ACC Action Policy Series: Solving Our Critical Mineral Conundrum

To Build the Energy of the Future, We Must Secure the Supply Chains

By Sarah Rosa with research by Jack Vancini

At the start of the month, the Trump Administration hosted a Critical Minerals Ministerial, bringing together 55 foreign delegations with the goal of creating a trade bloc to counter China’s dominance in the critical mineral supply chain. Washington leaders are increasingly grappling with how to address this growing national security threat, and it’s not surprising why.

China controls 60% of the world’s rare earth mining and 90% of its processing and refining—a stranglehold it has shown it is willing to leverage for geopolitical pressure. China’s government, led by the CCP, primarily exerts this dominance in two ways: by flooding the market to artificially lower prices and weaken competition, or by cutting off, or severely limiting, the export of strategic minerals. For example, in 2025, it announced it would restrict exports of five critical minerals: tungsten, tellurium, bismuth, indium, and molybdenum. 

The USGS 2026 Mineral Commodity Summaries highlights that U.S. dependence on China for critical materials is only growing.In 2025, the United States was more than 50% net import reliant for 54 mineral commodities and 100% net import reliant for 16. Thirty-three of these minerals appear on the USGS list of 60 critical minerals, including 13 for which the U.S. is entirely dependent on imports. Notably, China is a leading or major supplier for many of the minerals for which the United States has high import reliance.

Of course, critical mineral supply chains go beyond just solar panels and batteries; they’re essential for everything from fertilizer and food production to grid infrastructure, semiconductors, and national defense technologies. Continuing to let China dominate these markets is a threat to not only our security, but also to that of our allies.

Bringing supply chains back home, and partnering with our allies where it makes sense, isn’t just a strategic move; it’s also an environmental one. China has a poor track record on environmental protection both in its own country and in its partner countries. Returning these supply chains to the U.S., where environmental standards are among the highest in the world, benefits both people and the planet.

Fortunately, the Trump Administration has recognized this challenge and is addressing it from multiple angles. Through the announcement of Project Vault, the Administration is prioritizing the creation of a secure domestic stockpile to mitigate market disruptions and ensure the United States maintains reliable access to critical minerals if China attempts to interfere with global supply. The Administration is also investing in domestic companies and using strategic tools like off-take agreements and price floors to onshore supply chains. 

Where there are gaps in the U.S., the Administration is looking to our allies. At this month’s Ministerial, they announced 11 new bilateral agreements with partner countries. Finally, the Administration launched the Forum on Resource Geostrategic Engagement (FORGE), aimed at building a strategic trade bloc to counter China’s dominance across critical mineral supply chains. FORGE would embrace tools such as price floors, and would further guard against China’s well-documented practice of flooding the market to undercut competitors.

While it’s clear the Administration has recognized this issue as a top priority, Congress is also taking action. The Securing America’s Mineral Supply Chain Act and Critical Mineral Dominance Act both passed the House this month. These bills direct the Department of Energy to assess and strengthen critical energy resource supply chains, and the Department of the Interior to accelerate domestic mineral development while streamlining regulatory processes.

On top of these bills and the many others being considered in Congress this session, Congress should focus on passing a comprehensive permitting reform package to shorten the nearly three-decade-long development timeline for mining projects in the U.S.—currently the second-longest in the world. Streamlining NEPA, judicial review, and other regulatory requirements, as proposed in the bipartisan SPEED Act, would provide meaningful relief. Congress should also ensure inclusion of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, which the House passed late last year and which would allow ancillary mining operations on surrounding federal lands.

Critical minerals remain a top priority for leaders in Washington—and for good reason. Allowing an adversary like China to dominate these supply chains poses a direct threat to our nation’s security and well-being. The Trump Administration as well as Congress are right to pursue a diverse set of solutions, and they must continue doing so for the sake of America’s energy and environmental future.