The PRIMED Act directs that certain actions the Secretary of Defense takes under section 303 of the Defense Production Act (DPA) — specifically actions tied to Presidential Determination 2022–11 and the February 27, 2023 Presidential Memorandum — be treated as covered projects under the FAST Act and appear on the Federal Permitting Dashboard. Covered actions include support for feasibility studies, byproduct and co‑product production, modernization of mining and processing facilities, and other activities authorized by DPA section 303.
By forcing those Defense-led mining and processing activities into the Federal Permitting Improvement framework, the bill makes them eligible for the coordination and tracking tools created by the FAST Act. That elevates visibility and could accelerate interagency permitting processes, although the bill preserves a project sponsor’s ability to request exclusion from covered‑project treatment.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires that eligible actions taken by the Secretary of Defense under specified DPA authorities be treated as 'covered projects' under section 41001(6) of the FAST Act and be listed on the Permitting Dashboard maintained under section 41003(b). This applies regardless of whether the action would otherwise meet the FAST Act's covered‑project criteria.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are Department of Defense initiatives that support domestic mining, beneficiation, and value‑added processing tied to supply chain resilience, as well as project sponsors, federal permitting agencies, and entities conducting feasibility studies, modernization, or byproduct/co‑product production. State, local, and tribal permitting authorities will interact with these actions through the FAST Act framework.
Why It Matters
Bringing Defense‑driven mining activities into the Federal Permitting Improvement framework increases federal coordination, formal tracking, and transparency—potentially shortening permitting timelines and concentrating oversight. That changes how supply‑chain resilience projects will be processed and monitored across federal agencies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The PRIMED Act does one focused thing: it folds certain Department of Defense actions under the Defense Production Act into the FAST Act’s covered‑project regime and forces their inclusion on the Federal Permitting Dashboard. The actions in question are those the Secretary of Defense takes pursuant to a specific Presidential Determination and a Presidential Memorandum that aim to shore up domestic production for defense and energy needs.
The bill spells out four categories of activity—feasibility studies for mature mining and processing projects, byproduct and co‑product production at existing facilities, modernization of mining and processing operations, and any other measure authorized under DPA section 303(a)(1)—and treats them as eligible for federal permitting improvement tools.
Operationally, being a 'covered project' under the FAST Act makes a project visible to federal coordination mechanisms: it will appear on the Permitting Dashboard and become formally eligible for the interagency coordination procedures the FAST Act sets up. The bill does not itself change NEPA or environmental review standards, but it imports Defense‑sponsored mining initiatives into a process designed to streamline and track reviews across agencies, which could affect schedules and who leads coordination.The statute also builds in an important caveat: the project sponsor can ask not to be treated as a covered project.
That opt‑out preserves sponsor choice and means inclusion on the Dashboard is not automatic if the sponsor prefers a different permitting path. The text otherwise applies broadly—treating the listed DPA actions as covered projects 'without regard to whether the action would qualify' under the existing FAST Act definition—so projects that would have fallen outside the FAST Act could now be pulled into its framework unless the sponsor declines.For practitioners, the immediate effect is procedural: expect greater federal visibility, more formalized interagency coordination opportunities, and mandatory Dashboard reporting for qualifying Defense‑backed mining projects unless sponsors opt out.
The bill leaves open several implementation details—such as lead agency designation and how coordination timelines will mesh with Defense acquisition or security exigencies—but it clearly aligns certain DPA‑driven industrial actions with the federal permitting improvement apparatus created by the FAST Act.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill treats DoD actions taken under Presidential Determination 2022–11 and the February 27, 2023 Presidential Memorandum (DPA section 303 authorities) as 'covered projects' under FAST Act section 41001(6).
Specified eligible activities include feasibility studies for mature mining and processing, byproduct/co‑product production at existing facilities, modernization to improve productivity and sustainability, and any other activity authorized under DPA section 303(a)(1).
These actions must be included on the Federal Permitting Dashboard maintained pursuant to FAST Act section 41003(b), increasing federal transparency and tracking.
The statute applies 'without regard to whether the action would qualify' as a covered project under current FAST Act criteria, effectively expanding the set of projects eligible for federal permitting coordination.
