Pentagon to keep investing in US critical minerals projects, defense official says
The Pentagon signed a multibillion-dollar deal last week to become the largest shareholder in rare earths producer MP Materials (MP.N), opens new tab and also agreed to several financial backstop measures for the company.
The move - which the defense official said reflected a desire to "share the risk" inherent in minerals projects - sparked questions across the mining sector about whether other companies could see similar investments from the U.S. military.
The Pentagon has invested almost $540 million into critical minerals projects and "will continue such efforts in accordance with congressional appropriations and statutory authorities," the official said.
"Rebuilding the critical minerals and rare earth magnet sectors of the U.S. industrial base won't happen overnight, but (the Pentagon) is taking immediate action to streamline processes and identify opportunities to strengthen critical minerals production," the official added.
The U.S. government and military recognize that the country no longer can produce or process many critical minerals, but plans to "take the necessary time and precautions to produce critical minerals and associated products in a safe and responsible fashion," the official said, adding that approach was unlike China's.
Chinese mining standards are considered to be lower than those in the United States.
The MP deal structure reflects a "unique approach" by the U.S. government to "account for the difficulties in establishing and sustaining production of critical rare earth magnets in a market environment in which China controls much of the supply chain," the official said.
The Pentagon investment in MP was undertaken via a Cold War-era law known as the Defense Production Act, as well as its Office of Strategic Capital, the official said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump is wrong to pick a fight with Powell – but is right about interest rates
Visiting Scotland last week, Donald Trump used a joint press conference to mock Keir Starmer. He castigated Labour's policies on immigration, energy and much else. The Prime Minister sat awkwardly, sporting his trademark rictus grin. Trump has lately dished out plenty of public humiliation – not least aimed at Jerome Powell, chairman of the Federal Reserve. The president has put huge pressure on the Fed to lower interest rates, to boost US growth and ease interest payments on America's massive $36trn (£27.6trn) national debt. This jars badly with the conventional wisdom that central banks should be independent, allowing technocrat economists to set interest rates to bear down on inflation. That's far better for the economy in the long-run, but this precious independence is jeopardised when vote-hungry politicians seek to keep borrowing costs too low. Such independence has become an almost sacred policy concept over the last half century. And no central bank matters more than the Fed, which sets the course for monetary policy across the globe. Yet Trump, astonishingly, has lately called Powell a 'numbskull', a 'stubborn mule' and worse. On a recent Fed visit, he rebuked him over the cost of a refurbishment project – a potential pretext to sack Powell, which may not be legally possible, but which Trump often floats regardless. Between September and December last year, the Fed's committee of twelve rate-setters voted to lower the US benchmark interest rate three times from its post-Covid-peak of 5.25pc-5.5pc, in increments down to 4.25pc-4.5pc. But much to the president's frustration, rates have since stayed put. The Bank of England, meanwhile, has cut rates four times since last summer, including as recently as May, while the European Central Bank has enacted no less than eight eurozone rate reductions over the same period, the latest in June. Having held rates since the start of 2025, the Fed just did so again when governors met last Wednesday (although two Trump-appointees voted against, the biggest intra-Fed rate disagreement in thirty years). Fed policymakers are rightly worried about price pressures, with headline inflation hitting 3.7pc during the year to June, up from 2.4pc the previous month and well above the 2pc target. And Trump's era-defining slew of tariffs – taxes on imports into the US – means we could see a lot more inflation yet. With the President's three-month moratorium expiring this weekend, and tariffs now set to bite on some of America's largest trading partners, the Fed is understandably concerned. Powell insists the US economy is strong enough for the Fed to wait before further rate cuts, as we see if Trump's tariffs really do aggravate inflation. And last week's GDP numbers – a 3pc expansion from April to June – was certainly way above consensus forecasts, reversing a 0.5pc contraction during the first three months of the year, the worst quarterly performance since early 2022. This January to March shrinkage, though, was largely due to the huge rise in US imports as buyers sought to get ahead of Trump's expected tariff onslaught. And since 'liberation day' in April, when the President unveiled his tariffs on the White House lawn, imports into the US have plunged. This artificially boosted April to June GDP growth as the first-quarter trend unwound. Yes, consumer spending rose 1.4pc during the second quarter, outpacing the 0.5pc increase over the previous three months, supporting Powell's argument the economy is coping without further rate cuts. But 'final sales to private domestic purchasers', a key demand metric that the Fed watches closely, grew just 1.2pc over the latest quarter, slower than the 1.9pc increase between January and March. High mortgage rates are also holding back the housing market and related construction, as Trump relentlessly points out, with residential investment down 4.6pc during the second quarter. But that's part of a broader investment slump as business leaders look to see how the president's tariffs play out. For now, the market consensus is that the US economy is showing resilience, but more rate cuts may be justified as long as inflation isn't further provoked. So Trump's attacks on Powell are based on legitimate economic analysis. Yet his language is way over the top. Some say the president is picking headline-grabbing fights with the Fed chair to detract from mounting criticism over his handling of the Epstein files. I suspect he simply wants lower rates and, for now at least, Powell stands in his way. Ironically, it was Trump who appointed Powell in 2017. But having repeatedly called for him to resign, the president seems certain to replace him when Powell's term expires next May. In the meantime, Trump's ceaseless undermining of central bank independence is deeply damaging. Yes, the Fed has a 'dual mandate' to pursue both price stability and full employment, unlike the solely inflation-focussed aims of most other central banks. But while Trump's arguments may be technically valid, it should absolutely not be him making them, nor anyone else near the top of government. Given the tone he has set, though, Powell's successor will be seen as the president's lackey. And with US and global inflation far from tamed, that could end up being a serious problem. My general view is that central bank independence is far more important than any individual central banker. Andrew Bailey, for instance, has shown seriously bad judgement at the Bank of England – endlessly insisting post-Covid inflation would be 'transitory', for instance, while deriding those of us who correctly predicted otherwise. His appointment was a mistake, but he should stay, free from the threat politicians might remove him, until his term expires in March 2028. The same applies to Powell and far more so – he should serve his full term.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Luka Dončić signs $165m max extension to stay with LA Lakers through 2028
