Powering the Future: Striking Deals to Secure Critical Mineral Supply Chains
Despite an administration change at the beginning of the year, key U.S. defense priorities have remained the same. Among these priorities is the revitalization of the U.S. defense industrial base and the consolidation of supply chains for critical minerals feeding the defense industry. However, what has changed under the Trump administration is how these goals are pursued. The White House now uses tariffs as leverage to renegotiate the terms of trade deals with allies and adversaries alike. As the threat of a protracted trade war looms, the United States finds itself in a precarious situation: how can the Trump administration enforce its desired protectionary measures in order to rebuild a domestic industrial base while still efficiently sourcing critical minerals abroad, which are needed to build defense weaponry?
To circumvent this paradox, the Trump Administration is seeking bilateral agreements to gain unobstructed access to critical mineral supplies that can be insulated from reliance on adversaries. Partners like Ukraine, Greenland, and the Democratic Republic of Congo stand out as particularly relevant for this strategy. The Trump administration’s approach is part strongman, part diplomat—waving tariffs like a big stick and speaking softly to countries around the world willing to make deals on critical minerals.
A World In Turmoil: The U.S. Defense Buildup and Vital Critical Minerals
The Trump administration recognizes the increasing Great Power Competition and has intensified efforts to rebuild the U.S. industry while hardening the defense supply chain. However, it has taken a markedly different approach compared to preceding administrations. The President has gone as far as suggesting territorial expansionism in the case of Greenland as a means to achieve desired ends. In other cases, the White House has offered the auspices of security guarantees, such as in the case of Ukraine and the Congo, should a mineral deal be signed. Though critics of the current tariff policy have been quick to voice their concerns about the implications of a change to the post-World War II international order, an order that was previously marked by established economic partnerships that intertwined world powers, there has been little public discussion thus far about the ongoing negotiations to swap U.S. security for critical minerals.
Critical minerals and rare earth elements are vital to U.S. national security because they are the main components of everyday civilian products like cell phones, as well as critical defense technologies. Minerals like lithium, cobalt, graphite, and nickel are used to produce everything from the F-35s to solar panels. Without a sufficient supply of these critical minerals, production of day-to-day technologies would grind to a halt. More concerning, disruptions to the U.S. critical mineral supply chain would entail production disruptions of essential high-end weapon systems such as cruise missiles or air-defense missiles. Critical minerals constitute a singular point of failure, which, as history has shown, makes them a prime target for military action. In World War II, Allied forces targeted German ball-bearing plants, knowing that a shortage of their output would result in a complete German industrial collapse. In case of a future conflict involving the U.S., adversaries may target the mines or production capability of critical minerals with the knowledge that U.S. defense and commercial industries rely on the uninterrupted supply of these minerals. Hence, ensuring a fortified supply chain for producing defense equipment, including the inputs that drive it, is critical to maintaining U.S. primacy and national security.
Recent geopolitical developments have made this task more difficult. Tariffs imposed on allies and adversaries like Canada and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), which the U.S. heavily relies on for minerals, will undoubtedly result in more barriers to accessing mineral supplies. For example, in the wake of the escalating U.S.-PRC tariffs, the PRC has imposed export controls on minerals to the United States. Critics dispute the strategic logic behind broad and indiscriminate reciprocal tariffs to reinvigorate domestic industrial capacity. These tariffs undeniably create roadblocks for gaining access to critical minerals at a time when the United States needs them to feed the value chains of emerging technologies, such as AI-enabled or ‘smart’ weapon systems. Several cases provide insights into how the U.S. may secure critical minerals in a more protectionist world. Ukraine, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Greenland each highlight different facets of this new approach.
The Future of Ukraine
The White House and Ukraine struck a minerals deal last month which includes splitting Ukraine’s mineral resources into a joint investment fund, with Ukraine maintaining ownership of its natural resources and infrastructure. Additionally, Ukraine is not required to pay retroactively for military aid received. In return, the U.S. secures exclusive rights to future contracts and, more importantly, reliable access to a friendly and strategically critical supply of minerals. The deal also advances the United States’ strategic goal of reducing dependency on the PRC for critical minerals by establishing a secure alternative supply, while simultaneously serving as a deterrent against future Russian aggression in Ukraine. Though a security guarantee is not explicitly stated through the minerals deal, investing in the necessary infrastructure to extract these minerals establishes an interest for the United States to protect its investment from future Russian incursions into Ukrainian territory. While a U.S. security guarantee for Ukraine would be a non-starter for Russia during peace talks, investment in Ukraine gives the United States an explicit stake in Ukraine’s future without being permanently bound to it through military deployments or contractual obligations. Additionally, the deal constrains Russia’s options in the event of a future invasion by making Ukrainian infrastructure a riskier target. Any strike could hit U.S.-backed assets, a move Washington would likely view as a serious escalation.
