US paves the way for action against Norway following EU conflict
US and the EU are on a collision course in the battle for mineral resources—a conflict largely under-communicated to the public even as critical deadlines loom. With Norwegian oil and mineral resources at the heart of this power play, an American action against Norway could be triggered this summer.
April 18, 2026 | SOURCES | INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
Image by AI/S&P
Europe’s Resource Trap
While Europe’s political leaders and mainstream media have been distracted by symbolic tariff discussions, the Trump administration has finalized a legal framework designed to force Western mineral resources under American control. By redefining international supply chains as a matter of national security, Washington is shifting control over European raw materials away from ordinary trade agreements and into a high-stakes security power play. Using U.S. security legislation as leverage, they have engineered a situation where Europe must choose between China and the United States as its primary trading partner.
Global Power Struggle for Minerals
This aggressive strategy is a direct consequence of the global battle for minerals that triggered the trade war between the superpowers. While control over oil resources has been the backbone of geopolitical power until now, we are witnessing a fundamental shift: through the green transition, rare earth elements and critical minerals will take over as the primary energy source and the very foundation of industrial and military power. As long as this transition continues, control over both oil and mineral resources will drive the geopolitical power struggle.
For decades, China has built a near-monopoly on both the extraction and processing of critical minerals, providing Beijing with a geopolitical weapon that could throttle Western industry and arms production overnight. China has utilized this monopoly to classify mining and extraction technology, sanction mineral deliveries to Western defense contractors, and drive prices down so that mining operations on other continents become unprofitable. To break China’s monopoly, Washington has now set aside the established framework for free trade; the goal is no longer just to secure supplies, but to win the battle for raw materials by securing control over alternative resources outside China’s reach.
This has been clearly visible over the past year, as the U.S. has rapidly launched new mining operations on its own continent and entered into bilateral agreements with countries such as Australia, Argentina, Japan, Thailand, and Kazakhstan. Particularly significant are the extensive agreements with Ukraine, which in practice open the door for American control over the country's vast and untapped mineral deposits. These agreements are effectively security partnerships where billions in American investments and price guarantees are used to bind these nations' mineral resources to a Western supply chain led by the United States. Consequently, the U.S. is making itself and its mineral allies independent of China for mineral supplies.
The core of the dispute between the EU and the U.S. is the EU's reluctance to enter into a binding mineral cooperation with the United States. The EU is entirely dependent on mineral deliveries from China—ranging from 70% dependency on certain metals to as high as 98% on rare earth elements used for green energy. Although the EU established its own Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) in 2023, it has not significantly brought them closer to independence from China. The reason for the EU’s hesitation to cooperate with the U.S. on a Western mineral supply chain remains unclear; full control over European minerals may be one reason—even though Europe can never be self-sufficient due to insufficient deposits on the continent—while Chinese influence could be another. The EU’s mineral resistance led Trump to threaten a takeover of mineral-rich Greenland, not necessarily because the U.S. needs Greenland's minerals, but to cut the EU off from them. The strategy worked, and the EU was pressed into commitments that are described in more detail below.
Inaugural Critical Minerals Ministerial
On February 4, 2026, a historic ministerial meeting was held in Washington, D.C., known as the Inaugural Critical Minerals Ministerial. The meeting was chaired by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with Vice President JD Vance as the keynote speaker, gathering representatives from 54 nations, including the European Commission. The primary objective was to launch the FORGE initiative (Forum on Resource Geostrategic Engagement). This is a strategic response to China’s dominance, intended to give Western countries market control and defense security through secure mineral supplies for their own industry and weapons production. The U.S. wants to move the control over critical raw materials away from an unregulated global market and into a controlled, transatlantic security zone. The US's objective is a Western mineral market in which guaranteed minimum prices for minerals, and products derived from them, are to secure a solvent mineral industry. This will protect against Chinese price dumping and attract investors to the mineral industry.
During the ministerial meeting, the EU entered into a declaration on minerals cooperation with the United States and Japan. This was the first formal sign that an agreement had been reached on Greenland, as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and Donald Trump stated at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos in January. There, critical minerals were elevated from a trade issue to a central element of NATO's collective resource defence.
Several media outlets report that negotiations between the EU and the US have been ongoing continuously. It was reportedly on the EU's agenda yesterday that the 27 member states were to grant authorisation for the next step in the process. The next step is reported to be that Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič will continue negotiations with the US in Washington on 23 and 24 April. No public sources can as of today confirm that this authorisation was granted; the official EU calendar does, however, list Maroš Šefčovič as meeting US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick in Washington.
