Highlights
- A new study proposes a ‘Materiel for Minerals’ (M4M) strategy where the Department of Defense (DoD) conditions arms sales on securing critical mineral rights from partner nations.
- The US faces acute vulnerabilities due to near-total import dependence on critical minerals, particularly from China.
- While offering tactical advantages, the M4M approach requires simultaneous investment in domestic mining, recycling, and allied capacity-building to ensure long-term resource security.
A major new study titled Materiel for Minerals: How the U.S. Can Leverage Security Assistance to Secure Supply Chains by Lt. Col. Jahara Matisek (opens in a new tab) (U.S. Air Force), Morgan Bazilian (opens in a new tab) (Colorado School of Mines), and Gregory Wischer (opens in a new tab) (Dei Gratia Minerals) outlines an urgent proposal: the United States must integrate critical mineral acquisition into its national security and foreign military sales (FMS) strategy to counter rising supply chain vulnerabilities, particularly against China.
Key Hypothesis and Findings
The authors argue that the U.S. faces acute vulnerabilities due to near-total import dependence for critical minerals such as rare earths, tin, bismuth, and graphite, much of it sourced from or controlled by China. They propose a “Materiel for Minerals” (M4M) strategy, where the Department of Defense (DoD) would condition arms sales, military training, and security cooperation on securing right-of-first-refusal (ROFR) offtake agreements for critical minerals from mineral-rich partner nations.
This approach would enable the U.S. to rapidly secure essential materials required for advanced defense platforms, such as Virginia-class submarines and F-35 fighters, particularly during disruptions like Chinese export bans. The authors cite the Trump Administration’s recent minerals-for-security deal with Ukraine as the first modern case of such a strategy in action.
Critical Assessment
While the M4M concept offers an innovative, cost-neutral mechanism for shoring up U.S. mineral supplies without new legislation, several limitations and assumptions warrant scrutiny.
While the proposed M4M strategy offers tactical advantages, it also could carry significant risks. Trading arms for minerals could be perceived as coercive and exploitative, exacerbating regional instability and undermining broader U.S. diplomatic objectives. Moreover, increased resource extraction tied to these deals risks environmental degradation and the displacement of local communities, damaging America’s credibility on human rights and sustainability. Even with right-of-first-refusal agreements, mineral supplies would remain vulnerable to political unrest, market volatility, and logistical disruptions in partner countries. Finally, overreliance on M4M arrangements could create a moral hazard by discouraging much-needed investment in domestic production, recycling, and material substitution—longer-term solutions essential for securing the defense industrial base.
Conclusion
Matisek, Bazilian, and Wischer compellingly highlight the stark mineral vulnerabilities facing the U.S. defense sector — vulnerabilities worsened by sluggish domestic permitting and China’s resource nationalism. Their M4M proposal offers a powerful tactical lever, but it is not a strategic cure-all. Without simultaneous investment in domestic mining, refining, recycling, and allied capacity-building, the U.S. risks trading one form of dependence for another. A resilient future demands both smart diplomacy and hard industrial policy, not just clever deal-making.
Source:
Matisek, J., Bazilian, M., & Wischer, G. Materiel for Minerals: How the U.S. Can Leverage SecurityAssistance to Secure Supply Chains.New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy (opens in a new tab), April 2025.
Leave a Reply