US wants to build 'mineral superpower' or encounters embarrassment (global hotspot)
Recently, US President Trump convened a roundtable meeting with executives, scholars, and officials from some large mining companies to discuss issues such as ensuring critical mineral supplies for the United States and its allies. At the same time, the White House announced a series of mining investment targets, stating that it will invest $3 billion in key raw material and battery projects to help the United States regain its position as a global "mineral superpower".
Experts point out that due to a series of shortcomings such as high local production costs, lack of midstream purification technology, long project construction cycles, and insufficient professional talents, the United States will find it difficult to get rid of external dependence in the short to medium term, and the vision of building a "mineral superpower" may encounter embarrassment.
There is a 'breakpoint' in the supply chain
The United States is continuing to generalize the concept of national security, using strong intervention measures such as fiscal subsidies and administrative legislation to guide industries and capital to cluster in domestic and "friendly areas"
For the White House's new investment of $3 billion, Reuters analyzed that the United States urgently needs key minerals to replenish its weapons stockpile depleted during the Iran conflict. US defense officials and members of Congress have warned that due to current production capacity limitations, some weapon inventories may take several years to replenish.
The White House has consistently denied the news of 'ammunition inventory shortage'. But analysts point out that what can be confirmed is that the United States has tied key minerals to the defense supply chain and national security.
Professor Cui Shoujun from the School of International Relations at Renmin University of China analyzed in an interview with our reporter that precision guided weapons, missiles, radars, and aerospace equipment are highly dependent on key minerals such as antimony, titanium, rare earths, and cobalt. Long term geopolitical friction and military consumption have posed severe challenges to the US military's military production capacity and strategic reserves. Direct investment aims to urgently fill the "breakpoint" in the upstream of the military supply chain.
Since the beginning of Trump's second term, the US government has made significant investments in key mineral resources. In March 2025, the White House issued an executive order citing the 1950 Defense Production Act, requiring federal agencies to accelerate the approval of mining and processing facilities to increase domestic production capacity for critical minerals and rare earths. In February of this year, Trump announced the launch of a $12 billion "Treasury Plan" aimed at establishing strategic emergency reserves of key minerals and rare earths for the US manufacturing industry.
According to Reuters, the Trump administration has listed the upgrading of key local mineral mining and processing industries as a national security priority, and has invested billions of dollars in nearly 150 local mineral companies. The Wall Street Journal reported that the current US government has reached approximately 160 mineral related agreements, with a total value of nearly $40 billion.
Externally, the United States is intensifying the construction of exclusive "clubs". In February of this year, the United States officially formed a "Key Mineral Supply Chain Alliance" that includes allies such as the European Union, Japan, and South Korea. In July, the White House executive order required the US defense industry and other manufacturers to cease purchasing key materials such as rare earth magnets, tungsten, molybdenum, and tantalum from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea from January 1, 2027. In addition, in resource rich areas such as Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia, the United States has also signed bilateral mineral cooperation agreements through agreement capital injection, underwriting agreements, and high-level diplomacy, in order to seize high-quality mining rights overseas.
Cui Shoujun analyzed that the United States is continuing to generalize the concept of national security, using strong intervention measures such as fiscal subsidies and administrative legislation to guide industries and capital to cluster in domestic and "friendly areas". Its series of layouts aim to build a decentralized, secure and controllable alternative key mineral supply chain, seize high value-added links in the industrial chain, construct a "resource acquisition midstream refining high-end manufacturing" system, and reshape the global mineral governance pattern.
Shortcomings are very prominent
The bottleneck of key minerals often lies not in whether there is ore, but in whether high-purity and low-cost industrial smelting can be achieved
According to the "Mineral Product Summary" report released by the United States Geological Survey in February this year, the United States' dependence on imported foreign mineral products continues to rise. Among the 90 non fuel mineral products monitored, 16 have a 100% external dependence, and 54 mineral products require more than 50% of their consumption to be imported. The United States relies entirely on imported minerals such as natural graphite, manganese, tantalum, yttrium, etc.
Why does the high degree of external dependence come from the abundant mineral resources in the United States?
