The transformation of the US’ critical minerals strategy is distorting the logic of global supply chains that is unlikely to realize its aims

Over the past year, the United States has accelerated a strategic shift, elevating critical minerals from traditional trade and industrial policy to the national security domain. This is driving a rapid transition of logic in global supply chains from efficiency-first to security-first. Consequently, market access, project finance, logistics corridors and technical standards are increasingly shaped by alliance politics and compliance status, fundamentally reshaping the stability, efficiency and resilience of global supply chains.

The US government is widening its definition of “critical minerals” from a small set of scarcity-driven bottlenecks to a broader array of inputs that underpin electrification, advanced manufacturing and defense-industrial capacity. In November 2025, the US Department of the Interior released the final 2025 List of Critical Minerals, expanding the list to 60 mineral commodities by adding major industrial inputs such as copper, silicon, silver and metallurgical coal. This signals a shift from protecting a few high-tech niches to competing over the material base of power grids, semiconductor and solar power technology supply chains, as well as steelmaking sectors — industries directly tied to national economic resilience.

Subsequently, the US National Security Strategy explicitly prioritized “maintaining secure and reliable supply chains and access to critical materials”. To execute this dominance strategy, the Department of Energy officially established the Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation. Concurrently, the US announced the launch of Project Vault, a landmark initiative to establish a domestic strategic reserve. This project aims to buffer against external supply shocks and drive the reshoring of the mining sector through government-backed off-take agreements and long-term capital underwriting.

The US government is building mechanisms designed to organize supply-chain partnerships among a selective set of producers, processors and consumers. In December 2025, the US launched the Pax Silica declaration, integrating US technological supremacy, Australian resource endowments, Singaporean logistics and Middle Eastern capital, with India joining the initiative in February 2026 as an alternative processing hub. The aim is to secure the core circle of critical minerals required for advanced industries.

On Feb 4, the US State Department hosted the Critical Minerals Ministerial, convening representatives from 54 countries plus the European Commission. The meeting introduced FORGE, a new forum intended to deepen international cooperation and move beyond statements toward project-level outcomes. Additionally, the US signed 11 new bilateral frameworks or memorandums of understanding with partner countries, as discussions at the Critical Minerals Ministerial underscored the strategic importance of resources such as lithium in Argentina and bauxite in Equatorial Guinea.

Yet, the highly exclusive nature of this coalition-building is encountering notable resistance. Key players such as Indonesia (the core of the global nickel industry), Chile (anchoring the “Lithium Triangle”), South Africa (a powerhouse in platinum group metals) and Vietnam (a major rare earth holder) were absent from these arrangements and meetings. Furthermore, even within the FORGE framework itself, alignment is imperfect; significant divergences in interests persist between the US, Canada and Europe. European nations and Canada remain primarily focused on cost efficiency and industrial competitiveness, rather than fully subordinating themselves to the US’ security-first logic.

A series of recent US diplomatic actions and international mediations have increasingly centered on the outright acquisition and control of critical minerals. By blending diplomatic intervention with aggressive state-backed financial and economic tools, the US is remapping global resource flows.

In Africa, under the pretext of mediating the border conflict between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, the US is driving a geopolitical wedge into this copper-cobalt-rich region. Meanwhile, by aggressively advancing the Lobito Corridor, the US aims to forcibly redirect the flow of DRC and Zambian copper and cobalt from the traditional eastbound route to a westbound trajectory heading directly to the US and Europe.

In Eurasia, leveraging the mediation of the Ukraine crisis, the US has actively absorbed Ukraine’s mineral resources. Furthermore, by intervening in the Armenia-Azerbaijan (Nagorno-Karabakh) conflict, the US seeks to secure the Trans-Caspian Middle Corridor. This logistical artery is designed to transport Central Asian uranium, rare earths and non-ferrous metals directly to Western markets. Simultaneously, the US is utilizing diplomatic leverage in Serbia to secure access to Europe’s largest lithium deposits.

In the Arctic and beyond, the US has even revived controversial proposals to “acquire Greenland” in a bid to lock down the island’s vast, untapped rare earth assets, further demonstrating its willingness to employ unconventional — and highly aggressive — geopolitical tools to secure absolute resource dominance.

Global supply chains are being forcibly realigned around geopolitical loyalty and security priorities, rather than comparative advantage and market efficiency. It is inherently unstable and has led many nations with coveted mineral resources to exploit the competition to force industrial capital transfers, which further shatters global market cohesion.

The deployment of severe administrative tools, such as direct equity investments by the US Department of War, deeply intervenes in normal market operations and distorts natural capital allocation. A structural mismatch has emerged: consumer nations and buyers prioritize cost reduction and supply assurance, while producer states demand industrial upgrading, downstream jobs and higher fiscal takes. This fundamental conflict inevitably disrupts traditional markets and inflates the overall cost of critical materials.

The supply chain contest has expanded into the physical geography of global trade, leading to intense corridor competition. Minerals are increasingly being re-routed to flow not where transport is cheapest, but where geopolitical sponsorship, state-backed financing and hard infrastructure make delivery more predictable for specific alliances. Strategic infrastructure projects are being actively utilized to compress export times and physically remap market geography, forcing global resources into preferred, alliance-controlled logistics ecosystems.

In conclusion, the aggressive securitization of the US critical minerals strategy marks a fundamental reversal in the logic of global resource allocation. However, in this defining geopolitical contest over future industrial supremacy, the ultimate victor will not be the architect of the highest walls, but the provider of the most open, inclusive and resilient supply chain for the global economy.

The author is a research fellow at the Foreign Policy Division at the Institute of World Economics and Politics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

The author contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

Contact the editor at editor@chinawatch.cn.