Highlights

• The Atlantic Council compares two contrasting mineral policy approaches: precision-targeted rare earth investments and broad copper tariffs.
• MP Materials deal represents an ambitious intervention in the rare earths sector with potential long-term strategic implications.
• Analysis reveals complex market realities, highlighting risks of over-optimistic projections and potential policy limitations.

---

The Atlantic Council’s new analysis (opens in a new tab) of the Trump administration’s latest mineral policies offers a sharply reasoned, mostly accurate comparison between two contrasting approaches: the precision-targeted investment in rare earths via MP Materials, and the more scattershot deployment of copper tariffs and domestic sales mandates.

The authors, Alexis Harmon and Reed Blakemore, correctly point out that rare earths and copper exist in vastly different market structures. Rare earths are geopolitically fragile and highly concentrated (read: China), while copper is globally traded with broad supply diversity—but a midstream bottleneck in U.S. smelting capacity.

What’s Accurate and Timely

The article accurately outlines the structure of the MP Materials deal, which includes a 10-year price floor of $110/kg for NdPr oxide, preferred equity investment, long-term offtake agreements, and Department of Defense backing to support domestic permanent magnet manufacturing. It’s a comprehensive package aimed at rebuilding a critical midstream capability the U.S. currently lacks, and represents one of the most ambitious industrial interventions in the rare earths sector to date.

Equally well-argued is the critique of the Trump administration’s new 50% tariff on semi-finished copper products, which the article correctly points out targets the wrong end of the supply chain. Domestic fabrication is relatively strong; the real bottleneck lies in smelting and refining capacity, which remains underdeveloped.

The authors also issue a smart warning: price floors like the one granted to MP can, if too generous, distort the market by entrenching a single dominant player and dampening competition. With MP already enjoying scale and federal support, the risk of sidelining other domestic entrants is real and growing.

Where Speculation Creeps In

The article paints an optimistic picture of the U.S. “turbocharging” the rare earths sector, with hints that the MP Materials deal could become a template for broader industry support. But let’s not get ahead of the evidence. While White House outreach to other rare earth firms has indeed intensified, no additional deals have been finalized. The notion of replicating the MP model remains more aspiration than policy, at least for now.

Similarly, the claim that MP’s magnet production will soon exceed U.S. defense demand rests on a best-case scenario—assuming flawless scale-up and consistent throughput. It glosses over the realities of market volatility, shifting OEM demand, and rising global competition from firms like Lynas, Arafura, and potential Chinese workarounds. Until capacity is built, diversified, and tested under real commercial pressure, forecasts of market dominance should be taken with measured skepticism.

What’s Missing

• No mention of Lynas’ active role in producing separated dysprosium and terbium oxides in Malaysia—critical for the full magnet value chain.
• The piece avoids naming beneficiaries or losers of the copper tariff in real industrial terms—especially U.S. manufacturers who may now face higher costs downstream.
• Absent is any analysis of permitting delays, a true bottleneck in both REE and copper infrastructure buildouts.

Thoughtful, Mostly Balanced, and Worth Reading

This article succeeds where many fail: it tailors mineral policy to mineral reality. But like the market itself, the devil is in the execution. Investors should track whether MP’s exclusivity gives way to broader U.S. ecosystem development—or if this tale of two supply chains becomes a story of missed opportunity by misapplied policy.