Highlights

• The U.S. is 100% import-reliant on manganese, gallium, tantalum, yttrium, and titanium sponge, with over 75% reliance on magnesium, cobalt, tungsten, and rhenium—creating acute national security vulnerabilities in defense manufacturing.
• China controls an estimated 70% of rare earth permanent magnet processing and has imposed export controls on gallium, germanium, tungsten, and antimony, demonstrating willingness to weaponize critical mineral supply chains.
• The real gap is midstream processing capacity—separation, refining, and alloy manufacturing—where China maintains decisive advantage and the U.S. has limited domestic capability to produce aerospace-grade materials at scale.

---

A March 2026 report by the Aerospace Industries Association (opens in a new tab) (AIA), drawing on U.S. Geological Survey data and industry inputs, delivers a blunt warning: the United States remains deeply dependent on foreign sources for the minerals that underpin its most advanced defense systems—from jet engines and missile guidance to semiconductors and satellite infrastructure. Across dozens of materials, import reliance frequently exceeds 75% and in many cases reaches 100%, while China maintains dominant control over processing and supply chains for critical inputs such as rare earths, graphite, tungsten, gallium, and germanium. The report makes clear that export controls, geopolitical tensions, and decades of domestic industrial erosion have converged into a structural national security vulnerability—one that Washington is only beginning to address.

How the Study Maps Vulnerability

The AIA analysis takes a systematic, mineral-by-mineral approach to the aerospace and defense (A&D) supply chain. Each material is evaluated across four key dimensions: its role in defense applications, the degree of U.S. import reliance, exposure to market distortions (including export bans and quotas), and the availability—or absence—of domestic or allied alternatives.

This framework does more than list dependencies. It reveals the architecture of risk: where supply chains are concentrated, where processing bottlenecks exist, and where geopolitical leverage can be applied.

A Supply Chain Built Outside the U.S. Control

The findings are not subtle—they are structural.

The United States is:

• 100% import-reliant on multiple critical inputs, including manganese, gallium, tantalum, yttrium, and titanium sponge
• Over 75% import-reliant on materials such as magnesium, cobalt, tungsten, and rhenium
• Heavily dependent on China not just for raw materials, but for processing, refining, and downstream components

Rare earth elements illustrate the problem clearly. These materials are essential for permanent magnets used in fighter jets, precision-guided munitions, and radar systems. The U.S. is roughly 67% import-reliant, while China controls an estimated ~70% of rare earths embedded in permanent magnets—the true chokepoint in the value chain.

Recent policy actions amplify the risk. China has imposed export controls or outright bans on materials including gallium, germanium, tungsten, antimony, and multiple rare earth elements—demonstrating a willingness to weaponize supply.

Even where the U.S. has upstream resources, the midstream gap is decisive. There is little to no domestic capability to produce ultra-pure aluminum, titanium sponge for aerospace-grade applications, or many refined specialty metals.

The Strategic Reality: Power Without Control

The takeaway is simple, and yes, quite unsettling: America’s most sophisticated military systems depend on materials it does not control.

This creates a structural imbalance:

• Supply chains can be disrupted in times of conflict or political tension
• Pricing power sits offshore, often in state-influenced markets
• Defense production timelines become vulnerable to external shocks

In effect, technological superiority is being built on industrial dependency.

Limitations and What the Study Doesn’t Fully Resolve

The report is comprehensive but not neutral. As an industry-led assessment, it emphasizes vulnerability—potentially to support policy intervention and funding.

It also leaves key questions underdeveloped:

• How quickly can domestic or allied supply realistically scale?
• What role can substitution, recycling, or material efficiency play?
• To what extent can “friendly” supply chains (e.g., Canada, Australia) mitigate risk?

Not all dependencies carry equal strategic weight, nor are they equally solvable.

What Comes Next: The Midstream Imperative

The central message is unmistakable: mining alone will not solve this problem.

The real battleground is midstream and downstream capacity—separation, refining, metals, alloys, and magnet manufacturing. This is where China maintains its decisive advantage.

Washington has begun to respond. Defense Production Act funding, Department of Energy investments, and public-private partnerships are now targeting these gaps. But industrial supply chains are not rebuilt on political timelines.

Execution—not intent—will determine success.

Conclusion

The United States has finally mapped its critical mineral dependencies with clarity. The exposure is real, measurable, and in some cases acute.

The question is no longer whether a vulnerability exists.

The question is whether the U.S. can industrialize fast enough—at scale—to close it.

Citation: Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), Strategically Significant Aerospace and Defense Critical Minerals, March 2026.