Pentagon grants surge as Indigenous consent fights mining rush

Pentagon grants – Federal spending tied to critical minerals for the U.S. military has surged over the past decade, even as Indigenous leaders and local communities warn that expedited permitting is sidelining consultation and environmental safeguards. Data from the USAspending

For years, Department of Defense spending on critical minerals barely registered. Then, over a decade, it changed—until the grants became a major line item, and the money started flowing faster, especially in the last five years.

Minerals such as lithium and nickel sit at the center of both green technology and modern militaries. Lithium is used in batteries for portable weapon systems because it offers more energy with less weight. Neodymium and boron show up in magnets needed for missiles, smart bombs, unmanned aerial vehicles, and fighter jets. Graphite and aluminum are used for lighter, stronger military applications.

But the rush for these inputs has landed in Indigenous territories. where leaders say the race is colliding with their right to consent—or be consulted seriously—before mining moves forward. They say state backing has helped speed approvals without what they consider essential environmental safeguards or meaningful consultation by companies.

To understand the scale of what the military is funding, Mongabay aggregated information from the USAspending database, an official open data source for federal spending. The focus was Department of Defense grant spending on critical mineral projects for military purposes between 2015 and 2025.

The figure does not include Pentagon spending on military contractors, which is a major channel for Department of Defense money. The Congressional Research Service has noted that the actual amount is likely larger because some projects may not be public due to national security reasons.

Mongabay also limited its review to grants. Other types of contracts, it found, are generally non-binding and do not guarantee federal spending.

Even within those limits. the number is large: the federal agency provided an estimated $621 million in grants for critical mineral projects for defense purposes over the 2015-to-2025 period. Between 2021 and 2025, the Pentagon secured 24 agreements worth nearly $550 million—rising from $31.3 million for three contracts in the previous five-year period.

Lithium projects received the most funding, at $124.6 million, followed by neodymium and boron projects ($94 million), graphite ($48.8 million), and aluminum ($45.4 million).

In a world where battery supply chains and defense supply chains are tightly interwoven. it is the speed of approvals that communities say they can’t keep up with. Indigenous peoples and local communities told Mongabay that the government has implemented special permitting measures designed to shorten the authorization process for some projects in their territories or near their homes.

At the Graphite Creek Project in Western Alaska. Iñupiat communities affected by the mine said they have received no information from the company and have not been consulted. Graphite One. the company that owns the open-pit graphite mine. said it has held multiple meetings with local stakeholders to share information.

Community members said accelerated permitting—without what they describe as proper consultation—risks destroying habitats for animals they rely on for subsistence, and could also damage sacred sites and other culturally significant areas.

The Pentagon press office did not reply to a request for comment.

Out of the 27 funding grants analyzed by Mongabay, 74 percent of funding was allocated for projects based within the United States. The Trump administration has said it wants to reduce dependence on critical mineral imports. and it issued an executive order to prioritize. expedite. and advance domestic projects.

That executive order declares: “Our national and economic security are now acutely threatened by our reliance upon hostile foreign powers’ mineral production. ” adding that “It is imperative for our national security that the United States take immediate action to facilitate domestic mineral production to the maximum possible extent.”.

Underlying that push is a legal mechanism Congress established in 2015. FAST-41 is a federal program meant to improve transparency. coordination. and the speed of environmental review and authorization for large infrastructure projects. The program says it does not change regulatory requirements and public consultation. But it also notes that. in some cases. projects are approved up to 18 months sooner than projects not included in the portfolio.

A 2025 White House statement said the administration plans to consider more projects for FAST-41. The portfolio currently contains 18 mining projects, several of which receive funding from the Pentagon or other defense-adjacent agencies. One of them is Graphite Creek. The Defense Department invested $37.3 million in the project in 2023 and received non-binding letters of interest from the Export-Import Bank of the United States—up to $2.07 billion.

In Western Alaska, Adelaine Ahmasuk, a member of the Siqnasuagmuit community, said Graphite One never consulted her community about the project. She said it will impact hunting and fishing areas, as well as sites across the Kigluaik Mountains that she considers sacred.

“We rely on money to get by. but most of our meat. most of the food. most of the berries that we eat. is what we harvest from the land. ” Ahmasuk said. “If this mine were to happen. and if it were to drive animal populations down. to drive the moose away. we would have nothing left to sustain us. because we really rely heavily on being able to hunt and put away wild game. berries and greens.”.

Ahmasuk said many community members—especially those in remote areas—have limited knowledge about what the project will entail because the company has not approached them. She pointed to barriers that include limited access to tools such as computers and environmental alert systems. Those limitations, she said, complicate matters further when the approval process is expedited because FAST-41 status changes the timeline.

“We, our community and our region, need more time to be prepared,” she said. “People don’t even understand the impacts of hard rock mining. The [community] don’t understand how big a scale this is proposed to be. It’s supposed to be the largest domestic production of graphite in the U.S. This FAST-41 does not work [for us]. Consultation and consent are already being neglected.”.

She added that the project has already caused some problems even before mining begins. “Right where the graphite is, there’s an ancient mound of rocks,” Ahmasuk explained. “Those are where Eagle Woman fell from the sky and landed on our mountains. We created these rock mounds to honor her. We also have rock mounds that are like little checkpoints for when we journey through the mountains. Graphite One put a helicopter pad directly on top of one of them.”.

