up, and the earth cracked open. The only other change he could detect? An Australian mining company had begun drilling for lithium. 

The remains of Fort Laramie in Wyoming, a key site on the frontier of U.S. expansion, where treaties with the Sioux Nation were signed in 1851 and 1868. Credit: Carla Samon Ros/CJI
The remains of Fort Laramie in Wyoming, a key site on the frontier of U.S. expansion, where treaties with the Sioux Nation were signed in 1851 and 1868. Credit: Carla Samon Ros/CJI

For years, the Hualapai Nation warned that Arizona Lithium’s Big Sandy Lithium Project could impact their cherished spring. The tribe called attention to the site’s status as a cultural property eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and hired a hydrologist to study how the drilling could affect it. An expert federal panel later urged the BLM to consider “the clear potential for effects on the Ha’Kamwe’ historic property.” 

The agency approved the mining project’s third-largest drilling phase in June 2024, relying on a 24-year-old study to conclude the drilling would not harm the spring. 

That same year, the tribe sued the BLM over Big Sandy’s approval and won a temporary restraining order pausing the drilling. In February 2025, Arizona Lithium rescinded its plan, returning to the drawing board.

It’s a rare win for a tribe, largely due to its location and the judge’s determination that the BLM had not properly studied the project’s impacts to groundwater and a protected historical site, said Roger Flynn, director of the legal nonprofit Western Mining Action Project, who represented the Hualapai. 

This story is funded by readers like you.

Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.

Donate Now

Arizona Lithium has since been purchased by the Navajo Transitional Energy Co., which owns the project. It did not respond to requests for comment.

The Hualapai continue to face threats from other mines. Ka-Voka Jackson, the tribe’s historic preservation officer, said keeping up with developments has taken much of her time—time she’d rather spend building the tribe’s language, arts and ethno-botany classes.

“We have a lot of responsibility to our people [and] the land,” Jackson said, but the barrage of mining projects “doesn’t seem to ever stop or slow down.”

U.S. Laws “Don’t Give Us Any Rights”

Sioux Nation members, including the Lakota people from Pine Ridge, have spent decades in court fighting to reclaim their traditional territory. As far back as 1923, the tribe sued the federal government, arguing their treaty rights were invalidated illegally—and the U.S. Supreme Court partly agreed. In a landmark 1980 decision, the court ruled the government had violated the original Sioux Treaty of 1868and essentially stolen tribal land. 

Of the breach, a lower court—quoted in the Supreme Court’s decision—ruled that a “more ripe and rank case of dishonorable dealings will never, in all probability, be found in our history.” 

But the justices stopped short of deeming the land’s seizure itself illegal and instead ordered Congress to pay about $105 million for it as “just compensation,” including interest accrued since the 1877 taking. 

Lakota Sioux members have refused to accept the money. Left in a federal trust account, the award has since grown to about $2 billion.

“We want the land back. We don’t want money,” Gunhammer said.

Taylor Gunhammer stands outside the headquarters of NDN Collective in Rapid City, S.D. Credit: Carla Samon Ros/CJI
Taylor Gunhammer stands outside the headquarters of NDN Collective in Rapid City, S.D. Credit: Carla Samon Ros/CJI

Several Native American tribes have brought similar territorial claims in federal court, often citing the Sioux case. Some ended in financial settlements; others were dismissed or stretched into protracted legal battles. Many cases never restored tribal control over land.

In Nevada, ground zero for America’s lithium rush, Western Shoshone members, much like their Sioux counterparts, have maintained that they never ceded their ancestral land. The roughly 80 million acres stretches across multiple states in the West, encompassing the contentious Rhyolite Ridge and Thacker Pass lithium projects. Today, many of the state’s 69 proposed mines are sited in or near the tribe’s traditional territory. 

