Fox on ‘Mine Baby Mine’ and Why this is not Enough

Highlights

• Fox News article highlights China’s dominant position in controlling critical minerals essential for U.S. defense technologies.
• Mark A. Smith proposes strategies to counter mineral dependency, including expanding domestic mining and reforming regulatory processes.
• Article overlooks the complexities of shifting supply chains and China’s control over processing and value-added production stages.

---

A Fox News Today article critiques the United States’ dependency on critical minerals and emphasizes China’s strategic advantage in controlling a significant portion of the global market. Mark A. Smith highlights how China and other BRICS nations could threaten U.S. national security by restricting exports of minerals essential for defense technologies, particularly rare earth magnets used in military applications. To address this, Rare Earth Exchanges was formed. 

The piece claims that China’s dominant position in the production and refining of over half of the critical minerals essential for U.S. defense capabilities gives the country substantial leverage. Smith proposes several strategies to counter this threat, including expanding U.S. domestic mining, providing government-backed financing for new mines, and reforming the regulatory and permitting processes.  Like so many other pieces in the news, Fox misses many of the key points.

While the article presents a valid concern about U.S. reliance on foreign-controlled critical minerals, it does not sufficiently address one of the most significant challenges: China’s control over the processing and value-added production stages, such as rare earth magnet manufacturing. China dominates not only the extraction but also the refining, processing, and production of high-value materials like rare earth magnets, which are crucial for advanced defense systems. This oversight is critical because the real strategic leverage lies in controlling the entire value chain, not just the raw materials.  Put another way, the U.S. securing Greenland, for example, would not solve this problem.

The article also overlooks the complexities of shifting U.S. supply chains to reduce dependency on China. While advocating for increased domestic mining, Smith fails to address the environmental, economic, and social challenges of rapidly scaling up U.S. mining operations, especially given the opposition from environmental groups and the extensive permitting process in the U.S.

The article also does not help the reader comprehend the enormous task of achieving resilience and independence in rare earth processing and value-added production.

These factors complicate the proposed solutions, and the article does not provide a detailed roadmap for overcoming such obstacles.

Additionally, the piece clearly advocates increasing U.S. mining capabilities, which may bias the presentation toward industry-friendly solutions without fully addressing the broader implications of such expansions. Frankly, Rare Earth Exchanges suggests that such a narrow focus potentially limits the scope of the conversation about the true gravity, magnitude, and implications of global mineral supply chains and national security.