A Trump-aligned legal group founded by White House aide Stephen Miller filed Freedom of Information Act requests Thursday targeting a Biden organ transplant program that critics warn could be open to abuse.
The requests from America First Legal went to the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. At issue is the Increasing Organ Transplant Access Model, a six-year mandatory program finalized in December 2024 and set to take effect in July 2025, which aims to expand access to kidney transplants but has drawn criticism from Trump officials who warn it may be vulnerable to outside influence.
The model builds on earlier payment experiments, testing whether financial rewards and penalties can improve care and expand access for Medicare and Medicaid patients.
Trump officials and allies, including America First Legal, argue the system risks distortion by outside interests — a charge that prompted AFL’s FOIA requests as part of a broader investigation.
They cited in part recent findings from an HRSA-led probe published earlier this year. That investigation suggested third-party groups or for-profit organizations ‘may have unduly influenced the IOTA Model’— though their exact role or the extent they may have done so is unclear.
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also cited concerns from the study, which the department said in a statement ‘revealed clear negligence and disturbing practices’ by a large organ procurement organization in the U.S., prompting him to launch a new reform initiative.
In previewing the FOIA requests to Fox News Digital, AFL cited related concerns about patient safety, ethical misconduct, and discrimination in organ allocation, among other things.
The requests ask HHS, CMS and HRSA for a long list of information regarding the program and related correspondence — including emails, letters and memos between agency personnel and third-party representatives about the development or implementation of the IOTA Model. They also seek meeting records, agendas and summaries of discussions involving agency staff and outside officials.
The payment model will affect more than 100 U.S. transplant hospitals over six years, imposing mandatory financial incentives and penalties tied to a final performance score.
IOTA was touted as a way to help increase access to organ donors and transplants in the U.S. and help address the long waiting list of patients awaiting a transplant, which as of last fall stood at roughly 90,000 people.
Participating hospitals are evaluated for their performance in three key areas, according to CMS’s final rule, which took force in July, including the volume of kidney transplants, their matching efficiency, and post-transplant outcomes of their patients. But the role outside groups have played, including during the process of drafting the final rule, has prompted criticism and calls for additional scrutiny from Trump allies, including AFL.
Self-interested third parties should play no role in shaping America’s organ transplant policy,’ AFL counsel Laura Stell told Fox News Digital in a statement previewing the FOIA requests and broader investigation.
‘Where monetary incentives and penalties come into play, there must be utmost certainty that CMS developed the program without influence from entities with improper motives.’
America First Legal, though not officially part of the Trump administration, was founded by longtime Trump adviser Stephen Miller after Trump’s first presidential term.
Miller stepped down from AFL before rejoining the White House in 2025 as Trump’s deputy chief of staff.
A troubling new piece of legislation continues to make its way through the British parliament. Dubbed the “Banter Bill,” the Employment Rights Bill would criminalize any speech that might be considered offensive by any passerby.
As Dominic Green reports for The Free Press, under this proposed law, “Britons can be prosecuted for a remark that a worker in a public space overhears and finds insulting.” Under this standard, whether a certain sentiment (for instance, that Britain should reduce immigration) is legal will now depend on whether someone in the vicinity takes offense.
Unfortunately, this new subjective standard for what types of speech are allowed isn’t restricted to Great Britain. In the United States, more and more states are experimenting with a similar system. The Washington Free Beacon reports that eight states have set up “bias-response hotlines” which citizens are encouraged to call if they hear a comment — from a neighbor, coworker, or even passersby on the street — that they consider to be offensive. As Oregon says of their hotline, if you see or hear someone “creating racist images/drawings; mocking someone with a disability; or telling or sharing offensive ‘jokes’ about someone’s identity” they want to hear about it.
For examples of how absurd this can all get, in the United Kingdom, one man was arrested for praying silently in his apartment because a passerby found his praying offensive. In Oregon, a bias response incident was logged when a reporter from the Free Beacon, seeking to test how far this new Orwellian system would go, called to complain that after a dispute with their neighbor about the situation in Gaza, their neighbor had started flying an Israeli flag.
To be clear, the system in the United States, while bad, isn’t nearly as draconian as the system in Europe. In the United States, offensive jokes and racist memes are still legal, and it’s not clear what (if anything) the state has the power to do to people accused of making biased statements. Nonetheless, both systems represent a kind of snitch network: a state-based system that encourages citizens to run to the authorities any time they hear someone say something that they find offensive or disagreeable.
One of the biggest problems with these types of snitch networks is that they threaten to make us worse people.
For one thing, these networks encourage us to act like schoolchildren running to tattle on a classmate. “If you see something, say something” is awful advice when what you see is simply people praying silently or hanging flags with which you may disagree. Over time, networks like these threaten to change our culture from a “dignity culture” into what sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning call a “victimhood culture.”
Here’s how Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff describe dignity culture in their book The Coddling of the American Mind:
In an optimally functioning dignity culture, people are assumed to have dignity and worth regardless of what others think of them, so they are not expected to react too strongly to minor slights…People are expected to have enough self-control to shrug off irritations, slights, and minor conflicts as they pursue their own projects. For larger conflicts or violations of one’s rights, there are reliable legal or administrative remedies, but it would be undignified to call for such help for small matters, which one should be able to resolve on one’s own.