Like the Sioux, the Shoshone have sued the federal government over its land loss, arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court twice—first in 1984 and again in 2007. But the court dismissed the claims. The government classified money the tribe had accepted as compensation for past damages to the land as payment for the land itself, arguing the tribe had relinquished it, said Fermina Stevens, a Western Shoshone member who heads the Western Shoshone Defense Project, a nonprofit advocating for land and treaty rights. Now, she said, tribal members fear they have little recourse to stop the adverse impacts from projects planned across their ancestral territory.

“The [American] laws don’t give us any rights,” Stevens said. 

Joe Kennedy, Timbisha Shoshone tribe’s former chairman, has spent his life exploring the terrain where construction for the Rhyolite Ridge mine is scheduled to begin later this year. The 58-year-old, who has hunted and gathered pine nuts here since he was a child, has seen dramatic changes. Now, he says, much of what was once there is gone, as drought intensifies and mining companies drill in the region. 

The Sioux Nation’s precedent-setting case involving traditional tribal territory hinges on the 1831 legal classification of Native American tribes as “domestic dependent nations,” says Akim Reinhardt, a Towson University history professor who studies Indigenous communities in North America. Rather than treat tribes as fully sovereign nations, the doctrine treats them as subject to American laws—self-governing, but ultimately under U.S. authority in a guardian-ward relationship. Reinhardt describes the classification as “a convenient legal fiction” designed by U.S. courts to justify an unequal power relationship.

Building on this, the courts have ruled over time that the U.S. holds ultimate title to tribal lands and that Congress can unilaterally change or override constitutionally recognized treaties made with tribes—unlike those between independent nations under international law.

This legal framework helps explain why the U.S. Supreme Court would recognize the Black Hills seizure as wrongful but not order it returned to the Sioux peoples. Under U.S. law, Congress can take tribal land for public use in exchange for fair compensation. The court ruled that the taking was unlawful only because it failed to pay for the land at the time. Paradoxically, U.S. law treats mining claims as highly protected property rights, which makes them more secure than an Indigenous land right recognized by treaty.

Soon after the mine installed monitoring wells in 2019, Cave Spring, a sacred site where Shoshone members gather for cultural teachings and harvest pine nuts known for their golden shells, went dry, Kennedy says. 

While groundwater-monitoring wells don’t remove water, they can affect hydrologic flow. But Chad Yeftich, Ioneer’s vice president for corporate development and external affairs, said in a statement that the project is not affecting the site.

“Independently verified hydrological analysis … and the BLM’s Environmental Impact Statement conclude that the availability of water at Cave Springs is affected by the precipitation cycle in the Silver Peak Range and not by Ioneer’s past, current or future activity,” he said.

Years before the Rhyolite Ridge project was approved, international human rights bodies sided with the Western Shoshone concerning their land loss claims. In 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which investigates and reports on human rights abuses across North and South America, found that the U.S. government hadn’t adequately compensated the tribe for its lost property, or ensured its access to spiritually and culturally significant land. And in a warning letter four years later, a United Nations committee urged the government to cease actions taken against the Western Shoshone people.

Federal officials ignored these rulings. And the U.S. government has refused to ratify international agreements meant to protect Indigenous sovereignty and rights. That includes the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples resolution that calls on officials to obtain the “informed consent” of Indigenous communities before approving development projects that affect them directly. 

“Our religion doesn’t seem to matter to the United States or these mining companies,” Kennedy said. “That’s the hurtful part: We have to witness the destruction of these areas that are important to us.”

Alysha Khambay, who researches business and human rights in energy transition projects for Amnesty International, said governments and companies alike are using the race for clean energy to sidestep due process.

“The pattern that we’re seeing,” she said, “is the creation of what we call sacrifice zones for the energy transition. And while the transition is critical in the face of the climate crisis, it can’t come at the cost of human rights.”

Fast-Tracking Could Backfire

Studies and interviews with lawmakers and experts suggest that cutting down on environmental reviews or tribal consultations won’t significantly speed up the build-out of a domestic lithium industry, as Burgum has claimed. Delays come, for instance, from companies not following permitting rules and submitting incomplete information, or from swings in mineral prices that affect company financing. Bringing a mine into operation consequently takes 15 to 20 years on average, so shaving off a year during permitting can only marginally speed up the process. Instead, many experts warn that fast-tracking mines could backfire.

