The United States is undertaking a significant, whole-of-government effort to secure its supply chain for critical minerals, essential components for both national defense and the burgeoning green energy sector. While the challenge of reducing reliance on foreign sources, particularly China, is profound, the current strategy focuses on four key pillars: onshoring domestic production, friend-shoring with allies, recycling, and technological innovation.
The urgency stems from a strategic vulnerability. According to a report updated , the U.S. Heavily depends on foreign nations – most notably China – for both the mining and, critically, the processing and refining of these minerals. These materials underpin everything from advanced surveillance drones and precision-guided munitions to electric vehicles and wind turbines. China has already demonstrated a willingness to leverage its dominance, tightening export restrictions on graphite, antimony, and certain rare earths in response to U.S. Trade and technology controls.
The Biden administration has responded with a series of Executive Orders (EOs) aimed at bolstering domestic mineral production and reducing reliance on adversarial nations. , Executive Order 14213 established the National Energy Dominance Council (NEDC), comprising at least 19 senior U.S. Government officials, to advise the White House on strengthening the energy sector and improving permitting, and regulation. Other EOs, including 14154, 14156, 14241, 14261, and 14285, have focused on geologic mapping, facilitating domestic energy production, prioritizing critical minerals, and advancing seabed mineral development.
However, simply increasing mining and processing capacity isn’t enough. A recent analysis highlights that innovation is the most credible path to overcoming China’s established advantages in technology, cost, and scale. The focus is shifting towards breakthrough materials engineering, advanced extraction and processing technologies, waste recovery, and recycling. The challenge lies in bridging what’s been termed the “mineral technology valleys of death” – the gaps between scientific discovery, pilot projects, and full-scale commercialization.
These valleys of death include securing funding for pilot and demonstration facilities, achieving cost-competitive profitability, and navigating cyclical minerals markets. Even technically successful companies can fail not because their technology doesn’t work, but because they struggle to secure the necessary investment to scale up production.
To address these challenges, a multi-pronged approach involving international collaboration is being advocated. Recommendations include prioritizing high-impact technologies, similar to the Japanese model of sustained public-private investment in areas like hydrometallurgy and rare-earth element recycling. Designating national laboratories as core pillars of the innovation ecosystem, with better integration with private firms and research institutions, is also crucial. Coordinated measures to protect critical mineral markets from non-market policies and unfair trade practices are being considered, potentially including market access eligibility based on price standards.
Private sector collaboration is equally important. Major mining and materials companies need to be central partners in technology scaling, providing real-world test environments and operational expertise. Establishing shared-use pilot facilities, similar to those heavily invested in by China, could dramatically lower costs and accelerate deployment.
International funding mechanisms also require coordination. The creation of a G7 Innovation Fund or Production Alliance Fund, dedicated to co-financing critical minerals innovation across member states, is being proposed. This would involve pooling capital and expertise from federal agencies, sovereign wealth funds, and private investors. Streamlining funding application processes and establishing an open solicitation platform for critical mineral technologies could further unlock innovation.
The Department of the Interior is already taking steps to recover critical minerals from mine waste, coal refuse, tailings, and abandoned uranium mines, demonstrating a commitment to maximizing resource utilization. However, the long lead times required for developing critical mineral mining, processing, and manufacturing assets mean that even aggressive expansion may not be sufficient to protect the U.S. From a severe supply chain disruption in the short term.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has identified 50 critical minerals, and the list is subject to periodic updates. The current strategy acknowledges that securing the U.S. Critical mineral future requires more than just traditional mining; it demands a sustained commitment to innovation and international cooperation to leapfrog China’s entrenched position and secure the material foundations of economic and strategic strength.
