logo
Why China curbing rare earth exports is a huge blow to the US

Why China curbing rare earth exports is a huge blow to the US

Yahoo17-04-2025
As the trade war between China and the US escalates, attention has been focused on the increasingly high levels of tit-for-tat tariffs the two countries are imposing on one another.
But slapping reciprocal tariffs on Washington is not the only way Beijing has been able to retaliate.
China has now also imposed export controls on a range of critical rare earth minerals and magnets, dealing a major blow to the US.
The move has laid bare how reliant America is on these minerals.
This week, Trump ordered the commerce department to come up with ways to boost US production of critical minerals and cut reliance on imports - an attempt by Washington to reclaim this critical industry. But why exactly are rare earths so important and how could they shake up the trade war?
"Rare earths" are a group of 17 chemically similar elements that are crucial to the manufacture of many high-tech products.
Most are abundant in nature, but they are known as "rare" because it is very unusual to find them in a pure form, and they are very hazardous to extract.
Although you may not be familiar with the names of these rare earths - like Neodymium, Yttrium and Europium - you will be very familiar with the products that they are used in.
For instance, Neodymium is used to make the powerful magnets used in loudspeakers, computer hard drives, EV motors and jet engines that enable them to be smaller and more efficient.
Yttrium and Europium are used to manufacture television and computer screens because of the way they display colours.
"Everything you can switch on or off likely runs on rare earths," explains Thomas Kruemmer, Director of Ginger International Trade and Investment.
Rare earths are also critical to the production of medical technology like laser surgery and MRI scans, as well as key defence technologies.
China has a near monopoly on extracting rare earths as well as on refining them - which is the process of separating them from other minerals.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that China accounts for about 61% of rare earth production and 92% of their processing.
That means it currently dominates the rare earths supply chain and has the capacity to decide which companies can and cannot receive supplies of rare earths.
Both the extraction and processing of these rare earths are costly and polluting.
All rare earth resources also contain radioactive elements, which is why many other countries, including those in the EU, are reluctant to produce them.
"Radioactive waste from production absolutely requires safe, compliant, permanent disposal. Currently all disposal facilities in EU are temporary," says Mr Kruemmer.
But China's dominance in the rare earth supply chain didn't take place overnight - but rather, is the result of decades of strategic government policies and investment.
In a visit to Inner Mongolia in 1992, the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, who oversaw China's economic reform, famously said: "The Middle East has oil and China has rare earths".
"Beginning in the late 20th century, China prioritised the development of its rare earth mining and processing capabilities, often at lower environmental standards and labour costs compared to other nations," said Gavin Harper, a critical materials research fellow at the University of Birmingham.
"This allowed them to undercut global competitors and build a near-monopoly across the entire value chain, from mining and refining to the manufacturing of finished products like magnets."
In response to tariffs imposed by Washington, China earlier this month began ordering restrictions on the exports of seven rare earth minerals - most of which are known as "heavy" rare earths, which are crucial to the defence sector.
These are less common and are harder to process than "light" rare earths, which also makes them more valuable.
From 4 April, all companies now have to get special export licenses in order to send rare earths and magnets out of the country.
That is because as a signatory to the international treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, China has the ability to control the trade of "dual use products".
According to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), this leaves the US particularly vulnerable as there is no capacity outside China to process heavy rare earths.
A US Geological report notes that between 2020 and 2023, the US relied on China for 70% of its imports of all rare earth compounds and metals.
This means that the new restrictions have the ability to hit the US hard.
Heavy rare earths are used in many military fields such as missiles, radar, and permanent magnets.
A CSIS report notes that defence technologies including F-35 jets, Tomahawk missiles and Predator unmanned aerial vehicles all depend on these minerals.
It adds that this comes as China "expands its munitions production and acquires advanced weapons systems and equipment at a pace five to six times faster than the United States".
"The impact on the US defence industry will be substantial," said Mr Kroemmer.
And it's not only in the field of defence.
US manufacturing, which Trump has said he hopes to revive through the imposition of his tariffs, stand to be severely impacted.
"Manufacturers, particularly in defence and high-tech, face potential shortages and production delays due to halted shipments and limited inventories," said Dr Harper.
"Prices for critical rare earth materials are expected to surge, increasing the immediate costs of components used in a wide range of products, from smartphones to military hardware," he says, adding that this could result in potential production slowdowns for affected US companies.
If such a shortage from China persists in the long-run, the US could potentially begin diversifying its supply chains and scaling up its domestic and processing capabilities, though this would still require "substantial and sustained investment, technological advancements and potentially higher overall costs compared to the previous dependence on China".
And it's clear this is something already on Trump's mind. This week, he ordered an investigation into the national security risks posed by the US' reliance on such critical minerals.
"President Trump recognises that an overreliance on foreign critical minerals and their derivative products could jeopardise US defence capabilities, infrastructure development, and technological innovation," said the order.
"Critical minerals, including rare earth elements, are essential for national security and economic resilience."
China's precious metals the US can't do without
What are 'rare earths' used for?
The US has one operational rare earths mine, but it does not have the capacity to separate heavy rare earths and has to send its ore to China for processing.
There used to be US companies that manufactured rare earth magnets - until the 1980s, the US was in fact the largest producer of rare earths.
But these companies exited the market as China began to dominate in terms of scale and cost.
This is largely believed to be part of why US president Donald Trump is so keen to sign a minerals deal with Ukraine - it wants to reduce dependency on China.
Another place Trump has had his eye on is Greenland - which is endowed with the eighth largest reserves of rare earth elements.
Trump has repeatedly showed interest in taking control of the autonomous Danish dependent territory and has refused to rule out economic or military force to take control of it.
These might have been places that the US could have sourced some of its rare earth exports from, but the adversarial tone Trump has struck with them means the US could be left with very few alternative suppliers.
"The challenge the U.S. faces is two-fold, on the one hand it has alienated China who provides the monopoly supply of rare earths, and on the other hand it is also antagonising many nations that have previously been friendly collaborators through tariffs and other hostile actions," said Dr Harper.
"Whether they will still prioritise collaboration with America remains to be seen in the turbulent policy environment of this new administration."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

