Select Committee Chairman John Moolenaar (R-MI) and Congressman Zach Nunn (R-IA) have raised concerns about China’s dominance in the global critical minerals market, emphasizing its implications for the United States’ economy and national security. In an op-ed published in National Review, they referenced recent actions by China regarding rare-earth mineral export controls and highlighted findings from the committee’s report on how the Chinese Communist Party manipulates mineral prices to maintain control.
According to Moolenaar and Nunn, “At the end of last year, China turned its rare-earth export controls on and off like a light switch, imposing sweeping restrictions and then suspending them in November after President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping reached a trade framework during a meeting in South Korea.”
They continued: “That framework has provided a year-long reprieve, but the Chinese government has made its position clear: Critical minerals are not commodities to be traded but leverage to be used against the United States and our allies at the negotiating table. Until we solve this dependency, the Chinese will weaponize it against us.”
The congressmen noted that China’s strategy is part of a broader effort by the CCP to dominate key industries through subsidies, market manipulation, and controlling strategic chokepoints. They wrote: “This is a consistent threat the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been communicating for over a decade — across the industries it seeks to dominate and the infrastructure it plans to control. It is a playbook we have seen China execute many times before: Subsidize domestic champions, manipulate markets, seize critical chokepoints, then leverage that control to extract concessions.”
Highlighting the importance of these materials for both civilian products like smartphones and electric vehicles as well as military equipment such as fighter jets and artillery shells, they stated: “Rare-earth elements and critical minerals power everything from fertilizer to fighter jets. These materials are vital to both our national economy and our defense readiness — and when China suspended rare-earth exports in October, American manufacturers immediately felt the pinch. Prices spiked. Orders were delayed. Defense contractors scrambled.”
The impact extends beyond industry into agriculture. Farmers rely on phosphates and potash for crop yields; supply chain vulnerabilities prompted congressional action resulting in Interior Secretary Doug Burgum committing to add these minerals to America’s critical minerals list.
Moolenaar and Nunn recounted past events illustrating China’s approach. They described how Magnequench—a General Motors subsidiary—was acquired by Chinese firms with promises that were later broken as production moved overseas: “Consider Magnequench, a former General Motors subsidiary that produced rare-earth magnets. In 1995, Chinese firms bought the company and promised to keep its Indiana plant open for at least five years. Five years and one day later, the plant was closed, workers were fired, and production was moved to China.”
Current statistics indicate China’s dominant position: 70 percent of global rare-earth mining occurs within its borders; it handles 85-90 percent of mineral refining worldwide; more than 90 percent of magnet production also takes place there. The Select Committee on China found that Beijing gave about $57 billion in subsidies to domestic mining companies while restricting pricing information.
The congressmen called for robust U.S. action similar to World War II-era industrial mobilization by using tools such as the Defense Production Act to support domestic mining efforts—including those by MP Materials—and recommended improved permitting processes along with greater cooperation among allied nations.
They concluded: “When do we know we’ve won? When fertilizer prices in Iowa and Michigan aren’t dependent on the political mood in Beijing. When our defense industrial base operates independently of CCP supply chains. And when our allies need critical minerals, they call American producers.” The authors warned that continued dependence could undermine both economic interests and national security.