The bottleneck of key mineral resources often lies not in the presence or absence of minerals, but in whether high-purity and low-cost industrial smelting can be achieved. Cui Shoujun analyzed that the United States has long shifted the high pollution and high energy consumption smelting process outward, resulting in a lack of key chemical purification technology, facilities, and process accumulation locally, and a serious gap in midstream smelting and refining capabilities. Meanwhile, constrained by the National Environmental Policy Law and strict environmental regulations in various states, mining and smelting projects are often accompanied by long-term judicial litigation and local community protests, with a cycle from exploration to production lasting 7-10 years, making it difficult to cope with the rapidly increasing demand. Moreover, global mineral prices experience significant cyclical fluctuations. Once international prices decline, domestic companies in the United States face high costs in terms of manpower, infrastructure, compliance, and environmental protection. They heavily rely on government subsidies and are prone to losses or even bankruptcy.
The talent gap is also a major bottleneck. According to the American Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME), the number of accredited mining engineering schools in the United States has decreased from a peak of 25 in the 1980s to 14 today. The total number of mining related bachelor's, master's, and doctoral graduates in the United States is less than 300 per year, which is far from matching the talent demand brought about by the expansion of the industrial chain. The shortage of professional talents and skilled technical workers is prominent, and it is difficult to rebuild the supporting capacity of the industrial chain in the short term, "said Cui Shoujun.
Ian Lange, an economics professor at Colorado Mining University, analyzed that from an economic perspective, it would be difficult to fully constrain member countries' companies or manufacturers from engaging in cross regional procurement if there were lower cost market options for the key mineral "small circle" pulled up by the United States. Analysts point out that a supply chain layout that prioritizes geopolitical logic not only exacerbates global market segmentation, but also forces all participants to bear higher economic and operational risks.
According to research data from the United States Geological Survey, China accounted for 70% of rare earth imports to the United States from 2000 to 2023.
According to Reuters citing data from Ritter Consulting, the demand for the most commonly used rare earth magnetic materials in the United States in 2025 is about 48000 tons, while domestic supply is only 300 tons. Even if American companies make every effort to expand production, it is expected that the annual production capacity will only reach 5000 tons by the end of this year, and the supply gap is still significant. The report suggests that domestic American companies are generally unprepared for the government's goal of completely eliminating China's dependence on key minerals by January 2027.
The outlook is not optimistic
The key issue lies in the gap between "mobilization" and "capability", and the industrial chain system cannot be summoned out of thin air according to a political timetable
The domestic public opinion in the United States is not optimistic about the vision of a "mineral superpower" portrayed by the US government.
According to an analysis by the Carnegie Foundation, a Washington think tank, by 2035, the domestic production of key minerals in the United States will only be able to meet the demand for zinc and molybdenum. For other key minerals that support energy transition and industrial modernization, such as graphite, lithium, nickel, etc., the United States will still rely on imports.
Tech Times, a US technology media outlet, analyzed that despite the huge investment scale announced by the US government, it takes years rather than months to translate investment commitments into actual supply needs. The US rare earth industry organization "Rare Earth Exchange" believes that the key issue lies in the gap between "mobilization" and "capability", and the industrial chain system cannot be summoned out of thin air according to a political timetable. The Wall Street Journal analysis suggests that the relevant agreements are yet to be finalized, and the government's planned projects may take several years to complete. Many mining projects in the United States have previously failed due to technical difficulties or high costs.
Cui Shoujun believes that in terms of military strategic reserves and specific key minerals, the United States can improve the emergency support capabilities of some key materials in the short term through massive financial investment and policy intervention. However, from the perspective of the overall business system and global market share, due to high local production costs, midstream purification technology shortcomings, and long project construction cycles, the United States is difficult to build a completely independent and globally competitive local industrial chain in the short to medium term. The vision of a "mineral superpower" is more likely to face the embarrassing situation of "high investment, low efficiency, and partial control".
The series of layouts by the United States in key mineral fields will also have a certain impact on the global industrial and supply chains. Cui Shoujun analyzed that the global key mineral supply chain used to follow the global division of labor of "cost and efficiency first", but now it is accelerating its transformation to "safety first", and the characteristics of factionalism and fragmentation are becoming increasingly prominent; Moreover, artificially segmenting the market and duplicating production capacity will also drive up the prices of key minerals and terminal products such as batteries, electric vehicles, and wind power equipment, increasing the economic cost of clean energy transformation; At the same time, the resource game between the United States and Europe has objectively expanded the bargaining space of some commodity exporting countries. Many countries have successively introduced policies such as restricting raw ore exports and forcing local deep processing, which will further intensify the global competition in the resource field.