Critical Minerals Face Election-Year Reckoning as US Races to Outpace China

National security framing widens beyond rare earths

The discussion comes as critical minerals have moved firmly into the national security debate, with the US seeking to reduce its reliance on China across materials used in defense, energy and advanced technologies.

Stanley said the Trump administration's focus is likely to expand beyond headline materials such as rare earths toward less-discussed minerals where China has an especially strong position.

"I think that's precisely where we go," he said, pointing to materials where US reliance sits above 90 percent or China is effectively the exclusive supplier, highlighting gallium, uranium, germanium, antimony and arsenic as likely to draw greater attention over the next 12 to 24 months.

Listen to an exclusive interview with Klein about the battery metals market and the strategic critical minerals stockpile in the United States.

Processing, not mining, is the bottleneck

For Hoffman, the biggest weakness isn't access to mineral deposits but the ability to process them economically.

"I think the most important part is, can we find ways to refine these things," he said.

Hoffman went on to point out that the US needs technologies that shorten supply chains and create smaller-scale processing capacity, potentially allowing companies to move directly from ore to refined product rather than shipping material through multiple stages of a global chain.

Stanley added that many critical minerals can already be recovered as byproducts of existing copper and other mining operations but remain economically stranded without investment in processing, an opportunity to grow supply without permitting a single new mine.

The panel agreed that mining domestically while still sending material to China for refining doesn't amount to a secure supply chain.

The equity-stake debate

The panel also waded into the politically charged question of government equity stakes in private companies, a practice Klein likened to "capitalism with Chinese characteristics."

Stanley, a self-described free trader, said he isn't personally comfortable with the approach but sees little alternative given Beijing's willingness to ignore trade, labor and environmental rules.

"Business as usual got us to where we are," said Stanley.

Hoffman was more direct, noting the government has effectively bailed out or backstopped industries, from Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) to banking to autos, for decades regardless of which party held power.

"We've done this for a long time," he said. "I think it's been necessary."

Batteries as a strategic priority

The panel argued batteries deserve a larger role in US critical minerals strategy even as rare earths dominate the headlines.

Edmondson said policy stability matters as much as new incentives: "It's key that those contracts that are negotiated and finalized are honored."

The US should lean harder on demand-side tools, strengthening the Section 45X production tax credit and domestic-sourcing requirements, rather than upstream permitting alone, an approach he said could draw bipartisan support given batteries' applications across defense, AI and broader electrification.

He also pointed to the potential for deeper cooperation with allies like South Korea and Japan, which already have expertise across the battery supply chain.

Leapfrogging, not copying, China

Rather than recreating China's existing supply chain from scratch, the panel argued the US and its allies need to combine proven technology with next-generation innovation.

"If we're just going to play 25 years of catch up, guess what? Chinese are also going to be amazing for five years," Hoffman said. "This is a game you can't play catch-up in. You have to go ahead of them significantly."

Stanley suggested public-private partnerships offer the fastest way to close that gap, pairing government support with private-sector innovation.

The broader message from the panelists was that the critical minerals race is no longer simply about who has the resources in the ground.

The strategic advantage will increasingly belong to countries capable of turning those resources into commercially viable materials, technologies and end products, while building supply chains that can compete with China on cost and scale.