By contrast, Campbell and Manning describe “victimhood culture” as one in which people “display high sensitivity to slights,” “have a tendency to handle conflicts through complaints to third parties,” and “seek to cultivate an image of being victims who deserve assistance.”
Dignity cultures cultivate emotionally healthy responses and encourage people to develop the emotional resilience necessary to cope with life. Victimhood cultures encourage us to see oppression everywhere, to become paranoid, and to see our fellow citizens as possible threats to be reported.
Snitch networks encourage the callers to see themselves as victims. When the reporter from the Free Beacon called to complain about the Israeli flag, the operator suggested that he could “apply for taxpayer-funded therapy through the state’s Crime Victims Compensation Program, which covers counseling costs for bias incidents as well as crimes.” Just to reiterate how insane that is: this is a state government, telling a citizen that he might want to seek therapy because his neighbor was flying an Israeli flag.
This has the potential to do profound psychological damage. The truth is that, as humans, we more or less rise or fall to the standard to which others hold us. If people around us (especially people we endow with authority and trust, such as the operator of a government-sponsored hotline that we’re calling) tell us that we’re so fragile that we might need to seek therapy after seeing a flag, then we’re liable to believe them. We might even go to therapy, which can further reify our thin-skinnedness and reactivity. That, in turn, can make us feel even more vulnerable the next time that we hear or see something that we find uncomfortable, which can encourage us to start the vicious cycle all over again.
As the old saying goes: whether you believe you can or believe you can’t, you’re right. To put a psychological spin on it: whether you believe you are strong and capable enough to see an Israeli flag (or a man silently praying) and then go on with your day, or you believe that you’re so fragile that said sight necessitates a call to a government agency and possibly therapy, you’re right.
These snitch networks can also encourage catastrophizing in the kinds of people who use them. When the Free Beacon reporter called to report that their neighbor had begun flying an Israeli flag, the operator called it a “warning sign” and suggested that the caller consider installing security cameras in case the situation “escalates.” When the Free Beacon called again, this time posing as a Jewish man whose neighbor had hung a sign that said “From the River to the Sea,” the operator responded by offering to “talk about a safety plan” if the caller didn’t “feel safe.” “We have a small pot of money that can be used to purchase security cameras, locks, and other types of security measures,” the operator said.
But when people we trust encourage us to catastrophize, we can start to see threats all around us. When state operatives tell us that we should install security cameras in case our neighbors take hostile action, we start to see those neighbors as a threat — even if they’re actually completely benign. The whole system is a path to anxiety and paranoia.
These snitch networks threaten to make us more fragile. Instead of calling the authorities every time we see someone say something that we consider to be offensive, perhaps a healthier approach would be to remind ourselves of that old adage about sticks and stones.
These snitch networks are also a good reminder of what happens when our government is no longer limited.
Limited government encourages its citizens to act like adults, because there’s not always an authority figure hovering nearby to resolve any conflict. By contrast, one of the bigger psychological dangers of a totalitarian government is that it encourages its citizens to act like children.
Even though the COVID-era inflation surge is in the past, Americans are right to remain concerned about the state of our money. Contention over America’s monetary policy is nothing new, however, and sound money advocates can find inspiration in revisiting the prominent money debate, which enraptured much of American politics at the end of the nineteenth century. This period, known as the Gilded Age, was in many ways a captivating and busy time. In the years following the American Civil War, there was remarkable economic growth and productivity, but also a litany of issues facing the country, not the least of which revolved around monetary policy.
By the final decade of the nineteenth century, amid the Panic of 1893 and political factionalism, the debate over America’s money reached a climactic showdown. As this uneasy situation was unfolding, agrarians and Western miners wanted an inflationary “free silver” policy to relieve their debts and benefit their economic interests. In contrast, many classical liberals and conservatives favored a firm adherence to the gold standard on the grounds of prudence, stability, and connection with international trade. These diverging perspectives were personified in the rhetorical battle between William Jennings Bryan and Carl Schurz during the 1896 presidential campaign. The resulting war of words offers meaningful insights for those who support sound money and markets in our own time.
In 1896, the chief spokesman for inflation was the young Nebraskan William Jennings Bryan. At just 36 years old, Bryan was the presidential candidate for both the Democratic and People’s (Populist) parties. While he did not invent the concept of free silver, he was by this time its most potent advocate after delivering his captivating “Cross of Gold” speech at that summer’s Democratic National Convention. This famous speech reflected the inflationist position as Bryan referred to the gold standard as a “crown of thorns” upon the “brow of labor,” and concluded with the declaration, “you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.” Once nominated, Bryan toured the country in support of his inflationist and interventionist platform, which proclaimed that “the money question is paramount to all others at this time.” Bryan utilized a variety of tactics in his campaign, such as invoking class and regional rivalries, as well as frequent references to his Christian faith. Despite his oratorical energy and outward allegiance to the “plain people” of the country, not all Americans were sold on Bryan and free silver, however, as classical liberals were quick to demonstrate.