Luka Dončić is staying in Los Angeles. The five-time All-NBA guard has agreed to a three-year, $165m maximum contract extension with the Lakers, ESPN reported Saturday. The deal includes a player option for the 2028–29 season and replaces his prior contract, which featured a player option for 2026–27. Dončić, 26, now avoids free agency next summer and positions himself for an even larger deal in 2028, when he would be eligible for a projected five-year, $417m contract worth 35% of the salary cap. 'This is just the beginning,' Dončić said in a team statement. 'I'm excited for what's ahead and to keep building something special with this team.' The Lakers acquired Dončić in a February blockbuster that sent Anthony Davis to Dallas, one of the most seismic trades in recent NBA history. Since then, team officials led by governor Jeanie Buss and head of basketball operations Rob Pelinka have forged a close relationship with Dončić's camp, including agent Bill Duffy and longtime business manager Lara Beth Seager. 'Luka is one of the game's most transcendent players,' Pelinka said. 'He's a fierce competitor and a leader who's committed to winning. We believe he can bring championship basketball back to Los Angeles.' Despite playing a career-low 50 games last season, Dončić led the Lakers in points, rebounds, assists, steals and made threes after debuting on 10 February. He also became just the fifth player in franchise history to average at least 30 points, five rebounds and five assists in a playoff series, though the Lakers fell to the Timberwolves in the first round. Off the court, Dončić has already shaped the Lakers' offseason. He helped recruit Marcus Smart and shares a long-standing friendship with Deandre Ayton, both of whom signed with LA this summer. Dončić also addressed long-standing concerns about his conditioning in a recent Men's Health feature. Head coach JJ Redick emphasized that title contention will require the entire roster to get into 'championship shape'. For the Lakers, locking in Dončić is the clearest sign yet that a new era has arrived.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
More missiles: Senators want to renew stockpiles after Houthi strikes
"Recent operations in the Middle East illustrate how quickly modern warfare can exhaust our arsenal of critical munitions," Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, the committee's chairman, said on July 31. "The administration's request did not fully maximize production capacity for certain critical munitions." Sen. Chris Coons, the defense subcommittee's top Democrat, told reporters it was one of the main areas that lawmakers want to fund far beyond what the Trump administration requested. "Recent experiences like the counter-Houthi campaign in the Red Sea, for example, demonstrates how quickly we're going through advanced munitions," Coons said. "Keeping pace with resupply to Ukraine has been a challenge," he added. Concerns about U.S. weapons stocks arose in July after the Pentagon paused deliveries to Ukraine for weeks during a "capability review" to ensure it had enough weapons for U.S. needs. Some lawmakers have said worries over U.S. stockpiles running low don't justify cutting off Ukraine's weapons. The Pentagon keeps its inventory of munitions classified. Its initial budget request included $2.5 billion to expand missiles and munitions production, and another $1.3 billion for "supply chain improvements," the Defense Department said. The Department "has robust air defense capabilities to protect American personnel and interests around the globe," it said in a statement. "We will not go into our inventory due to operational security, however I can tell you that the DOD [Defense Department] remains postured to respond to any threat." Houthi attacks burned through munitions President Donald Trump's bombing campaign against Houthi militants in Yemen - dubbed Operation Rough Rider - put a dent in U.S. stockpiles. In less than two months, the Pentagon spent at least $500 million on weapons on the operation, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly. Add in the cost of operations and the loss of several aircraft, and the bill tops $1 billion. It also attacked Houthi targets with some of the U.S. military's most sophisticated weapons, said the official who was not authorized to speak publicly. A Senate aide who spoke on condition of anonymity also said the operation had burned through hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons. The Defense Department has not informed Congress of how much the operation expended, the aide said. Over the course of the operation, two F/A-18E planes, valued at around $60 million apiece, accidentally slipped off aircraft carriers and sank into the Red Sea. The Houthis also downed nine MQ-9 Reaper drones, according to reports. Those cost $270 million in total. Trump abruptly cut off the operation on May 6, claiming that the Houthis "say they will not be blowing up ships anymore." That isn't how the conflict played out. The Houthis attacked and sank a Greek cargo ship in the past week and claimed responsibility for a missile launched towards the Israeli city of Jaffa. The Iran-backed group reiterated on July 27 its vow to attack any commercial ships destined for Israeli ports, no matter their country of origin, to pressure Israel to lift its blockade and siege of Gaza. Senators zero in on air defense Out of the $7.3 billion funding increase, the Senate Appropriations Committee wants $5.2 billion to buy more of those weapons. The remaining $2.1 billion would cover the cost of boosting production lines for advanced air defense, chief among them coveted air defense interceptors, including Patriot and THAAD missile systems, which can take out ballistic missiles. Patriots play an increasingly important role for Ukraine as Russia's missile and drone attacks have increased in recent months to their highest intensity in three-plus years of war. Trump said on July 13 he would send Ukraine "Patriots, which they desperately need." European allies have also offered to finance the weapons systems for Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on July 25 that Germany would pay for two systems, and Norway for one. Israel has used THAAD batteries provided by the United States to defend against volleys of Iranian missiles, including during the 12-day aerial war between the two countries in June.