Norway’s Central Role in the Mineral Battle
Norway is central to the mineral conflict between the U.S. and the EU due to its vast mineral deposits. Large mineral resources were discovered at the Fensfeltet site in Telemark in 2024; in March of this year, it became clear that Fensfeltet is not only Europe’s largest, but that its deposits of rare earth elements are among the world’s largest. New estimates confirm that the field contains as much as 15.9 million tons of extractable resources—nearly double previous estimates. This places Norway in a unique position as a global mineral superpower, in direct competition with China’s monopoly.
This situation has made Norway a strategic piece in geopolitics. In addition to being essential for future mineral extraction, the country is already the EU's most important supplier of oil and gas. By securing influence over Norwegian energy resources, the US in practice gains control over Europe's energy supply, which sets in motion a dramatic political game that few citizens are aware of. The US has already placed Norway within its transatlantic security zone and is pressing the country to enter into the American mineral strategy. The EU, for its part, demands control over Norwegian mineral resources through the mineral regulation CRMA. The Labour government decided as early as last spring, without democratic processes, to choose the EU and the CRMA. This is confirmed by political decisions over the past year that have received little attention in Norwegian media.
On March 25, 2025, the Parliament voted on a representative proposal from the Center Party, the Socialist Left Party, and the Red Party to establish a state-owned mineral company to ensure national control over minerals, similar to the oil sector. The proposal was voted down by the Labour Party. The government stated in a press release on March 28, 2025, that they are working to implement the EU's Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) into the EEA Agreement. This was a premature and strategic press release aimed at the American administration. Despite Prime Minister Store and Finance Minister Stoltenberg claiming Norway was far back in the queue for tariff negotiations with the U.S., Norway was among the first countries to meet President Donald Trump at the White House, precisely because of its strategic position. Norway effectively possesses Europe’s strongest bargaining power due to its natural resources; however, this power does not seem to be managed in Norway's best interest by the Labour government, which repeatedly portrayed the EU as Norway’s only alternative in the spring of 2025. Little was said about the conversations with the American administration on April 27, 2025, but Jens Stoltenberg confirmed that minerals were on the agenda.
Only months prior, in November 2024, Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store had sent a congratulatory letter to Donald Trump after the presidential election, promising mineral deliveries to the U.S. In January 2025, the government entered into a Letter of Intent on mineral cooperation with the Biden administration. For unknown reasons, the Labour government changed its stance after Donald Trump was inaugurated on January 20 and began the trade war by introducing tariffs—presumably following pressure from the EU.
Against this backdrop, Society and Politics published an appeal on April 28, 2025, titled "Sovereignty over Norwegian Minerals," to inform the public about the mineral situation before the general election in September 2025. Despite the appeal being sent to hundreds of Norwegian media outlets, the message was not relayed, and no public debate on the sovereignty of Norwegian minerals took place before the election.
The Labour government did not succeed in—or more likely, did not wish to—conclude a trade agreement with the U.S. within the negotiating deadline set by Donald Trump for July 31, 2025. The imposed 15% tariff thus became effective as of August 1, 2025. A new trade agreement between Norway and the U.S. has still not been reached due to the mineral conflict. The government has never explained the reason for this, and the Norwegian press has yet to address the issue.
During the Munich Security Conference on 14 February 2026, Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store held a meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and reached an understanding on mineral cooperation that both confirmed, but Norway has still not made commitments corresponding to the one the EU gave the US on 4 February. This is precisely because Norwegian mineral resources are entirely central to the dispute between the US and the EU.
After it became clear in March of this year that Fensfeltet is larger than previously assumed, the Center Party submitted a new representative proposal to the Parliament (March 4) to establish a state-owned mineral company. Federation of Norwegian Industries supports the proposal, and Minister of Trade and Industry Cecilie Myrseth has confirmed that the Labour Party is reconsidering the proposal after voting it down last year. The case is currently before the Standing Committee on Business and Industry, with their recommendation expected by May 12. It is deeply concerning that a matter so vital and strategic for Norway’s future remains unacknowledged and undebated in the media. The outcome has a direct impact on the geopolitical situation and the future of Norwegian sovereignty and welfare.
U.S. Legal Authority for Tariffs
The U.S. had secured a victory with the EU Letter of Intent and the Munich Security Conference but faced a setback from the U.S. Supreme Court. On February 20, 2026, the court delivered a historic ruling stating that the President cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) as the legal basis to unilaterally impose tariff walls. The ruling targeted the specific method Trump used, not the various trade sections themselves.
