The limits of “Win–Win” transitions: Understanding tensions between resource nationalism and just transitions

Rare earth elements (REEs) underpin clean energy and defense technologies, and recovering REEs from coal-related wastes is widely cast as a “win–win” that advances resource security, energy transitions, remediation, and regional development. Using a framework of the four tenets of energy justice (procedural, recognitional, distributional, and restorative justice), this paper interrogates the “win-win” claim by examining how resource nationalism and just transitions interact in U.S. efforts to extract REEs from coal ash, tailings, and acid mine drainage. Existing scholarship treats resource nationalism and just transitions as analytically separate. This paper addresses that gap by synthesizing both literatures and using a case study of rare earth element (REE) extraction from mining waste to examine their tensions in practice. Using a qualitative case study design, the analysis draws on 22 semi-structured interviews with expert stakeholders across government, academia, industry, and civil society. Findings show that national security and competitiveness concerns strongly shape research agendas and early implementation decisions, often privileging state-led priorities over community participation and transparency. Stakeholders identify risks that costs and environmental burdens will fall disproportionately on local communities and that site selection will prioritize economic viability over restorative justice needs. The study shows justice outcomes depend on explicit policy design. • Resource nationalism shapes REE extraction decisions across the innovation cycle. • Resource nationalism does not inherently conflict with just transition goals. • Tensions emerge across procedural, recognitional, distributional, and restorative justice. • Win–win outcomes require policy design to constrain nationalist priorities. • Competing narratives create risks of climate obstruction.