Batteries and Borders: America’s New Minerals Playbook
by Kush Sutaria
The foreign policy of the United States is undergoing a major shift under the Trump Administration. America is now an emboldened and aggressive superpower, willing to do away with international norms in the pursuit of what it wants.
Military strikes on Iran’s nuclear program, the capture of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the seizing of oil tankers, the list goes on. America’s actions are not just targeted with traditional security interests in mind; however, there is a renewed focus on resource security and ensuring America has access to the natural resources it needs for energy security and defense. It’s not just oil though, critical minerals and rare earth elements are in sharp focus for the US, as they form the foundation of modern electronics and energy and defense technology.
Batteries need several key critical minerals and so the story of battery manufacturing and supply chain is intimately tied to the story of critical minerals and rare earths. Modern defense and energy technologies rely more and more heavily on sophisticated electronics, batteries and motorized systems, and so access to critical minerals is key. Critical minerals are those designated as essential to the economic or national security of the U.S.; have a supply chain that is vulnerable to disruption; and serve an essential function in the manufacturing of a product, the absence of which would have significant consequences for the economic or national security of the U.S.
International Energy Agency data shows that the typical electric car requires six times the mineral input than a conventional car. Lithium ion batteries, whether they are used for EVs, stationary storage or consumer electronics, rely on Lithium, Nickel, Cobalt, Manganese, Graphite, Copper and Phosphate among others (depending on battery chemistry). Rare earth elements also play a major part in magnets vital to electric motors and wind turbines.
There is a problem though. China holds a near monopoly on critical minerals and rare earths. It is the leading producer of 25 critical minerals and around 90% of the world’s rare earths are processed in China, along with 80% of the world’s Lithium. In sharp contrast, 80% of the US’s critical minerals come from foreign sources and there is no domestic production for 14 critical minerals.
Driven by battery demand, the demand for lithium in 2040 could be 40 times that in 2020, with other battery minerals trending in the same direction.
With the surge in expected demand, and the increased use of batteries in defense applications, it’s no surprise that in the US Geological Survey’s 2025 list of critical minerals, Lithium, Nickel, Cobalt, Manganese, Graphite, Copper and Phosphate are all listed.
So in the absence of a domestic supply chain, the US has been looking outside of its borders.
President Trump has repeatedly stated his desire to acquire Greenland, and in Davos he said a ‘framework of a future deal’ was agreed. In part this is driven by access to future shipping lanes and its location for missile defense, however Greenland’s natural resources are also playing a part. The Geological Survey of Greenland and Denmark states that 24 of the 34 critical raw materials on the list of critical raw materials for the EU are present in Greenland, including Copper, Graphite, Cobalt, Iron, Nickel and Lithium, all critical for battery production.
It’s not as simple as just going to Greenland and getting the minerals though, most of Greenland’s resources are locked under thick ice sheets, often three kilometres thick, and vast areas of the territory lack road, railways or the electricity infrastructure to support large mining operations. Mining operations can take decades to reach full production, and technologies change in time. As such, companies have been averse to spending large amounts of money in exploring mining in Greenland with the challenges it presents. Other challenges include the type of silicates which contain the rare earths, the public hearing process, and even radioactivity.
So even if America acquired Greenland, it’s doubtful that anyone could extract the minerals there profitably. Not to mention that Denmark and the rest of the western world has been extremely resistant to US expansion in Greenland.
So maybe America makes a deal with a country where it has more leverage? In April 2025, the US signed a deal to establish a joint investment fund for the reconstruction of Ukraine. As part of the deal, Ukraine maintains ownership over natural resources and will contribute 50% of revenues from the exploitation of new minerals, oil, and gas projects. The US will also supply capital contribution and receive provisions for the U.S offtake of future mineral resources on competitive terms. Ukraine is estimated to have 19 million tons of Graphite, ⅓ of Europe’s Lithium deposits and significant Copper, Nickel, Cobalt and Manganese reserves and the US wants first access to it in exchange for financial and military support.
Similarly, in December 2025, the US signed a strategic agreement with the Democratic Republic of Congo aimed at increasing US investment in the country’s mineral industry. Congolese officials presented a list of high value mineral assets to Washington, with projects spanning manganese, copper, cobalt, gold, lithium, and other critical minerals. Congo is vastly rich in mineral resources, holding 10% of the world’s copper reserves and 35% of the world’s Cobalt reserves. Critically, Congo already has large mining infrastructure in place and is open to US investment, making it an attractive place to do business. The US has also struck a rare earths deal with Australia.
Domestically the US is making moves to try and increase production and invest in US mining and processing companies. The Trump administration just invested $1.6B in USA Rare Earth, an American mining company specializing in rare earths, $1.4B in Vulcan Elements, a manufacturer of rare earth magnets, and became a majority shareholder in MP Materials, which owns the US’s only operational rare earth mine.
The US is becoming more and more focussed on striking deals to increase its supply of critical minerals and rare earths, domestically and overseas. We could see the buildup of US strategic reserves as a buffer against export controls from China. In time this could translate into a more stable supply of battery raw materials into the US. However, access to raw materials is not sufficient for a strong battery supply chain, the true value is in being able to refine and process the raw materials into battery grade components.
This fantastic graphic from Atlantic Council shows how concentrated the global refining capacity of Lithium is. China and Chile dominate in refining capacity and refined exports.
Without significant investment in refining capability, the US will continue to rely on foreign sources for critical minerals, no matter how much raw material it can get its hands on. And if you are still reliant on China for processing, then your supply chain vulnerability still exists.
This looks to be an oversight in US investment and strategic planning. Building refining capability is extremely capital intensive and fluctuations in price can deter US companies from making that investment. China’s long standing infrastructure, government support and ability to endure low prices to keep a grip on the supply chain will make it extremely difficult for the US to pry even a small share of processing capability away from China, and make a profit doing so. Without the refining piece of the puzzle, the international deals and investment in domestic mining could prove to be ineffective in reducing reliance on China.
🌞 Thanks for reading!
📧 For tips, feedback, or inquiries - reach out
📣 For newsletter sponsorships - click here