One outspoken Bryan critic was Carl Schurz, a German immigrant, Civil War veteran, Senator, political commentator, and determined classical liberal. Schurz was involved with several classical liberal causes in the Gilded Age, one of which was his firm advocacy of sound money. In direct response to Bryan, Schurz delivered a speech of his own in September 1896 in Chicago, the same city where Bryan had made history with the “Cross of Gold” in July. Schurz’s response was entitled “Honest Money and Honesty,” and it was a detailed rebuttal to multiple arguments Bryan employed in his campaign. Schurz’s speech served as a powerful case for sound money, the importance of which carried beyond the nineteenth century and into ours.
One of the concerns Schurz sought to address was the perceived instability that many sound money advocates thought a Bryan victory would have meant for the economy. Americans were already dealing with the continuing economic debacle stemming from the Panic of 1893, and it was unclear whether free silver would cause a resolution of these issues or more of the same, if not worse. Although Bryan pitched his free silver campaign as a method to relieve the suffering of many Americans, others saw it as a sign of impending inflation, instability, and national dishonor. There is even evidence to suggest that Bryan’s pro-inflation campaigning itself further fueled economic uncertainty as the future of the American economy seemed unclear. In this atmosphere Schurz took aim at the economic risk posed by Bryan and his calls for free silver inflation.
The issue, as Schurz saw it, was that Bryan’s calls for inflationary policy were addressed primarily to lower-income Americans such as farmers, miners, and urban laborers. Schurz called these “deceptive appeals” to wage-earners “the most heartless and damnable” of Bryan’s tactics because he recognized that these were also the people who stood to be most negatively impacted by an increase in the money supply and the attendant rise in prices. Schurz aptly recounted the momentous increase in prosperity which characterized the nineteenth century, a situation which has been borne out by economic studies of the period, despite the efforts of some academics to maintain the image of the Gilded Age as one simply of inequality and cartoonish Robber Barons. Rather, Schurz understood that only through the preservation of sound money, and not the freewheeling inflation of free silver, could the American economy continue the growth which had improved people’s lives throughout the nineteenth century.
Additionally, Carl Schurz countered Bryan’s argument on moral grounds, further demonstrating that the “money question” was as much an ethical disagreement as an economic one. He offered a religious metaphor of his own in a direct response to Bryan’s frequent invocation of Christian imagery on the campaign trail. Schurz likened Bryan and free silver to a “temptation” presented to the American people and noted: “Mr. Bryan has a taste for Scriptural illustration. He will remember how Christ was taken up on a high mountain, and promised all the glories of the world if he would fall down and worship the devil. He will also remember what Christ answered. So the tempter now takes the American people up the mountain and says, ‘I will take from you half of your debts if you will worship me.’” Yet, despite Schurz’s allusion to Bryan as a dangerous “tempter” akin to the devil, he was confident that the American people would see through his scheme and that “the Stars and Stripes will continue to wave undefiled, honorable, and honored among the banners of mankind.”
While William Jennings Bryan ultimately lost the 1896 election and the pro-gold McKinley became the president, the arguments employed in the debate over monetary policy reach beyond the confines of the late-nineteenth century and into our present day. It is true that the question no longer revolves around disputes over silver and gold, but the principles of sound money advanced by classical liberals like Carl Schurz are worthy of consideration because of their timeless insight into the nature of inflation and the moral and economic hazards it invites. As Americans in our own era have experienced the harmful effects of inflation in the wake of COVID, perhaps we can stand to benefit from learning from previous generations of sound money advocates.
In a recent column, Paul Krugman marvels at Brazil’s Pix system, a government-run digital payment network that has rapidly overtaken other non-cash methods in the country. He uses Pix to mock opponents of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and to scorn the supposed failure of cryptocurrency to deliver on its promises. But in doing so, Krugman misses nearly everything that matters about crypto — and about liberty itself.
Let’s start with the core of Krugman’s argument: Brazil built a fast, cheap, and accessible public payment system, so the US should do the same. He frames Pix as a superior version of Zelle, made better by the fact that it’s run by the central bank. And since 93 percent of Brazilians have used Pix, he takes that as proof that public systems outperform private ones and that government-run digital money is the future.
But then comes a misleading comparison. Krugman contrasts Brazil’s 93 percent Pix usage with the two percent of Americans who used crypto for payments in 2024, using that gap to declare crypto a failure. This is a textbook apples-to-oranges fallacy, and it betrays a deeper misunderstanding of what crypto is even trying to do.
Bitcoin was never designed to replace fiat in a world where fiat is propped up by legal tender laws, enforced monopolies, and taxpayer-subsidized infrastructure. Of course people in Brazil use Pix more than Bitcoin — just like they use Brazilian Reais (R$) more than gold. Popularity under state compulsion is not the same as voluntary preference. Adoption tells us little about legitimacy when one option is legally mandatory and the others are actively discouraged or shut out.