However, the Trump administration refused to let the tariff walls fall. On the same day as the ruling, the President moved the legal basis for the tariffs from emergency powers (IEEPA) to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Using this authority, he introduced a temporary 10% import levy to protect the U.S. balance of payments, and has later threatened to increase this to 15%. This authority has a strict time limit of 150 days, meaning the measure expires on July 24, 2026, unless approved by Congress.
Furthermore, on the same day, Trump signed an order to expand Section 232 effective April 6. Until then, Section 232 included import levies on steel (25%) and aluminum (10%). It now also applies to copper (50%), as well as derivatives of these metals and industrial machinery (25%). Additionally, the tariff was expanded to be calculated based on the full value of the product, rather than the previous system where only the metal value within the derivative was considered. Since Section 232 is based on national security concerns, it has no fixed expiration date, effectively making the tariff wall permanent unless the U.S. decides otherwise.
To ensure the pressure does not dissipate when the 150-day deadline in Section 122 expires on July 24, the administration has also activated Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. On March 11, 2026, U.S. opened structural excess capacity investigations into sixteen economies to determine whether their acts, policies, and practices are "unreasonable or discriminatory" and burden or restrict U.S. commerce. Under Section 301, the U.S. can claim that European regulations for critical raw materials constitute a discriminatory trade barrier that restricts American market access and imposes an unreasonable burden on U.S. economic interests. This provides the Trump administration with the necessary legal basis to pursue Section 301 action quickly if diplomatic talks in June do not succeed.
The U.S. Has Legally Defined Minerals as National Security
American law defines economic welfare as an integral part of national security—a link the Trump administration is now fully exploiting to secure control over Western supply chains. The administration argues that a massive reliance on foreign industrial goods weakens the U.S.'s ability to maintain critical infrastructure and its own defense production. By using this authority, the President can implement measures to ensure that the country’s industrial base remains robust and independent of global supply lines that could be severed in a crisis.
This applies particularly to the 60 raw materials the U.S. has defined as critical minerals and rare earth elements. Through the strategic initiative Project Vault, the U.S. will have finalized a national strategic reserve of critical minerals equivalent to one year's consumption by this summer, enabling them to dictate the terms of the mineral conflict.
By introducing Proclamation 11001 on January 14, 2026, the U.S. President has the authority to control mineral imports by requiring specific bilateral agreements with exporting countries. For the EU and Norway, this means the U.S. can use tariff sanctions, as described above, as a strategic tool to secure exclusive access to raw materials or force processing in line with American security interests. By including derivatives in the tariff calculation, the administration ensures control over the entire value chain from mine to finished product.
The U.S. Tightens Its Grip Through the Strike on Iran
The situation is further intensified by the fact that the U.S., as a result of the war in Iran, now exercises de facto control over the world's most critical maritime chokepoints. Through an intensified Middle East alliance—anchored in Abraham Accords 2.0 and coordinated by the newly established Trump Peace Board—both security and trade are now consolidated under a single American mandate. With Egypt as a strategic member of the alliance, the Trump administration has neutralized Iran’s influence and established an effective naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. By simultaneously controlling transit through the Suez Canal, the U.S. has effectively taken charge of the most important transport routes linking China to Europe. This gives the U.S. the ability to delay or intercept raw materials the EU is entirely dependent on to maintain both ordinary industry and the defense industry, placing the EU in a security crisis.
The Trump Administration Paves the Way for Action Against Norway
The U.S. has positioned itself to take direct control over strategic raw materials. Through formal decisions like Proclamation 11001, the U.S. has signaled readiness to implement sanctions or physical measures to secure control over Norwegian energy and mineral resources if the security of supply for the Western defense alliance is deemed threatened. By defining the Arctic shelf as a critical security zone, a legal and political space is created where the administration can, in practice, throttle oil and gas deliveries from Norway to Europe to prioritize its own strategic reserves or force political concessions.
The signals from the U.S. are conveyed both through official presidential orders defining resource dependency as a national threat, and indirectly through an aggressive trade policy where tariffs are used as leverage. In this context, the U.S.'s recent power grab over key transport arteries in the Middle East serves as a strategic pressure point.
Action Against Norway May Come This Summer
The above indicates that U.S. action against Norway may come in the summer of 2026. Hearings are scheduled and U.S. has signaled it intends to be ready to impose tariffs around July 24 — the same day the temporary Section 122 authority lapses. That timing marks the potential transition from a temporary trade measure to a Section 301 action that rests on its own legal basis, independent of the Supreme Court rulings that struck down the IEEPA tariffs and the Section 122 surcharge. The convergence of deadlines in late July is what concentrates the pressure.
