The administration of Donald Trump has unveiled an ambitious plan to assemble a 55-country critical minerals alliance aimed at coordinating supply chains, stabilizing pricing and reducing Western dependence on China for rare earths and other niche metals vital to advanced technology and defense systems. The proposal, framed as a strategic reset of global industrial policy, has triggered a fresh geopolitical contest over the raw materials that underpin everything from fighter jets and missile guidance systems to electric vehicles and quantum computing.
Speaking at the Munich Security Conference on February 14, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called on allied nations to establish a coordinated framework to secure reliable access to rare earth elements and critical minerals. Without naming China directly, Rubio criticized what he described as state-subsidized economic models that undercut Western producers and hollowed out domestic industries.
He argued that the end of the Cold War in 1991 fostered what he termed a “dangerous delusion” in Western capitals — the belief that liberal democracy would inevitably spread worldwide and that free trade alone could override national interests.
“The euphoria of this triumph led us to a dangerous delusion: that we had entered ‘the end of history’, that every nation would now be a liberal democracy, that the ties formed by trade and by commerce alone would now replace nationhood,” Rubio said. He warned that an overreliance on globalized supply chains had subordinated Western national interests to external systems beyond their control.
Rubio contended that while the West embraced free and unfettered trade, other countries shielded their domestic industries, used subsidies to expand strategic sectors and gained control over vital supply chains. The consequences, he said, included factory closures, deindustrialization, the loss of working- and middle-class jobs and a dangerous transfer of economic leverage to geopolitical competitors.
His remarks echoed themes raised earlier this month at the 2026 Critical Minerals Ministerial in Washington, where Rubio, joined by Vice President JD Vance and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, hosted representatives from 54 countries and the European Commission. Forty-three foreign and other ministers attended the gathering, signaling broad international interest in reshaping mineral supply chains.
“Mining is less glamorous than building computers, cars or airplanes. But building computers and cars and airplanes is also less glamorous than designing them,” Rubio told delegates on February 4. “As we embraced what was new and glamorous, we outsourced what seemed old and unfashionable.”
He added that Western economies had gradually discovered they had outsourced not only industrial capacity but “our economic security and our very future.”
The initiative emerging from Washington includes the launch of the Forum on Resource Geostrategic Engagement, known as FORGE, designed as a policy and investment coordination platform among allies. The US also announced new bilateral critical minerals frameworks and memorandums of understanding with partner nations, along with expanded financing mechanisms for mining and processing projects.
On February 2, President Trump introduced “Project Vault,” a plan led by the chairman of the US Export-Import Bank to create a strategic domestic reserve of critical minerals. The EXIM board approved a direct loan facility of up to $10 billion intended to shield American manufacturers from supply shocks and boost domestic production and refining capacity.
David Copley, special assistant to the president and senior director for global supply chains, said Washington has already stepped up investments in mining projects, expanded stockpiles and moved to rebuild what he described as a neglected domestic mining ecosystem.
The strategic rationale is clear: rare earth elements and other critical minerals are foundational to 21st-century industries. According to a report submitted to Trump last October by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, processed critical minerals and their derivative products are essential to US national security and industrial resilience.
The report detailed widespread industrial dependence. The chemical sector relies on lithium, fluorite and bromine for industrial synthesis. Telecommunications systems require gallium, germanium, indium and yttrium for fiber-optic networks and satellites. The energy sector depends on cobalt, nickel, uranium, praseodymium and terbium for battery storage, nuclear fuel, electric-vehicle motors and power generation systems.
As of 2024, the United States was 100 percent net import-reliant for 12 critical minerals and at least 50 percent net import-reliant for another 29. Even where domestic mining exists — including cobalt and nickel — insufficient processing capacity leaves downstream industries exposed to foreign supply disruptions.
While Washington intensifies its diplomatic push, Beijing has responded with measured confidence rather than confrontation.
China currently accounts for roughly 60 percent of the global niche-metals market. Public data indicate that although the country holds around 34 percent of global rare-earth reserves, it produces approximately 92 percent of total output and supplies more than 80 percent of heavy rare earth elements. More than 90 percent of global smelting and separation capacity is concentrated within China.
On February 5, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian emphasized that “an open, inclusive international trade environment beneficial to all serves the common interests of all countries.” He said all parties share responsibility for maintaining stable and secure global supply chains for critical minerals and cautioned against the formation of exclusive blocs that disrupt international economic order.