Krugman also blurs the lines between stablecoins, CBDCs, and cryptocurrencies as if they’re all interchangeable. But this conflation is lazy at best. A stablecoin like USDC, backed by private institutions and used voluntarily, is not the same as a state-issued CBDC that can be surveilled, censored, or politically weaponized. And none of these is equivalent to Pix, a government-owned retail payment system built on top of an existing fiat monopoly. Comparing Bitcoin to Pix is like comparing gold to Venmo. They solve completely different problems and are not competing on the same terms.
Krugman seems to think that because Pix is easy to use, it has solved the very problem crypto was meant to address. That’s like saying the DMV solved the transportation problem because it issues driver’s licenses quickly. What crypto offers is something fundamentally different: the ability to opt out of systems controlled by the state. That means privacy. That means financial sovereignty. That means not needing a government.
In fact, the very success of Pix reveals the danger Krugman refuses to acknowledge. When a government controls not only the money supply but also the rails for all digital payments, you have a monopoly in both the asset and its transmission. That’s absolute power — and it’s incompatible with individual liberty.
Brazil is already showing what this can look like.
In 2020, WhatsApp — used by virtually everyone in the country — attempted to launch its own payment system. It was blocked by the central bank. Not because it posed a risk to consumers, but because it competed with Pix. This is not innovation. It’s protectionism dressed in state robes. How can a private company possibly compete with a system the government both operates and regulates?
Krugman waves off fears of surveillance by assuring readers: “If we ever do create a CBDC, it will surely involve comparable privacy protection. Either you trust in rule of law or you don’t.” But history and economics tell us that power tends to expand until something stops it. Giving the state even more centralized control over money, payments, and financial infrastructure is not progress. It’s regression into a system where every transaction can potentially be tracked, every dissenter can be punished, and every private alternative can be crushed.
And let’s be clear: this isn’t a partisan concern. It’s a structural one. Once the infrastructure is in place, it doesn’t matter which party is in charge, what matters is that the government can now monitor, freeze, or block your financial life at the flip of a switch.
Ironically, Krugman’s celebration of Pix and dismissal of crypto will likely do the opposite of what he intends. As more people realize the extent of government control over fiat rails, the demand for alternatives will only grow. Pix doesn’t kill crypto — it vindicates it. Despite much less developed capital markets, Brazil got its first bitcoin ETF before the US, and it also has access to an altcoin ETF, which the SEC has blocked twice.
Krugman seems stuck in a worldview where all money must be politically managed, where value comes from government authority, and where freedom is something granted, not assumed. But the core idea behind crypto — especially Bitcoin — is not low transaction fees or financial inclusion, as Krugman narrowly defines it. The real innovation is the creation of a monetary system that no one controls, and no one can shut down.
Bitcoin’s strength lies in its incorruptibility. Its rules are enforced not by men but by math — by cryptographic guarantees, not political compromise. It offers what no CBDC ever will: monetary and financial freedom backed not by laws, but by code.
And yes, maybe only two percent of Americans used crypto for payments in 2024. But that’s beside the point. Bitcoin thrives where it’s needed most: among Venezuelans escaping hyperinflation, Ukrainians fleeing invasion, and Nigerians bypassing capital controls. It gains value where the system fails, and that is precisely what makes it valuable.
Paul Krugman sees Pix as the future of money. But what he’s really celebrating is the future of state control. For those of us who value liberty, privacy, and competition, that’s no future at all.
The NATO Chiefs of Defense reaffirmed support for Ukraine in a virtual meeting Wednesday in Brussels that included all 32 allied military leaders and featured the first briefing in this format led by U.S. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, the new Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).
U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine attended the meeting virtually, along with Grynkewich, who also leads U.S. European Command, U.S. officials confirmed to Fox News on Tuesday.
NATO officials said in a statement that the ‘candid discussion’ centered on what security guarantees the alliance might provide Ukraine as part of a potential peace agreement to end Russia’s three-year war.
Col. Martin O’Donnell, spokesperson for Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, wrote on X that ‘the Supreme Allied Commander was honored to brief the Chiefs of Defense, his first in such a format. As he has said before, ‘these are consequential times.”
‘NATO has faced important times before — and these have only made our Alliance stronger. As we work through these important issues, we will all stay informed, engaged, and united in the defense of the Euro-Atlantic region and with NATO’s ongoing support to Ukraine as progress towards peace continues,’ he added.
The Chair of NATO’s Military Committee also praised the discussions, writing on X that it was a ‘great, candid discussion among NATO Chiefs of Defence’ and an ‘excellent update on the security environment from our new SACEUR, his first with us.’
The chair added that the meeting confirmed support for Ukraine, emphasizing the alliance’s focus on a ‘just, credible and durable peace’ and praising the ‘relentless courage’ of Ukrainian forces.
According to the Associated Press, assurances that Ukraine won’t face another invasion are seen as central to any settlement, with Kyiv pressing for Western-backed military commitments, including weapons and training. European allies are working on options for a multinational security force that could backstop a peace deal.
Wednesday’s virtual session unfolded against the backdrop of President Donald Trump’s push to steer Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy toward a settlement. Trump met with Putin last Friday in Alaska and hosted Zelenskyy and European leaders at the White House on Monday.