The relationship between the American President and the Norwegian Prime Minister appears strained after Donald Trump was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year. On January 18 of this year, during the ongoing conflict over Greenland, Trump sent this message to Store: “Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace.” The message could just as easily be directed at Norway.
If Norway does not voluntarily enter into a mineral agreement with the US, it is possible that Norway will face an ultimatum: either to surrender sovereign control over the Fen Complex and the Arctic shelf to American security interests under Proclamation 11001, or to risk a complete economic shutdown through the use of tariffs and sanctions, which in the most extreme case could be followed by military action.
Commentary from Society and Politics
Norwegian sovereignty and welfare are at risk as the EU seeks to force Norway into the CRMA regulation—a direction the Labour government supports. This development could be catastrophic for all of Europe, as Europe is unable to defend itself against either the U.S. or Russia. States with hostile intentions will not wait for Europe to rearm before attacking; they will exploit the window of opportunity.
Strong forces in Europe and the EU believe the solution is closer cooperation with China, but this is a solution that comes with significant security risks, as the U.S. has positioned itself to delay and intercept deliveries from China. Furthermore, it would involve binding oneself to an authoritarian dictatorship governed by a communist one-party system. By choosing this path, one risks undermining fundamental human rights and handing control to a regime that stands in direct opposition to our own values. It could mean the end of the free, democratic Europe as we know it.
It is also appropriate to consider whether there are forces in social-democratic Europe that desire a communist direction for the EU, even though this remains a taboo subject since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Regardless, the EU has taken a more authoritarian turn with the "28th regime," and efforts are underway to remove veto rights in favor of majority decisions, which will limit member states' sovereignty.
Society and Politics supports the Center Party's proposal for a state-owned mineral company and further advocates for Norway to voluntarily enter into mineral agreement with the US to build Western power that liberates the West from China’s grip. In a previous article, Society and Politics argued that Norway is in a unique position to bridge the gap between the U.S. and the EU by maintaining its own sovereignty over mineral resources. Norway is in a unique situation where funds from the Sovereign Wealth Fund can be used to develop the mineral industry through a state-owned company; Norway does not need capital from the U.S. or the EU. For security reasons, it would benefit the EU to have a continental and nearby energy supplier firmly anchored in security cooperation with the U.S., rather than remaining at the mercy of authoritarian regimes like China and Russia.
RELATED ARTICLES
The EU exploits the geopolitical situation to demand control over Norwegian resources
Kallas reveals an EU strategy with several logical flaws and seeks to limit the veto right
Stoltenberg backs Rutte: We must not create illusions about what Europe can achieve alone
Greenland is the EU’s mineral lifeline amid China’s monopoly and US global deals
Trump’s peace council could determine Europe’s future, Norway could lead Europe out of the crisis
SOURCES
USA – strategy and geopolitics
The White House
U.S. National Security StrategyThe Washington Post
U.S. imposes naval blockade as Trump demands Iran end nuclear programEUNews
Israel and the United States prompt the Arab world to close ranks, while the EU looks onHudson Institute
The Middle East Is Ready for the Abraham Accords 2.0U.S. Department of State
2026 Critical Minerals MinisterialDWS News
NATO Secretary General Rutte Delivers Major Security Update in Brussels, March 26, 2026U.S. Department of the Treasury
Secretary Bessent Convenes Finance Ministerial on Securing Critical Minerals Supply ChainsOffice of the United States Trade Representative
Ambassador Greer Issues Statement on Launch of Critical Minerals NegotiationsOffice of the United States Trade Representative
Ambassador Jamieson Greer Announces Critical Minerals Cooperation with the European Union and JapanOffice of the United States Trade Representative
Joint Press Statement, European Commission, United States of America, Japan, February 4, 2026Export-Import Bank of the United States
Project Vault and the U.S. Strategic Critical Mineral ReserveCouncil on Foreign Relations
A Guide to Trump’s Section 232 TariffsThe Conference Board
Section 232 Tariff Investigations and Public CommentsWhite & Case
Mining & metals 2026: Adapting to a policy-driven business cycle
USA – policy and instruments
U.S. Federal Register
Notice of Request for Public Comments on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Processed Critical Minerals and Derivative Products, April 25, 2025U.S. Federal Register
Final 2025 List of Critical Minerals, July 11, 2025The White House
