America’s dangerous pursuit of critical-mineral dominance

mismanaging these trade-offs. Officials seem to deem almost any expense to be an acceptable price for security. Money is being spread wastefully thin, not focused where China’s grip is tightest, in refineries and smelters.

From Delaware to the Democratic Republic of Congo, chancers are pitching the administration dud projects in the hope of easy money. In return for peace in Ukraine (on his terms), Vladimir Putin is promising Mr Trump a bogus $12trn in deals, including lots in energy and mining.America’s campaign should instead follow three principles. The first is to narrow the scope.

Not all 60 minerals it deems critical genuinely are. Aluminium, lead and zinc are abundant, recyclable and substitutable; China would struggle to corner vast industrial-metal markets like copper. America should therefore concentrate on niche, vital metals, such as some rare earths, where China can more easily restrict exports.

Priority should go to critical industries—defence, and perhaps health care—leaving carmakers to fend for themselves. America should focus on projects near completion. Even keeping a small share of supply out of China’s control can break its chokehold, because Mr Xi will know that America has alternatives.A second principle is to use all the tools at hand.

America’s targeted stockpiles can cover immediate needs in a crisis, and its purchase contracts at pre-agreed prices can attract private investors and get projects off the ground. But it must also attend to refining and processing. Refiners that produce one main metal often leave critical by-products in waste rock, because processing costs too much.