“Failing to involve these communities early and equitably can result in project delays, litigation or complete shutdowns,” said Tom Moerenhout of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. 

Interviews and research indicate that understaffed agencies struggling to process applications are also a key source of delays. Last year, more than 100 federal lawmakers sent a letter urging the Trump administration to reverse executive orders that would slash funding, eliminate jobs essential to tribal programs and, they warned, ultimately “undermine” tribal sovereignty, violating treaty obligations and the Constitution. The White House moved forward anyway, cutting about 11,000 Interior Department jobs as part of massive layoffs and resignations across the government. 

“I don’t know if the administration really understands … [who] could be critical for some permits,” Feldgus said. “I think they lost a lot of people who can do that.” 

A home on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, where a tipi stands alongside trailers and parked vehicles—a blend of tradition and modern life in a region shaped by decades of underinvestment. Credit: Carla Samon Ros/CJI
A home on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, where a tipi stands alongside trailers and parked vehicles—a blend of tradition and modern life in a region shaped by decades of underinvestment. Credit: Carla Samon Ros/CJI

One former BLM archaeologist and tribal liaison, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation, said he accepted the administration’s second resignation offer after burning out from trying to cover multiple roles at once amid staffing shortages, and because he saw little chance that situation would improve under Trump. While the first offer placed no restrictions on who could leave, the second wasn’t available to employees involved in the permitting process—including archaeologists. By then, he says, he had stepped into a project manager role while backfilling as an archaeologist, and officials didn’t realize he should have been ineligible to leave.  

Lone Hill has seen an immediate impact. Federal employees with whom she has worked on tribal consultations have lost their jobs, sometimes in the middle of the process. One of them handed her an envelope with a promised report, she told CJI and ICN in March 2025, then was fired a few days later. 

Though the price of lithium has been down in recent years, plans to mine are still moving forward in the Black Hills area. Under U.S. mining law, companies can hold claims, get their permits and wait years until the price is right to begin extraction.

Gunhammer, the former NDN Collective organizer, isn’t waiting for that day to come. He and fellow activists are drafting state legislation to return all public lands in the Black Hills to tribal stewardship, which would prohibit any kind of mining.

“People [here] now understand that treaties are laws, not little poems, not suggestions,” Gunhammer said of support for the bill. 

The proposed state legislation has sparked difficult conversations among the tribe. Some worry it could undermine the tribe’s claim to remaining ancestral lands beyond the Black Hills if it were to pass. Others wonder who would maintain the land if it were returned. Activists are also fighting a common narrative, pushed by mining companies, that presents the proposed lithium mines as the area’s only economic opportunity.

Lone Hill still holds out hope that the Black Hills might one day return to tribal stewardship—and that, for once, history will stop repeating itself. Her biggest dream “is for all of our tribes to come together” on summer solstice at Mato Tipila at Devils Tower “and have our annual sun dance,” referring to a rock formation sacred for many Native nations that in 1906 became the first U.S. national monument. Too often, she said, Native children grow up hearing only about the tribe’s painful past at least in part because they have lost access to places where they might learn something different.

The cycle of mining, land loss and broken promises has stolen so much, she said. And every new lithium mine, she fears, puts that dream further out of reach. 

Wyatt Myskow reported this story for Inside Climate News. Johanna Hansel and Carla Samon Ros were fellows at Columbia Journalism Investigations, the investigative-reporting unit at the Columbia Journalism School. Inside Climate News and CJI provided editing, fact checking, data analysis, photography, graphic illustration and other support.

Additional support was provided by the National Press Foundation and the National Press Club Journalism Institute.

This article was updated May 8, 2026, to reflect that Taylor Gunhammer was a staff organizer with NDN Collective at the time of the interview, rather than when the story was published.

This article was originally published by Inside Climate News; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.