Highlights

• House hearing features executives from U.S. rare earth companies seeking to develop domestic production capabilities.
• The U.S. currently imports nearly all separated rare earth oxides, with China controlling over 85% of global refining.
• Companies like U.S. Critical Materials and Rare Element Resources aim to onshore critical mineral supply chains amid geopolitical tensions.

---

A POLITICO (opens in a new tab) piece by Hannah Northey previews a House Small Business Committee hearing this week featuring executives from companies developing rare earth projects in the United States. While the article rightly emphasizes the strategic significance of these elements and the geopolitical urgency driving congressional attention, it offers little in the way of analytical depth or industrial context.

The Hearing

The reporting correctly identifies the players involved:

• U.S. Critical Materials (opens in a new tab), an exploration-stage firm touting projects in Montana and Idaho.
• Rare Element Resources (opens in a new tab), focused on advancing the Bear Lodge project in Wyoming.
• Rare Earth Salts (opens in a new tab) and Rivalia Chemical (opens in a new tab), companies working on separation from unconventional sources like coal ash and waste streams.

Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas) and the House Committee on Small Business are indeed organizing the hearing, timed amid rising tensions with China and mounting pressure to onshore rare earth supply chains.

Also accurate is the framing of rare earths as foundational to defense and energy technologies. The U.S. currently imports nearly all of its separated rare earth oxides, with China responsible for over 85% of global refining.

What’s Not Covered?

The article offers no critical insight into technical feasibility, production timelines, or investment risk of the featured companies. It presents them as solution-bearers without interrogating whether they are technically de-risked or commercially viable.

Notably absent is any mention of:

• Lack of domestic magnet production capacity
• The years-long permitting timelines these projects face
• Funding challenges, particularly for separation facilities
• Downstream integration issues—none of these companies currently produce finished products

The piece leans toward passive boosterism. There is no clear bias, but there is a missed opportunity to critically assess whether these companies are serious contenders or simply appearing on the Hill for visibility. Retail investors could walk away overconfident about timelines and market readiness.

The article’s facts are correct, but its perspective is flat. It frames a consequential moment with little scrutiny. For investors, due diligence on these companies—especially U.S. Critical Materials and Rare Element Resources—is essential.