America Needs a Digital Dollar
America Needs a Digital Dollar

Newsweek

time4 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

America Needs a Digital Dollar

As China accelerates deployment of its digital yuan, and the European Central Bank advances toward a digital euro, the Republican Party is seeking to prevent the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) in the United States. Their insistence on clinging to an increasingly obsolete financial infrastructure means that Americans will continue to be saddled with billions in unnecessary fees every year and that corporations will be empowered to erode our privacy in Orwellian fashion. What's more, handicapping ourselves in this way will only make it more likely that the dollar's dominance in global finance will come to a premature end. America needs a digital dollar, and we need it now. The Trump administration's recent digital assets report explicitly prohibits federal agencies from establishing or promoting CBDCs, arguing they "threaten the stability of the financial system, individual privacy, and the sovereignty of the United States." This position reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how digital currencies actually work—and ignores the privacy advantages they could provide over our current system. Consider this analogy: when you send a package through the United States Postal Service, the Fourth Amendment protects its contents from unreasonable government search. That same package sent via FedEx or UPS enjoys no such constitutional protection. Similarly, a government-issued digital currency would operate under constitutional constraints and democratic oversight that private payment systems simply don't face. As such, a government run service inherently offers more privacy protection than its privately run counterpart. A visual representation of digital cryptocurrency coins sit on display in front of a European flag in Paris, France. A visual representation of digital cryptocurrency coins sit on display in front of a European flag in Paris, France. Chesnot/Getty Images Today, every swipe of your credit card, every electronic transfer, and every digital payment flows through private corporations that collect, analyze, and monetize your financial data. Banks routinely share transaction information with third parties, build detailed consumer profiles, and sell insights about your spending habits. In contrast, a properly designed CBDC could implement strong privacy protections by design, limiting data collection to only what's necessary for monetary policy and financial crime prevention. The economic benefits of a digital dollar are even more compelling. Americans currently pay $5-10 billion annually in overdraft fees alone—money that could stay in families' pockets with a CBDC system that allows direct government-to-citizen transfers and eliminates many banking intermediaries. The millions of Americans who remain unbanked or underbanked would finally have access to basic financial services without requiring a traditional bank account. Even for those in the baking system, the benefits of a CBDC are potentially enormous. Wire transfers, which cost $13-$44 each on average and take days to settle, could become nearly instantaneous and free. That speed in payment settlement would also make a huge difference to Americans when they need emergency aid quickly, as a CBDC could allow the government to deliver relief payments in minutes rather than weeks. The urgency in America to adopt a CBDC extends beyond domestic concerns. In an era of growing geopolitical competition, monetary policy has become a tool of statecraft. The country that controls the dominant digital payment infrastructure will wield enormous influence over global commerce. China understands this, which is why it has invested heavily in digital yuan infrastructure and is actively promoting its use. China is creating first-mover advantages that will be difficult or even impossibly to overcome if we continue to stall. The Federal Reserve has spent years studying CBDC technology. We should be encouraging and guiding them on this task rather than holding them back. In doing so, critics should keep in mind that CBDC implementation need not be revolutionary. A digital dollar should complement rather than replace physical currency, giving Americans choice while maintaining familiar monetary arrangements. So too could retailers freely choose whether to accept digital payments, just as they currently decide whether to accept credit cards. Additional privacy protections for all users can also be built into the system's architecture, not added as an afterthought. The real threat to American privacy and financial sovereignty isn't a democratically governed CBDC—it's ceding monetary leadership to authoritarian competitors and unaccountable private corporations that enrich themselves off our data while impoverishing the worst off among us. The question isn't whether digital currencies will reshape global finance, it's whether America will lead this transformation or watch from the sidelines as others determine the future of money. For the sake of American competitiveness, financial inclusion, and yes, even privacy, it's time for a digital dollar. Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law at Georgia College & State University. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Laura Loomer runs ‘tip line' for Trump staffers eager to purge ‘disloyal' colleagues
Laura Loomer runs ‘tip line' for Trump staffers eager to purge ‘disloyal' colleagues