A project sponsor (as defined in FAST Act section 41001(18)) can request that their action not be treated as a covered project; inclusion is therefore automatic only absent a sponsor opt‑out.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — 'PRIMED Act'
Provides the Act's short title: the Permit Reform In Mining for Energy and Defense Act, or 'PRIMED Act.' This is a standard technical provision that names the statute for citation and does not change substance.
Treat specified DoD actions as covered projects and require Dashboard inclusion
Directs that an action described in subsection (b) be treated as a 'covered project' under FAST Act section 41001(6) and be included on the Permitting Dashboard under FAST Act section 41003(b). The instruction to treat the actions 'without regard to whether the action would qualify' broadens the universe of covered projects by removing the FAST Act's typical qualification gate for these particular Defense actions.
Defines the eligible actions under DPA section 303
Lists the actions that qualify for covered‑project treatment: (1) feasibility studies for mature mining, beneficiation, and processing; (2) byproduct and co‑product production at existing mines and industrial sites; (3) modernization of mining and processing for productivity, sustainability, and safety; and (4) any other activity authorized by DPA section 303(a)(1). By tying eligibility to existing Presidential Determination and Memorandum authorities, the bill targets projects explicitly framed as supporting supply‑chain resilience.
Sponsor opt‑out
Creates an exception allowing a project sponsor to request that its action not be treated as a covered project or included on the Dashboard. This preserves project‑level choice and prevents automatic inclusion for sponsors that prefer alternative permitting paths, though it also means some Defense‑supported actions could remain outside the FAST Act framework if sponsors ask out.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Defense across all five countries.
Explore Defense in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Department of Defense — Gains a formal pathway to align supply‑chain resilience projects with federal permitting coordination and tracking tools, which can reduce interagency friction when advancing mining and processing initiatives.
- Domestic critical‑minerals and processing companies — Receive increased federal visibility for projects tied to defense supply chains, potentially shortening coordination time and improving access to federal resources or technical assistance.
- Investors and contractors in mining and processing — Benefit from reduced regulatory uncertainty and clearer federal timelines where projects are placed in the Federal Permitting Improvement framework and shown on the Dashboard.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal permitting agencies (e.g., EPA, Corps of Engineers, BLM) — Face additional coordination, reporting, and dashboarding responsibilities when Defense‑sponsored projects are pulled into the FAST Act process, potentially stretching staff and resources.
- Tribal, state, and local governments and affected communities — May see accelerated federal coordination for projects that affect their jurisdictions, which can compress consultation windows and increase pressure on local processes.
- Project sponsors who prefer confidentiality or streamlined state processes — May incur reputational or strategic costs if they are included on the Dashboard; although they can opt out, navigating that choice creates an administrative burden.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between accelerating domestic critical‑mineral and processing capacity for national security (favoring centralized federal coordination and visibility) and preserving thorough environmental review, local consultation, and process predictability (which can be squeezed by faster, federally driven timelines). The bill pushes toward speed and federal oversight while offering an opt‑out that preserves project autonomy but at the cost of predictable, uniform application.
The bill purposefully converts a set of Department of Defense actions into 'covered projects' without altering environmental laws like NEPA; the net effect is procedural: greater federal coordination and visibility rather than substantive changes to permitting standards. That procedural shift creates two implementation challenges.
First, agencies and the Federal Permitting Improvement machinery must handle a new category of projects—some of which may not look like traditional 'transportation' projects the FAST Act often targets—potentially forcing novel interpretations of lead‑agency roles, review timelines, and the Dashboard’s scope. Second, the inclusion of Defense‑driven projects exposes them to public and interagency scrutiny, which can speed some processes but complicate sensitive supply‑chain work or classified elements.
The sponsor opt‑out is an important safety valve, but it introduces unpredictability: agencies and stakeholders cannot assume all Defense‑backed projects will actually enter the FAST Act pipeline. That undermines uniformity in how similar projects are treated and may create a two‑track system where identical activities face different coordination regimes depending on sponsor choice.
Finally, the statute is silent on resource allocation; the Federal Permitting Improvement entities will need funding, staff, and procedures to absorb these projects without creating bottlenecks elsewhere.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.