Pivoting for Progress: Shifting Priorities To Turn Waste into Resources in a New Administration

On November 5, 2024, the United States delivered an unexpectedly decisive election in which Donald Trump won both the popular and electoral vote, and the Republicans won majorities in both the Senate and the House, culminating in unified government in all three branches.

This election isn’t a rare occurrence but rather a pattern that has defined American politics for decades. In the words of Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “…the true symbol of the United States is not the bald eagle. It is the pendulum. And when the pendulum swings too far in one direction it will go back.”

This metaphor is useful, but the harmonics appear to have changed. Rather than simple the amplitude of the swing, there appears to be a spring of anti-incumbent sentiment both in the United States and indeed around the world that animates a change of direction regardless of anything else. This has extraordinary implications for policy development.The previous administration focused heavily on climate-oriented initiatives, particularly in areas like carbon capture and critical mineral sourcing. Climate policy was designed to address environmental goals through sustainable, future-oriented infrastructure.

The incoming administration has highly visible contempt for this policy motivation and a strongly articulated alternative motivation. But durable and complex policy proposals often make tradeoffs that can appeal to multiple interests and motivations. Many important ideas and initiatives should be reconsidered through the new lens of the incoming administration’s ambitions for national security and domestic manufacturing.

Take, for instance, the growing field of industrial waste management and carbon sequestration. There is a powerful opportunity to repurpose this climate initiative to also address national security and economic resilience. Critical minerals are vital to many industries, from semiconductors to electric vehicles, and the U.S. currently relies on foreign sources, importing over 80% from countries like China.

Rethinking our reliance on imported minerals has never been more pressing, especially as global supply chains remain vulnerable to geopolitical tensions. The strategic importance of securing domestic sources of critical minerals could shift the focus from carbon sequestration as an environmental goal to one of self-sufficiency and national security.

Imagine a program where American industries turn to home-sourced minerals, extracted and purified through industrial waste reclamation. This isn’t a hypothetical; research has shown that mine tailings—the often-toxic byproducts of mining—are rich in minerals like cobalt, nickel, and lithium, which are critical for modern technology.

By processing these tailings, we don’t just sequester carbon; we reclaim minerals for U.S. manufacturing, reducing dependence on foreign supply chains while bolstering our economic security. Under Trump, this approach is more likely to resonate if framed as a means to restore American dominance in manufacturing and job security.

This national security angle also speaks directly to the communities that supported Trump. These industrial reclamation and mineral extraction projects could be centered in coal country, where decades of reliance on fossil fuel jobs have left local economies vulnerable. Converting industrial waste sites to mineral extraction and reclamation hubs would bring new, high-quality jobs to regions with deep-rooted industrial workforces. Areas once dependent on coal can be revived as modern hubs of clean resource extraction. The skilled workers in these regions, many of whom feel forgotten, would now be central to securing the nation’s energy and technological independence.

In this way, an industrial waste management plan that couples carbon storage with critical mineral production does more than protect the environment—it secures American interests. In a global market where competition over minerals like lithium and cobalt is fierce, these policies not only safeguard the climate but also stabilize American industry, secure jobs, and minimize reliance on volatile international markets. It’s a shift that could create a durable domestic supply chain and transform the nation’s approach to climate and industry alike.

The election of Donald Trump underscores an ongoing debate in America, where economic and national security concerns are equally weighted against environmental priorities. By pivoting these goals to align with this new administration, we might just be able to deliver an approach that bridges this divide, satisfying both sides of a seemingly irreconcilable spectrum.

The climate agenda may not fade entirely, but it will evolve in ways that reflect Trump’s focus on “America First,” perhaps rekindling pride in American industries by integrating resilience, independence, and long-term security with the environment.

Katherine Vaz Gomes

Student Advisory Council Member

Katherine Vaz Gomes recently defended her Ph.D. in chemical engineering at the University of Pennsylvania. She is a graduate research assistant in the Clean Energy Conversions Lab and a member of the Kleinman Center’s Student Advisory Council.

Jennifer Wilcox

Presidential Distinguished Professor

Jen Wilcox is Presidential Distinguished Professor of Chemical Engineering and Energy Policy. Her research expertise is in carbon capture and sequestration technologies, in order to minimize the negative impacts of fossil fuels.