Politico

time5 minutes ago

  • Politico

Laura Loomer runs ‘tip line' for Trump staffers eager to purge ‘disloyal' colleagues

Trump is famous for asking friends and outside allies for their opinions about his own staff. So much so that, during his first term, former chief of staff John Kelly tried to limit access to the Oval Office in an effort to exert some control over who was influencing the president. It backfired. Trump often refers to his current chief of staff, Susie Wiles, during Cabinet meetings as 'the most powerful woman in the world.' The now familiar riff almost always elicits chuckles in the room. But Wiles' power comes from not attempting to rein in the president's impulses or restrict his circle in any way. 'I know this from working for John Kelly, it's just impossible to control Trump this way. He has lots of different telephones,' said Kevin Carroll, a former CIA officer and lawyer representing intelligence officials fired by the Trump administration. 'He's just on some random cell phone…and it could be with Laura Loomer.' One of his clients, Terry Adirim, the former top doctor at the CIA, has alleged that Loomer played a key role in her dismissal. Adirim was terminated by the Trump administration earlier this year after some of the president's supporters criticized her for her role in the mandatory Covid vaccination of members of the military. This week, the White House requested that Congress delay a hearing for Brian Quintenz to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission after cryptocurrency billionaires Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss urged Trump to dump Quintenz in a conversation last weekend. Also this week, Trump ordered the removal of the FDA's top vaccine regulator, Vinay Prasad, after just three months on the job. He did that despite opposition from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary — and after hearing from Loomer. Loomer engineered a public backlash to Prasad that began with her labeling him on her website a 'progressive leftist saboteur undermining President Trump's FDA.' Other conservative voices, like former GOP Sen. Rick Santorum and The Wall Street Journal editorial board, piled onto the criticism of Prasad and his approach to rare disease therapies — a concern that Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) raised with the White House on Monday, a day before Prasad was fired. Also on Tuesday, Trump removed the National Security Administration's top lawyer, April Doss, after Loomer shared the conservative magazine Daily Caller's investigation into Doss, which called her a 'transparently partisan activist.' Carroll said Loomer's influence created a 'dangerous situation' with 'somebody outside the government, no national security experience, who's got hire and fire authority over some of these really, really important jobs.' In the White House, administration officials appear unwilling to overlook the disruption associated with frequent staff changes. And Loomer says she has strong relationships in the West Wing. 'It is not only appropriate, but critical for the Administration to recruit the most qualified and experienced staffers who are totally aligned with President Trump's agenda to Make America Great Again,' White House spokesperson Kush Desai said. Desai added that the administration's record of 'peace deals to trade deals' show that Trump 'has assembled the best and brightest talent to put Americans and America First.'

Top EU court rules that soccer governing body FIFA's decisions can be challenged outside Switzerland
Top EU court rules that soccer governing body FIFA's decisions can be challenged outside Switzerland

San Francisco Chronicle​

time5 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Top EU court rules that soccer governing body FIFA's decisions can be challenged outside Switzerland

BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union's top court ruled on Friday that the decisions of world soccer's governing body FIFA can be challenged outside Switzerland, opening up a system that currently binds athletes, officials and clubs to accept verdicts there. A statement from the European Court of Justice said that tribunals in the 27 EU member states 'must be able to carry out an in-depth review of those awards for consistency with the fundamental rules of EU law.' The ECJ ruling in Luxembourg means that EU national courts should be able to review verdicts from the Swiss-based Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Switzerland is not a member of the European Union. 'The awards made by the CAS must be amenable to effective judicial review," the statement said. It said that 'national courts or tribunals must be empowered to carry out ... an in-depth judicial review' to ensure that CAS rulings "are consistent with EU public policy.' There was no immediate comment from FIFA or CAS. The decision could end a decade-long legal fight by Belgian soccer club RFC Seraing and Maltese investment fund Doyen Sports. They opposed FIFA rules prohibiting third-party ownership of a player's registration and transfer rights, and in 2015 asked a commercial court in Brussels to review if those rules breached EU law. CAS was created in 1984 to give sports a unified and binding legal forum for settling disputes and appeals based in the International Olympic Committee's home city Lausanne in Switzerland. The ruling marks a new legal blow to the authority of sports bodies in Switzerland. The same European court in Luxembourg has handed down two other major rulings in the last two years under EU competition law — in the Super League case and Lassana Diarra transfer dispute — that challenged the authority of soccer bodies FIFA and UEFA. ___

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store