Editorial: Picking 'winners and losers' in the mining industry

Las Vegas Review-Journal Editorial Board, Las Vegas Review-Journal on Feb 9, 2026

Published in Op Eds

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

President Donald Trump’s penchant for tariffs has turned many Democrats into born-again free traders. Now his affection for industrial policy has them sounding like free-market enthusiasts.

On Monday, three high-ranking House Democrats expressed concern about the administration’s move to buy pieces of various mining interests as a means of promoting development of domestic materials vital to tech industries. That includes projects in Nevada such as Lithium Americas’ Thacker Pass mine. In return for direct loans, the federal government is seeking a 5 percent stake.

“By privileging select corporations through direct ownership — essentially picking winners and losers — the government may undermine broader market competition and the development of innovative technologies or mineral or material substitutions,” noted a letter to various Cabinet heads from Reps. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., Robert Garcia, D-Calif., and Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.

The letter seeks greater transparency and protections for taxpayers.

“To date,” the congressmen wrote, “there has been no public disclosure of procedures or safeguards in place to ensure these ownership stakes do not influence permitting decisions, regulation generation, alteration or enforcement, contracting decisions or any other agency decisions related to these mining and mineral projects.”

None of this is unreasonable. Direct government involvement in private firms distorts the market to benefit favored interests, creates potential conflicts, leads to inefficiencies and injects political concerns into daily operations while stifling innovators who aren’t fortunate enough to receive taxpayer largess.

But the irony in this case is that “picking winners and losers” has been an integral part of Democratic economic policy for decades. Progressives harbor a deep mistrust of the private economy, instead favoring bigger and more burdensome government and bureaucratic central planning to rein in capitalism’s perceived “excesses.” For instance, President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act was a $1 trillion monstrosity showering taxpayer handouts on a slew of special interests in the green energy arena.

Notably, Reps. Huffman, Garcia and Heinrich enthusiastically supported that legislation, which picked “winners and losers.”

Trump and some Republicans argue that the national security issues arising from the nation’s dependence on China for rare earth minerals justify the unusual federal “investments” in question. Perhaps. But there’s nothing wrong with promoting accountability and ensuring that American taxpayers aren’t bled dry in such deals.

And let’s hope the newfound respect the honorable members have cogently expressed for the value of free markets endures — even when a Democrat sits in the Oval Office.

_____