The reaffirmations come a day after Caine convened a smaller meeting in Washington with defense chiefs from Germany, the U.K., France, Finland and Italy to prepare for Wednesday’s broader NATO discussions.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov criticized NATO discussions on Ukraine’s security conducted without Moscow’s involvement, warning that ‘this will not work’ and vowing Russia would ‘ensure its legitimate interests firmly and harshly,’ RIA Novosti reported, according to AP.
The White House did not immediately return Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
Uranium mining in Canada accounts for 13 percent of global output, making the Great White North the second largest producer of uranium in the world, behind only Kazakhstan.
Canada hosts 9 percent of the world’s uranium resources and is home to the biggest deposits of high-grade uranium. Their grades of up to 20 percent uranium are 100 times greater than the global average.
Canadian uranium deposits are found mainly in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Québec, as well as the territory of Nunavut. Of these, Saskatchewan leads the country in both uranium exploration and production.
In this article
Top Canadian uranium mines
Canada is home to three producing uranium mines, Cigar Lake, McArthur River and McClean Lake, all of which are located in Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin.
Saskatchewan is a premier uranium mining jurisdiction as home to the Athabasca Basin, a mining-friendly region in the north of the province that’s renowned for its high-quality uranium deposits. The area’s long uranium-mining history has made Canada an international leader in the uranium sector.
Canada’s major uranium mining companies are Cameco (TSX:CCO,NYSE:CCJ) and Orano Canada, a subsidiary of the multinational company Orano Group. Cameco is the majority owner and operator of Cigar Lake and McArthur River. Orano holds a significant stake in both mines, and is also the majority owner and operator of the recently restarted McClean Lake operation.
Data and information on the Canadian uranium mines and advanced projects discussed below is taken from mining database MDO. The database only includes projects that have at least partial ownership by public companies.
Cigar Lake, which entered commercial production in 2015, is one of Canada’s largest uranium mines and the world’s highest grade uranium mine. The underground mining operation involves the use of innovative mining methods such as jet boring, which was purposely designed by Cameco to tackle the unique challenges of the Cigar Lake deposit.
For 2024, production at the Cigar Lake mine was reported at 16.9 million pounds U3O8, up 2 million pounds from the previous year. Guidance for 2025 stands at approximately 18 million pounds.
Cigar Lake’s proven and probable reserves stand at 551,400 metric tons of ore grading 15.87 percent U3O8 for 192.9 million pounds of contained U3O8. Its mine life is expected to run until 2036.
The McArthur River-Key Lake operation is home to the McArthur River mine and Key Lake mill, respectively the largest high-grade uranium mine and largest uranium mill in the world, according to MDO.
McArthur River was first brought into production in 2000 using raiseboring and blast hole stoping mining methods, but was put on care and maintenance temporarily in early 2018 due to low uranium prices. Cameco brought the mine and mill back into production in late 2022, progressively ramping up output over the next few years.
Production in 2024 came in at 20.3 million pounds U3O8, up nearly 43 percent from the previous year’s output, and production guidance for 2025 has been set at 18 million pounds.
McArthur River’s proven and probable reserves total 2.49 million metric tons grading 6.55 percent U3O8 for 359.6 million pounds of contained metal. Its mine life extends out to 2044.
The McClean Lake mine re-entered production in July 2025, 17 years after it was shuttered in 2008 due to low uranium prices made the operations uneconomic.
After studies demonstrated that the joint venture partners’ patented surface access borehole resource extraction (SABRE) mining method could bring McClean back to life economically, the decision was made in January 2024 to bring the asset back into production.
The site hosts multiple deposits, including the now-producing McClean North deposit. It also boasts the only mill in the world designed to process high-grade uranium ore without dilution, according to MDO. The mill has the capacity to produce 24 million pounds of uranium concentrate, or yellowcake, annually. Currently, the mill is processing ore from the Cigar Lake mine under a toll mining agreement.
Proven reserves at McClean Lake are in the form of ore stockpiles, and total 90,000 metric tons at a grade of 0.37 percent for U3O8 for 700,000 pounds of contained metal. The site also hosts significant indicated and inferred resources of 25.4 million pounds across the McLean North, Sue D and Sue F deposits.
The partners expect to produce approximately 800,000 pounds of U3O8 from McClean North in the first year of operations. In addition, mining at the McClean North and Sue F deposits has the potential to produce about 3 million pounds from 2026 to 2030.
Upcoming Canadian uranium mines
There are a handful of contenders for Canada’s next uranium mine: Patterson Lake South, Rook 1 and Wheeler River. None are in the construction stage yet, but most are expecting to come online in the next few years. Learn about the advanced uranium projects below.
1. Patterson Lake South
Ownership: Paladin Energy (TSX:PDN,ASX:PDN) Province: Saskatchewan Mine type: Underground Deposit type: Basement hosted vein-type or fracture-filled
Currently in the permitting phase, the Patterson Lake South (PLS) project hosts the large, high-grade and near-surface Triple R deposit, which has the potential to produce both uranium and gold. The project has a probable mineral reserve estimate of 93.7 million pounds of contained uranium from 3 million metric tons grading 1.41 percent U3O8.