In an email, Lucille Carter, Graphite One’s vice president of community relations, said the project will provide domestic supply of high-grade flake graphite essential for many defense applications, as well as large-scale energy storage and electric vehicles.

Carter said that while formal government-to-government consultation is the responsibility of permitting agencies, the company has held more than 75 meetings with local stakeholders since 2014 to share information, seek feedback, and improve the project based on local knowledge.

“Graphite One cares deeply about being good neighbors to the communities near our project and sharing the benefits it can provide with local residents. ” Carter said in the email. “We understand and respect the fact that there will always be individuals who have concerns about our work. but we do everything we can to involve those individuals in our process and incorporate their feedback into our work.”.

The dispute doesn’t stop at Alaska.

In northern Nevada, Indigenous nations and human rights organizations have raised concerns about the Thacker Pass lithium mine on ancestral lands owned by Lithium Nevada LLC, a subsidiary of Lithium Americas Corp. The Pentagon provided the company with a $11.8-million grant in 2024.

People of Red Mountain—a committee led by knowledge keepers and descendants of Fort McDermitt Paiute. Shoshone and Bannock tribes—said in an email that they feel ill-informed about the process and are concerned about environmental and cultural impacts. Those impacts. they said. include ecological damage that can affect how they interact with the land. practice hunting and gathering. and teach traditions and practice their religion.

A spokesperson for the group said: “The state-backing of lithium mining is a serious concern as it allows permitting processes easier and more extraction-friendly. ” adding. “We hope our community concerns are taken seriously and are not just a box to check-off. We are concerned easy permitting will make the McDermitt Caldera. our ancestral homelands. a mining district and the State will have no intention to restore the ecosystem.”.

Lithium Nevada LLC did not respond to requests for comment.

Across borders, the policy drive is now tied tightly to rearmament. In recent years. several governments—including Germany and France—have pushed a military rearmament agenda alongside a boost to defense industries. Lorah Steichen. a researcher at the Transition Security Project. said that has been especially true in the United States under the Trump administration.

Steichen pointed to strategies aimed at tightening mineral supply chains. including using the Defense Production Act. which gives the president powers to expand and accelerate the supply of minerals and services for defense purposes. She also referenced industrial policy strategies such as price floors for some minerals, stockpiling, and increased spending on mineral projects.

Mongabay reported that the federal government has invested in several mineral projects outside the United States, but these represented 26 percent of the grants it identified—and all of those projects are in Canada.

Experts in sustainable development, international law, and mining and energy transitions told Mongabay that the drive to boost military budgets and rearmament is responding to geopolitical pressure, from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to the Iran war.

“It is unfortunate that war has been one of the driving forces of this race for more minerals,” said Edson Krenak, of the Indigenous Krenak people in southeastern Brazil.

Krenak said his community has seen the harm from iron mining. and now nickel and other minerals are causing what he called the same devastation. “Rivers have been contaminated,” Krenak said. “Rivers have been depleted completely from fish. We cannot fish, we cannot take baths, we cannot wash ourselves there anymore.”.

Phil Johnstone. a research fellow at the University of Sussex in the U.K. as well as the University of Tartu in Estonia and Utrecht University in the Netherlands. said pressure could transform mineral supply chains. He said that could mean increased demand for minerals critical for defense industries. as well as changes in the measures and governance mechanisms used to acquire those minerals.

He warned that this could lead to a decrease in the availability of minerals needed for the energy transition.

Anabel Marin, a research fellow at the Institute of Development Studies in the U.K. and a researcher at the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research in Argentina. said military demand is more likely to take priority in crisis. “Military demand is more likely, in situations of crisis, to have a priority,” Marin said. “The demand that responds to military priorities also reshapes trade patterns. relationships between countries. and it is shaping the way in which minerals are being extracted. the logic under which minerals are extracted.”.

Several experts also compared the current push to past resource races. They pointed to the rubber rush driven in part by World War I and again World War II demand for vehicles and tanks. They said the consequences were felt in Amazonian communities across Brazil. Bolivia. Peru. and Colombia. where rubber barons subjected Indigenous communities to debt slavery and accelerated the decline of Indigenous peoples. and in extreme cases exterminated entire villages.

Luis Eslava, a professor of international law at La Trobe University’s Law School in Australia, said it is important to remember that law has always been part of extraction—even when people think of earlier exploitation during the colonial period.

“There was always a mechanism. legal mechanisms put in place in order for them to establish agreement on the ground. sign concessions. extend the jurisdiction of the British empire into new lands. ” Eslava said. “This is important because it reminds us that part of the problem has always been how law has been used in order to lubricate this process of extraction.”.

Indigenous leaders from Nevada to Brazil described the current push as part of a long history. “It is a legacy that we have to deal with,” Krenak said. “And when we see on the news those companies growing. investing. getting support from the government. as nothing had ever happened to them or done by them. it makes us very sad.”.

The Pentagon grants data shows a clear escalation in money and agreements for defense-related mineral projects. The human impact. communities say. is that timelines are tightening while consultation and consent remain contested—turning what is billed as national security work into a fight over who gets a say before the land changes.

critical minerals Pentagon grants Indigenous consent FAST-41 Graphite Creek Thacker Pass lithium graphite neodymium boron environmental safeguards mining permitting