There is broad consensus among Western policymakers that China’s near monopoly on critical minerals represents an urgent strategic vulnerability for the United States and its allies. China processes over 90 percent of the world’s rare earth elements (REE), a subset of critical minerals, raising concerns that it will use its dominance to advance geopolitical goals. China processes about 80 percent of the world’s lithium and the same percentage of the world’s lithium batteries, at a time when demand for the metal has skyrocketed. As the West looks to reduce dependency on Chinese supply chains, success will require escaping policy silos and pursuing a comprehensive strategy rooted in domestic investment, international partnerships, regulatory reform, and sustained will.

The United States is 100 percent import-reliant for 12 of the minerals deemed “critical” by the U.S. Geological Survey and over 50 percent reliant for another 29. China dominates production or processing for 29 of these, including rare earths, antimony, cobalt, copper, graphite, and lithium. Even when mined elsewhere, many of these materials still flow to China for processing due to its unmatched midstream infrastructure. The result is a China-centric supply chain vulnerable to disruption and instability amid the broader dynamics of geopolitics with China.

In 2010, China halted REE exports to Japan over a territorial dispute, and in 2023, it banned exports of REE processing technology in an apparent effort to fend off midstream competition. Since then, it has imposed export controls on key elements like antimony, gallium, germanium, and graphite. This has raised bipartisan concern among U.S. policymakers that key industries are over-reliant on China, which has in turn spurred support for new domestic capacity throughout the supply chain. Whether that bipartisanship will continue is open to question because there are plenty of ideological traps that could spring at any time. Climate, environmental, and land use issues are important motivators for base Democratic voters. Purchase guarantees, price floors, and government equity are at odds with free-market conservative orthodoxy.

Read the article.