Austin Denean’s report for The National News Desk (opens in a new tab) presents a largely factual overview of President Donald Trump’s ongoing push to expand U.S. critical mineral production and refining capacity, a strategic move aimed at reducing reliance on China’s dominance in the global supply chain. The article outlines key policy initiatives, such as a proposed executive order to build refining facilities on military bases and the appointment of a critical minerals czar to coordinate efforts. These moves, framed as efforts to bolster national security and economic competitiveness, are positioned as necessary to counteract China’s control over key materials essential for defense, technology, and clean energy applications.
The article objectively cites specific actions taken by the administration to expand domestic mining, including efforts to acquire access to Ukraine’s mineral stockpiles and Greenland’s untapped reserves. It also references the Department of the Interior’s designation of 50 minerals as strategically critical, noting that China is the leading producer of 30 of them. This highlights U.S. vulnerabilities should Beijing impose export restrictions—a scenario some analysts warn could be a retaliatory response to U.S. tariffs.
However, the article also provides a balanced look at the economic and logistical roadblocks facing Trump’s ambitions. It quotes mining industry experts who point out that permitting delays and the long timelines required to bring new mines online make rapid expansion challenging. Furthermore, China’s ability to undercut global competitors by keeping mineral prices artificially low presents a major economic hurdle for U.S. producers. Ian Lange (opens in a new tab), an economics professor at the Colorado School of Mines (opens in a new tab), argues that China operates as a de facto cartel rather than a market-driven entity.
Healthy Skepticism
While the article generally presents objective reporting, it leans toward skepticism regarding the feasibility of Trump’s plans. Lange’s statements about China’s role in price manipulation suggest a structural disadvantage for Western producers, subtly implying that Trump’s policies may struggle to achieve their stated goals. This is likely the case.
Additionally, the article includes Lange’s cautionary note on the unpredictability of future mineral demand, citing europium as an example of a once-critical material that faded in importance. His mention of lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries—which do not require cobalt—raises doubts about whether the administration’s strategic focus is aligned with actual technological trends.
Overall Objective
Despite these nuances, the article does not exhibit overt bias in favor of or against Trump’s policy. It acknowledges bipartisan efforts, noting that former President Joe Biden also pursued critical mineral supply chain expansion as part of his clean energy push. The main undercurrent of skepticism comes from expert commentary, which highlights economic and logistical realities that could slow or derail the administration’s objectives.
Ultimately, the article presents Trump’s push for domestic mineral independence as a bold but highly complex challenge where national security concerns collide with market realities. While the administration’s actions signal a significant shift in U.S. mineral strategy, the question remains whether these policies will deliver meaningful results or be outpaced by technological shifts, regulatory bottlenecks, and economic barriers.
Lack of Will
Rare Earth Exchanges would state the problem more boldly.
The United States remains at a significant disadvantage against China in the REE and critical minerals sector, not because of a lack of resources, but due to decades of policy inertia, fragmented industrial strategy, and an unwillingness to commit to long-term investments in refining and processing infrastructure. Frankly there is just a lack of will.
While China dominates more than 80% of global rare earth processing and nearly 100% of certain refined products, the U.S. has allowed its once-strong domestic industry to atrophy under the weight of regulatory delays, inconsistent government support, and an over-reliance on market-driven solutions in an industry shaped by state-controlled economics. The American approach has been largely reactive, responding to crises—such as China’s 2010 rare earth embargo on Japan or more recent supply chain shocks—rather than proactively building a vertically integrated supply chain that could compete with Beijing’s stranglehold on the sector.
China’s dominance is no accident. Over the last three decades, Beijing systematically invested in exploration, mining, refining, and advanced materials processing, securing global supply chains while the U.S. failed even to maintain its domestic production capacity. America’s reluctance to embrace an aggressive industrial policy—similar to how China provides subsidies, state-backed financing, and long-term strategic planning—has left it incapable of competing on price, scale, or efficiency.
Even when U.S. companies attempt to develop domestic sources, they face environmental litigation, permitting delays that stretch well over a decade, and a financial sector hesitant to back mining ventures without clear government guarantees.
Meanwhile, China can bring new refining projects online in a fraction of the time, underpinned by a national strategy that treats critical minerals as a geopolitical weapon rather than a simple market commodity.
President Trump, if you or some of your team are reading this, pay particular attention. Until the U.S. commits to an all-in, coordinated approach—spanning mining, refining, technological innovation, and international partnerships—it will remain a perpetual second-tier player in a sector essential to both economic security and global power projection.
Leave a Reply