Chinese analysts have gone further, arguing that the proposed 55-country alliance may prove fragile in practice. Commentators in state-linked publications contend that many countries participating in Washington’s initiative remain deeply intertwined with China’s manufacturing ecosystem and are unlikely to sever commercial ties.
A columnist writing in the Shangqiu Times pointed to Argentina as an early example of potential cracks. Shortly after signing a critical minerals agreement with the United States, Argentine officials clarified that the framework does not exclude Chinese investment.
As a major lithium producer, Argentina counts China as its second-largest trading partner and a key investor in energy, lithium extraction and infrastructure projects worth billions of dollars. Analysts say Buenos Aires’ stance reflects a pragmatic calculation: maintaining diversified partnerships while avoiding overdependence on any single power.
“In today’s deeply interconnected global economy, no country can develop independently of China’s manufacturing ecosystem,” the columnist wrote, adding that resource-rich Latin American nations view stable cooperation with China as a necessity rather than a choice.
European governments, too, face difficult trade-offs. While many share US concerns about supply chain vulnerability and coercive economic leverage, some policymakers remain cautious about fully bypassing China, citing the scale of Chinese refining capacity and uncertainty surrounding long-term US financial commitments.
South Korea offers another example of dual-track diplomacy. Though Seoul has played a prominent role in hosting alliance discussions, Chinese commentators note that South Korea is simultaneously pursuing mechanisms to maintain stable mineral imports from China. Analysts describe this as a balancing act between security alignment with Washington and economic interdependence with Beijing.
Structural realities present formidable challenges to Washington’s ambitions. China’s dominance lies not only in mining but also — and perhaps more critically — in midstream processing and downstream refinement. Separation and purification of rare earth elements require complex chemical engineering expertise and large-scale industrial infrastructure built over decades.
According to industry data, China controls about 222,000 of the world’s 470,000 rare-earth-related patents. Its countercurrent extraction technology allows multiple purification cycles at lower cost compared with many overseas facilities. Advanced magnet manufacturing and other deep-processing capabilities have further entrenched its competitive edge.
Analysts estimate that even with aggressive investment and policy coordination, the United States and its allies could require 10 to 20 years to build a fully independent and vertically integrated supply chain capable of rivaling China’s scale and efficiency.
President Trump signaled the administration’s resolve on January 14, stating that necessary measures would be taken to adjust rare-earth imports and eliminate threats to national security. His remarks reflect a broader strategic doctrine that treats supply chain resilience as a core element of economic sovereignty.
Supporters of the initiative argue that diversification, not isolation, is the ultimate objective. By pooling investment, harmonizing environmental standards and sharing technological expertise, allied nations could reduce systemic risk without severing global trade links.
Critics, however, caution that building parallel supply chains may raise costs for manufacturers and consumers. Rare-earth mining and processing can be environmentally intensive, and developing new facilities in Western countries could face regulatory hurdles and local opposition.
There is also the question of pricing coordination. If the alliance seeks to stabilize or influence mineral prices, it risks being perceived as a cartel, potentially drawing scrutiny under international trade rules. Balancing strategic coordination with market principles will require careful diplomacy.
For now, both Washington and Beijing appear prepared for a prolonged strategic contest rather than immediate confrontation. The United States is mobilizing financial instruments, diplomatic partnerships and industrial policy tools to reclaim control over critical supply chains. China, confident in its entrenched infrastructure and technological depth, is signaling openness to trade while warning against exclusionary blocs.
At stake is not merely the supply of obscure metals but the foundation of emerging industries — artificial intelligence hardware, renewable energy systems, advanced weapons platforms and next-generation communications networks. Control over the materials that power these sectors could shape the geopolitical balance of the coming decades.
The 55-country alliance proposal represents one of the most ambitious attempts yet to realign the global resource order. Whether it evolves into a cohesive and durable framework or fractures under competing national interests will depend on sustained political will, financial commitment and the ability to navigate a world where economic interdependence and strategic rivalry coexist.
As the race for critical minerals accelerates, the contest underscores a broader transformation in global politics: the recognition that economic security, technological leadership and national defense are inseparable. The minerals buried beneath the earth have become central to the power struggles above it, defining a new era in which supply chains are as consequential as armies and alliances.