The 2023 feasibility study for PLS highlights average production of approximately 9 million pounds U3O8 per year over a 10 year mine life.
Paladin added the PLS uranium project to its portfolio in December 2024 via its acquisition of Fission Uranium. The company is continuing to develop the PLS’s resource potential outside of the Triple R deposit, with a significant focus on the project’s Saloon East zone. Advancing through the environmental permitting process remains ongoing.
NexGen Energy’s Rook 1 project, home to the Arrow deposit, is in the permitting stage with a feasibility study completed in February 2021. Arrow hosts probable mineral reserves of 239.6 million pounds of U3O8 from 4.57 million metric tons of ore at a grade of 2.37 percent, as well as a measured and indicated resource of 256.7 million pounds from 3.75 million metric tons at 3.1 percent.
Over its 11.7 year mine life, Rook 1 is expected to produce an average of 19.8 million pounds of U3O8 per year, including over 25 million pounds during the first five years.
Provincial environmental assessment approval was granted in November 2023, and the federal environmental impact statement was accepted as final in January 2025. In March 2025, the company shared that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has proposed hearing dates for the Rook I project on November 19, 2025, and February 9 to 13, 2026.
NexGen states that a full project execution team is at the ready and the site is fully prepared for construction activities to commence following final federal approval.
The Wheeler River uranium project, billed as the largest undeveloped uranium project in the eastern region of the Athabasca Basin, is home to the high-grade Phoenix and Gryphon deposits. Each deposit is considered a standalone asset, and the Phoenix deposit is the more advanced of the two.
A feasibility study for the Phoenix deposit as an in-situ recovery operation was completed in mid-2023. In February 2025, Denison reported that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is set to conduct hearings for the project’s environmental assessment and license to prepare and construct a uranium mine and mill on October 8 and December 8 to 12, 2025. If granted approval, Denison is prepared to start construction in early 2026, followed by first production by the first half of 2028.
As for the Gryphon deposit, an update to the pre-feasibility study for a conventional underground mining operation was completed in 2023. Denison conducted a field program in the first quarter of 2025 as part of its efforts to support a feasibility study.
Canadian uranium exploration companies
Canada is also home to a slew of uranium exploration and development companies focused on discovering uranium in Saskatchewan, Nunavut and Newfoundland and Labrador.
For more insight on the uranium companies operating in the Athabasca Basin discussed in this article, check out our breakdown of the 15 uranium companies exploring the basin.
Securities Disclosure: I, Melissa Pistilli, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Privately owned Rare Earths Americas (REA) has formed in a bid to explore and develop high-grade rare earths assets in the US and Brazil, looking to consolidate supply chains for various domestic sectors.
The company, which raised AU$25 million in a private funding round, said it combines experienced operators and investors with “deep expertise across global mining, energy and critical materials.”
Included in the company’s portfolio is the Foothills discovery, located in Georgia, US.
The site contains grades of up to 41.3 percent total rare earth oxides, including heavy rare earths crucial for high-performance magnets. REA has highlighted its strong logistics, low-cost power and streamlined path to permitting.
In Brazil, the Alpha and Constellation projects hold more than 1 billion metric tons of high-grade ionic clay rare earths mineralization, including dysprosium and terbium, which are essential for permanent magnets.
The Homer project, also located in Brazil, targets multiple carbonatite clusters with the potential for niobium discoveries in a region known for leading niobium mines.
“The rare earths market is undergoing a generational shift as the West races to secure its rare earths future,” said CEO Donald Swartz in a Monday (August 18) press release.
REA’s timing aligns with broader US efforts to reduce reliance on China, which currently controls nearly 70 percent of global rare earths processing and accounts for most heavy rare earths production.
In April, Beijing restricted shipments of seven rare earths to the US and other countries, prompting concern among automakers and defense contractors dependent on these materials.
The US government recently proposed a pricing support mechanism for domestic rare earths ventures in order to increase production and mitigate China’s influence.
Discussions last month, led by former White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro and National Security Council official David Copley, included rare earths producers and major tech firms reliant on these critical minerals.
China’s dominance stems from billions of dollars invested in mining and processing since 2000, often with minimal environmental or safety oversight, allowing the country to produce rare earths at lower cost than western competitors.
The US response to the Asian nation’s rare earths stranglehold has included efforts to develop domestic mine supply and build out refinement, processing and production capacity. American companies have also sought to secure alternative sources in Africa and Latin America, but investment and technology barriers remain significant.
Mountain Pass in California, the country’s only large-scale rare earths mine, produces bastnaesite carbonate, but relies heavily on foreign processing. MP Materials (NYSE:MP), the mine’s operator, posted a net loss of US$65.4 million in 2024, highlighting the challenge of competing with China’s low-cost production model.
REA’s launch positions it as a potential strategic player in this evolving landscape.
According to the company, the Foothills project offers a “streamlined permitting pathway” in the US, while the Alpha and Constellation projects in Brazil provide access to large-scale, high-grade heavy rare earths.
“With grade and strategic geography on our side, we intend to advance our rare earths projects to support the long-term supply of critical materials essential to domestic innovation,” Swartz added.
Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Commodities giant Glencore (LSE:GLEN,OTC Pink:GLCNF) has submitted applications to place two of its flagship copper projects in Argentina under a new investment regime.
The Switzerland-based firm is seeking to include the El Pachón deposit in San Juan and the Agua Rica deposit in Catamarca under Argentina’s recently introduced Incentive Regime for Large Investments (RIGI).
Together, the two projects represent a planned capital investment of about US$13.5 billion over the next decade — US$9.5 billion for El Pachón and US$4 billion for Agua Rica.
Both sites would benefit from a long-term economic framework with enhanced investor protections under the RIGI program, which the administration of President Javier Milei launched this year to attract foreign investment.
“President Milei and his administration must be credited for introducing the RIGI. This framework has changed the investment landscape in Argentina, providing a key catalyst to attract major foreign investment to the country,” Glencore CEO Gary Nagle said in the company’s announcement on Monday (August 18).
“The RIGI provides a key platform for the development of Argentina’s significant natural resource endowment,’ added Martín Pérez de Solay, CEO of Glencore Argentina.
‘I am confident that the mining sector can be a major contributor to the Argentinian economy with the El Pachón and Agua Rica projects supporting the country’s ambition to become one of the world’s leading copper producers.”
El Pachón is a large-scale copper and molybdenum deposit with estimated resources of about 6 billion metric tons (MT) of ore averaging 0.43 percent copper, 2.2 grams per MT silver and 130 grams per MT molybdenum.
For its part, Agua Rica hosts roughly 1.2 billion MT of ore with average grades of 0.47 percent copper, 0.2 grams per MT gold, 3.4 grams per MT silver and 0.03 percent molybdenum. Ore from Agua Rica would be processed at the existing Alumbrera facilities, located 35 kilometers away, through the MARA project framework.
The scale of Glencore’s expansion comes amid a broader strategic race among western producers to secure supplies of critical minerals needed for clean energy technologies, electric vehicles and defense applications. Copper in particular is considered vital to global electrification, and analysts warn that rising demand could soon outstrip supply.
US enforcement shift on Chinese metals
On Tuesday (August 19), the US Department of Homeland Security announced that imports of Chinese steel, copper and lithium will be targeted for “high-priority enforcement” under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, a law restricting goods linked to alleged human rights abuses in China’s Xinjiang region.
America has a moral, economic, and national security duty to eradicate threats that endanger our nation’s prosperity, including unfair trade practices that disadvantage the American people and stifle our economic growth. The Trump administration is taking action.
The use of… https://t.co/cuSlPkW1ab
— Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) August 19, 2025
“The use of slave labor is repulsive and we will hold Chinese companies accountable for abuses and eliminate threats its forced labor practices pose to our prosperity,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a post on X.
US officials say the Xinjiang region hosts state-run internment camps where Uyghurs and other minority groups are subject to forced labor. Beijing has consistently denied the allegations, dismissing them as politically motivated.
The announcement expands Washington’s campaign to scrutinize goods with ties to Xinjiang, which has already affected solar panels, cotton and other commodities. The new focus on copper and lithium marks a significant escalation given both metals’ central role in renewable energy and battery production.
Global supply chains in flux
Together, Glencore’s Argentine projects and Washington’s enforcement measures highlight how critical minerals are becoming increasingly entangled with geopolitics.
China processes about 70 percent of the world’s rare earths and controls a major share of global copper and lithium refining capacity. Western governments are trying to diversify away from Chinese supply chains amid rising tensions.
Argentina, with its vast mineral reserves, has emerged as a key player in this strategy. The country is already a major producer of lithium and is positioning itself as a copper hub through projects like Glencore’s expansion.
Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
ESGold (CSE:ESAU,OTCQB:ESAUF) has signed a binding memorandum of understanding with Colombian firm Planta Magdalena to form a 50/50 joint venture on a fully permitted gold- and silver-bearing tailings project.
Under the agreement, ESGold will invest C$1.5 million for its stake and will retain a first right of refusal to acquire the remaining 50 percent interest from Planta Magdalena within 12 months.
The project is designed to replicate ESGold’s Montauban model in Québec, which focuses on generating cashflow by reprocessing legacy tailings, while providing environmental remediation.
Preliminary due diligence sampling of 27 tailings collected from the project, located in Colombia’s Bolívar department, returned encouraging results, including assays of 42.7 grams per metric ton (g/t) gold and 280 g/t silver.
Several samples exceeded 5 g/t gold and 190 g/t silver, highlighting the potential for high-grade recovery.
Bulk concentrate tests are underway, with final verification to be completed at Actlabs in Québec.
Bolívar is one of Colombia’s most prolific gold regions, with artisanal miners processing an estimated 300,000 metric tons of ore annually. ESGold, a self-described scalable clean mining and exploration innovation company, plans to apply modern, mercury-free recovery methods to improve yields while addressing environmental concerns.
“The region still processes hundreds of thousands of metric tons of ore annually, yet much of it is handled using rudimentary mercury amalgamation methods that leave behind a substantial amount of gold and silver in the tailings,” said Gordon Robb, CEO of ESGold. “This creates an immense opportunity for ESGold to apply modern, environmentally responsible recovery technology that can significantly improve yields while remediating legacy mine sites.”