Security for The Democratic Republic of Congo
Beyond Europe, the U.S. has looked to the African continent to secure additional supplies of minerals. In recent months, the U.S. and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) have engaged in talks to establish a security-for-minerals deal, as the DRC is one of the world’s richest sources of critical minerals. A prospective deal is, however, by no means a one-way road to Washington. For the current DRC government, striking a deal with the United States would provide the prospect of internal stability. The government may be able to leverage U.S. backing to insulate its leadership from rebel groups looking to seize control of the country. This could be done by increasing U.N. peacekeeping presence in the country or even using private military contractors. The DRC has been wracked with decades of war as armed groups vie for control of the mineral-rich territories. A deal with the U.S. would likely encourage private investment in the DRC to extract more resources, which could provide at least part of the funding required to finance private security forces. Gaining access to the DRC’s mineral deposits through a security deal would ultimately allow the U.S. to leverage critical mineral mining in certain parts of the country and provide a more diversified defense supply chain.
While a security-for-minerals deal with the DRC is promising, it comes with a multitude of security challenges. Securing U.S. investment in the DRC would likely necessitate establishing some form of armed presence to deter or combat some of the armed groups vying for control in the country. Deploying U.S. personnel in significant numbers is virtually out of the question, as such an action would stand in stark contrast to the Trump Administration’s stated goal of avoiding unnecessary wars and bloodshed. Critics of this deal will also point out that the PRC has already beaten the United States to the punch—or in this case, the mine. PRC-affiliated enterprises currently control most of the highest-performing mines in the DRC. Thus, some suggest the U.S. may need to look elsewhere for partners. While this may be true, the United States should not shy away from competition with the PRC, particularly in the domain of critical minerals. Offering the DRC internal security assistance would increase the prospect of establishing deeper ties with the country, which may then serve to provide compelling alternatives to the PRC’s presence in the DRC. If the United States wants to build its defense supply chain to compete with the PRC, it should not shy away from entering similar markets but instead attempt to displace the PRC by offering a better deal.
Expansion in Greenland?
In the fall of 2024, few political observers would have guessed that Greenland would emerge as one of the Trump Administration’s main geostrategic priorities. While the true objectives regarding the ice-covered island cannot be ascertained with certainty, what the Trump administration has said thus far is that the United States needs Greenland for reasons of “national security and even international security.” Presumably, a central objective is control over shipping lanes in the Arctic, which are becoming ever more accessible due to global warming. The Arctic is also becoming an increasingly lively geopolitical theater, and a further objective of the Trump administration is likely deterrence vis-à-vis Russia and the PRC. Greenland is at the center of this competition. While the means for the United States to obtain the territory, the legality of it, or the feasibility of doing so are a subject of intense debate, what is certainly true is that acquiring the island would be a windfall for U.S., not just from a security perspective but also due to the rich mineral deposits found there. In a recent study, “31 out of the 34 minerals defined as critical […] were found on the island.” While mostly untapped, Greenland’s current mineral reserves meet the entire known amount in the United States. Projections state that Greenland’s deposits could amount to 25% of the world’s rare earth supply. Though challenges are plentiful for mining in Greenland—inaccessible geography, harsh weather, environmental considerations, and possible effects on the local population—the Trump Administration seems to believe that the pros outweigh the cons.
Securing a critical mineral supply in Greenland would ensure the United States is mostly independent from other foreign powers for its inputs in the defense-industrial supply chain. However, such autarky would come at a high cost. Territorial expansion, whether by force or other means, would fundamentally alter the global image of the United States, which—despite involvement in various foreign military conflicts—has not pursued military action for the sole purpose of expanding its borders. However, President Trump has yet to rule out any means of acquiring Greenland, saying, “We will go as far as we have to.” While an acquisition by force may prove disastrous, what remains true is that Greenland would be a boon to U.S. national security—potentially one without alternative. Leveraging the resources beneath the island would directly improve the U.S.’s strategic position by reducing foreign dependency on critical minerals, building up a reserve of those materials in preparation for war, and potentially supplying allies with these raw materials. The prospect of controlling Greenland offers the U.S. a hope of autonomy that would be difficult to find elsewhere.
An Uncertain Future
In an era marked by rising global competition and the strategic use of tariffs, the Trump Administration’s efforts to secure critical minerals reflect a broader attempt to fortify the domestic industrial base and insulate it from geopolitical shocks. The Administration’s approach—whether by infrastructure investment in Ukraine, security guarantees in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or the potential acquisition of Greenland—is guided by a strategy that seeks to diversify mineral sources and reduce dependence on foreign powers, particularly the PRC. While tariffs have introduced new obstacles by straining relationships with traditional trading partners and provoking retaliatory export controls, these three cases reveal an alternative path: securing bilateral deals that bypass the globalized economy. The pursuit of critical minerals is not just an economic imperative but a cornerstone of U.S. national security, particularly in a world that is becoming increasingly volatile and unpredictable.
Views expressed are the author’s own and do not represent the views of GSSR, Georgetown University, or any other entity. Image Credit: Force Distance Times