Highlights
- China dominates rare earth sectors, using export controls as geopolitical leverage against the United States.
- Global supply chain resilience requires diversification beyond metaphors, focusing on technological innovation and cross-border collaboration.
- Critical minerals form the invisible infrastructure of modern technology, making strategic supply chain management an existential priority.
Imagine a trade war where bullets are replaced by dysprosium, and semiconductors are battlefield trophies. That’s the metaphor Farrell Gregory leans into in The Diplomat (opens in a new tab), where rare earths become the “key to winning” a war between China and the United States. It’s cinematic, no doubt—but when the dust settles, does the argument hold up under investor scrutiny?
To be clear, Gregory is right on one thing: China does dominate the rare earth sector, and yes, it’s using that dominance as leverage. Export licensing regimes, tightened quotas, and temporary bans are not theoretical—they’ve happened, and they’ve hurt. The recent Trump-brokered trade pause—which swapped rare earth exports for student visas and resumed American jet engine shipments—is real. So is the verified Ford magnet shortage. And MP Materials’ $400 million DoD investment, along with its Apple supply deal, isn’t just symbolic. It’s a template.
But then the piece takes a turn—from sound strategy to saber-rattling. Gregory’s framing of the U.S.–China rare earth relationship as a shootout oversimplifies a complex geopolitical reality. The idea that China could unilaterally “veto U.S. foreign policy” with neodymium embargoes might thrill readers, but it doesn’t reflect how actual supply chains, trade law, and diversification work. Economic coercion? Yes. Omnipotent throttle on Western industrial autonomy? Probably not, despite our focus and name.
And that’s the problem. The piece misses what savvy investors care about most: global redundancy. Australia’s Lynas, Vietnam’s Hoa Phat, Greenland’s Tanbreez, and even Rwanda’s nascent exports all aim to dilute Chinese leverage. Japan and the EU—critical in midstream separation—get zero mention. U.S. recycling breakthroughs, especially at urban mining startups and defense labs, are nowhere in sight.
To Gregory’s credit, the call for a “long game” is well placed, and what we suggest as well. The U.S. must build resilient supply chains, especially as the One Big Beautiful Bill unlocks billions in domestic mineral and magnet funding. But we need fewer metaphors and more metrics. Who’s building the next refinery? What are the feedstock conversion costs? Which public-private agreements are enforceable and investor-aligned?
The stakes go far beyond one administration or trade cycle. Rare earths—and the broader critical mineral ecosystem—form the invisible scaffolding of modern life: from warfighters to wind turbines, EVs to F-35s, MRI machines to data centers. That makes the supply chain not just strategic, but existential. What’s needed now isn’t zero-sum saber-rattling but coordinated industrial policy (including education), capital alignment, and innovation across geographies and technologies. The convergence of state support, private sector capital, and technological disruption—recycling, substitution and more—isn’t a luxury. It’s the only path forward.
At Rare Earth Exchanges™, our mission is to help investors make sense of this dynamic, fast-shifting landscape. We cut through the fog with live, evolving datasets: from deposit rankings and project pipelines to midstream chokepoints, refining capacity, and end-use exposure. We spotlight overlooked actors, map political risk, and track the emergence of recycling and substitution technologies. Whether you’re watching the rare earths market from the top of Mount Weld or the floor of the House Armed Services Committee, we are developing data tools to help you identify threats—and seize opportunities—across the upstream, midstream, downstream, and beyond. Because in this world, clarity is leverage.
Leave a Reply