Pending completion of technical and legal due diligence, ESGold aims to fast track the project toward production in 2026, establishing a second high-margin operation alongside Montauban.
Green revenue stream
It is estimated that there are 8,500 tailings facilities around the globe, holding more than 217 billion cubic meters of mine ‘waste.’ In an effort to reduce the amount of stored tailings and their environmental impact, tailings reprocessing is emerging as both an economic and sustainable revenue stream.
By extracting valuable residual metals, such as gold, copper and critical minerals, from legacy waste, companies can generate revenue while reducing the environmental footprint of tailings facilities.
The approach also aligns with sustainability goals, as it mitigates risks like tailings dam failures and restores degraded sites, turning longstanding liabilities into productive assets
Globally, the growing recognition of untapped value in tailings has spurred renewed interest and investment, with major miners — like Vale (NYSE:VALE) — and governments prioritizing tailings projects as part of circular mining strategies and critical minerals security.
Securities Disclosure: I, Georgia Williams, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Providence Gold Mines Inc. (“Providence” or the “Company”) announces that subject to Regulatory approval it has entered an option agreement to acquire the “La Dama de Oro Gold Property”. The property is a historical gold mine 100% owned by the Optionor, (” Mohave Gold Mining”), a private Company incorporated under the laws of the state of California.
Providence recently commissioned Ethos Geological Inc. of Bozeman MT to complete an NI 43 101 technical report, authored by Zachary Black, SME-RM acting as the Qualified Person under NI 43 101. The NI 43 101 technical report has been submitted for Exchange review and approval. A cautionary note: The property is at an early exploration stage and does not have sufficient data for a mineral resource.
The La Dama de Oro Property is situated in the Silver Mountain Mining District, within the structurally complex Eastern California Shear Zone and the intersection with the San Andreas Fault Zone. Bedrock geology includes Mesozoic quartz monzonite that intrudes the Jurassic Sidewinder Volcanics. The structural history of the region implies a sequence of compressional and extensional events that reactivated favorably oriented zones of weakness for the circulation of hydrothermal fluids. The main zone of mineralization is hosted by the La Dama de Oro Fault, a shallow northeast-dipping oblique-slip fault.
The mineralization at the property is classified as a structurally controlled, low-sulfidation epithermal gold-silver vein system. Gold and silver mineralization is associated with multi-phase quartz veining, brecciation, and pervasive hydrothermal alteration along the La Dama de Oro Fault. The largest known vein is 4.5 feet at its widest point and remains open to exploration, with the potential for additional undiscovered veins along the fault system. The property has an approved exploration permit that includes a bulk sample.
The Option entitles the Company the right to purchase 100% of the La Dama de Oro Gold Property under the following terms:
YEAR 1
Within 15 days of Regulatory approval the Company shall issue 2,000,000 common shares from treasury and incur $20,000 in expenditures within 12 months of the effective date.
YEAR 2
The Company shall issue an additional 2,000,000 common shares from treasury and incur $250,000 in expenditures before the second-year anniversary of the effective date
YEAR 3
The Company shall issue an additional 500,000 common shares from treasury and incur a further $250,000 in expenditures before the third-year anniversary date of the effective date
YEAR 4
The Company shall incur an additional $250,000 expenditures before the fourth-year anniversary of the effective date
Ronald A. Coombes, President & CEO of Providence commented; “The best place to explore for gold is where gold is, with the rich historical history of past gold production at the La Dama de Oro minethere remains very good discovery potential”.
The scientific and technical information contained in this news release has been reviewed and approved by Zachary Black, SME-RM, a Qualified Person as defined under NI 43-101. Mr. Black is a consultant and is independent of Providence Gold Mines Inc.
For more information, please contact Ronald Coombes, President, and CEO of the Company.
Ronald A. Coombes, President & CE
Phone: 604 724 2369
roombes@providencegold.com
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
Neither the OTCQB and or the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
All statements, trend analysis and other information contained in this press release relative to markets about anticipated future events or results constitute forward-looking statements. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, included herein, including, without limitation, statements relating to the permitting process, future production of Providence Gold Mines, budget and timing estimates, the Company’s working capital and financing opportunities and statements regarding the exploration and mineralization potential of the Company’s properties, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are subject to business and economic risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results of operations to differ materially from those contained in the forward- looking statements. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from Providence Gold Mines expectations include fluctuations in commodity prices and currency exchange rates; uncertainties relating to interpretation of drill results and the geology, continuity and grade of mineral deposits; the need for cooperation of government agencies and native groups in the exploration and development of properties and the issuance of required permits; the need to obtain additional financing to develop properties and uncertainty as to the availability and terms of future financing; the possibility of delay in exploration or development programs and uncertainty of meeting anticipated program milestones; and uncertainty as to timely availability of permits and other governmental approvals. Forward-looking statements are based on estimates and opinions of management at the date the statements are made. Providence Gold Mines does not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements except as required by applicable securities laws. Investors should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statement.