Adjusting imports of processed critical minerals and their derivative products into the United States, January 14, 2026U.S. GovInfo
19 U.S.C. 1862 - Safeguarding national securityU.S. Code of Federal Regulations
PART 705—EFFECT OF IMPORTED ARTICLES ON THE NATIONAL SECURITYU.S. Department of Commerce
Section 232 Investigation on the Effect of Imports of Steel on U.S. National SecurityUniversity Libraries - UNT Digital Library
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962EveryCRSReport
Section 232 Investigations: Overview and Issues for CongressBrownstein
Supreme Court Restricts Presidential Tariff Authority Under IEEPAWhite & Case
President Trump orders critical minerals trade negotiations in Section 232 action
EU – policy and instruments
European Commission
Joint press statement among the European Commission, the United States Government, and the Japanese Government following February 4 Critical Minerals Ministerial meetingEuropean Commission
European Critical Raw Materials ActEuropean Commission
List of Critical Raw MaterialsEuropean Union
Critical Raw Materials RegulationEurostat
Official EU statistics on international trade in critical raw materialsWorld Economic Forum
Europe depends on critical rare earth materialsEuractiv
How rare earths could make or break the EU's defence ambitions
Middle East – conflict and alliances
The Washington Post
U.S. imposes naval blockade as Trump demands Iran end nuclear programEUNews
Israel and the United States prompt the Arab world to close ranks, while the EU looks onHudson Institute
The Middle East Is Ready for the Abraham Accords 2.0The White House
Comprehensive plan to end the Gaza conflict
Norway – policy
Stortinget (Norwegian Parliament)
Votes and state-owned mineral company March 25, 2025Regjeringen (Norwegian Government)
Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere’s congratulatory letter to Donald TrumpRegjeringen (Norwegian Government)
Press release on incorporating the EU CRMA into Norwegian law March 28, 2025Stortinget (Norwegian Parliament)
Private member’s proposal for a state-owned mineral company March 4, 2026Stortinget (Norwegian Parliament)
Committee consideration of a state-owned mineral companyNorsk Industri (Federation of Norwegian Industries)
Consultation input on a state-owned mineral companyiNyheter
May get a state-owned mineral company: – We are considering itSecretary Marco Rubio on X
Partnership with NorwayTV 2 Nyhetene
Jonas Gahr Stoere comments on the US Vice President’s Munich speech (February 14)Government.no (Norwegian Government)
Statement from the Norwegian Prime Minister
Norwegian mineral deposits
Norges Geologiske Underso kelse (Geological Survey of Norway)
Fensfeltet in Nome municipality in Telemark has Europe’s largest confirmed deposit of rare earth elementsTeknisk Ukeblad (Norwegian Technology News)
New estimate: Fensfeltet may contain significantly more rare earth elements than previously assumed, March 3, 2026Fensfeltet
The Fen Complex' exciting possibilitiesFensfeltet
About rare earth elementsSINTEF
Rare earth elements from Fensfeltet in Norway are extracted in EuropeLe Monde
Norway struggles to launch exploitation of Europe's largest rare earth depositReuters
Rare Earths Norway says estimate of Europe's biggest deposit jumps 81%
Mineral deposits and global mineral economy
The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies
China’s rare earth dominance and policy responsesContext
Trump and Ukraine deal: Where are Europe's critical minerals?The New York Times
China halts critical exports as trade war intensifiesCNBC
Trump’s pressure on Europe to impose 100% tariffs on India and China raises eyebrowsReuters
US-Australia rare earths deal is a start but will not significantly reduce China’s dominanceBloomberg
US firms are acquiring the rare earths Europe needs to rearmU.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Annual overviews of global mineral marketsU.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Statistics and background information on rare earth elementsCarnegie Endowment for International Peace
Policy analysis on U.S. access to critical mineralsLKAB
Press release on rare earth element deposits in the Kiruna areaLKAB
Press release on increased resource estimates for rare earth oxidesEuroGeoSurveys
Professional platform on mineral resources in EuropeMining.com
News and analysis on critical minerals and supply chains
Greenland and the Arctic
European Commission / Government of Greenland
Memorandum of understanding on cooperation in raw materialsGEUS (Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland)
Overview of Greenland’s mineral resourcesGEUS (Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland)
Fact sheets on documented mineral deposits in GreenlandArgus Media
Industry analysis of challenges related to mineral extraction in GreenlandThink Europa
Policy analysis of Greenland’s importance for the EU’s green transitionNewsweek
Article with maps and comparisons of rare earths in Greenland
Content on Society and Politics is based on reliable sources and actual events, providing a news-oriented perspective intented for further debate. To access the article’s author and the related debate, membership on Hudd is required.
