China's rare-earth mineral squeeze puts defense giants in the crosshairs

The automotive and robotics industries have been hit particularly hard by China's rare earth export restrictions in recent weeks, but analysts warn Western defense giants will also feel the heat.
Top U.S. and Chinese officials are resuming trade talks in London for a second consecutive day on Tuesday, pushing to de-escalate tensions over rare-earth minerals and advanced technology.
The White House has signaled a willingness to ease chip export controls if Beijing accelerates rare earth exports, boosting investor hopes of a breakthrough. Both sides have accused each other of reneging on a preliminary trade deal struck in Geneva last month.
China's Ministry of Commerce in early April imposed export restrictions on several rare earth elements and magnets widely used in the automotive and defense sectors. The curbs were part of a response to U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff increase on Beijing's exported products.
National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett on Monday told CNBC's "Squawk Box" that he expected a deal on rare earths to be struck quickly.
"So, our expectation is that ... immediately after the handshake any export controls from the U.S. will be eased, and the rare earths will be released in volume, and then we can go back to negotiating smaller matters," Hassett said.
China is the undisputed leader of the critical minerals supply chain, producing roughly 60% of the world's supply of rare earths and processing almost 90%, which means it is importing these materials from other countries and processing them. U.S. officials have previously warned that this dominance poses a strategic challenge amid the pivot to more sustainable energy sources.
William Bain, head of trade policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, said it appeared some progress had been made on the first day of U.S.-China trade talks, but it remains "absolutely vital" to achieve a further breakthrough on rare earth policy.
"We've seen some relaxation over the weekend with licenses granted in sectors connected with robotics and electric vehicles, but if you take, for example, a critical mineral like samarium, within magnets, that's absolutely essential for F-35 fighter jet construction in the U.S," Bain told CNBC's "Europe Early Edition" on Tuesday.
"They can't make them without that. And not having access to that is severely affecting both U.S. construction in that area, but also perhaps its national security if that remains in place," he added.
Shares of some European defense giants were trading lower on Tuesday morning ahead of the fresh U.S.-China negotiations. German tank gearbox manufacturer Renk tumbled nearly 8% to lead losses on the pan-European Stoxx 600 index. Sweden's Saab and Germany's Rheinmetall, meanwhile, both fell more than 3.5%.
CNBC has contacted the U.S. Department of Defense and the European Commission, the European Union's executive arm, for comment.
The restrictions imposed by China's Ministry of Commerce in early April require firms to apply for a license for the export of rare earths and magnets.
Rare earth elements play an integral role in modern defense technologies, according to the SFA-Oxford consultancy, enabling advanced radar and sonar systems, laser guidance and propulsion technologies in combat environments.
Automotive industry groups have complained about the cumbersome process of trying to get necessary approvals, warning of increasing production threats as inventories deplete. China nevertheless appeared to offer U.S. and European auto giants something of a reprieve over the weekend.
China's Ministry of Commerce on Saturday said it was willing to establish a so-called "green channel" for eligible export license applications to expedite the approval process to European Union firms. Beijing also granted rare earth licenses to suppliers of U.S. auto giants General Motors, Ford and Jeep-maker Stellantis, Reuters reported on Friday, citing unnamed sources.
Gracelin Baskaran, director of the critical minerals security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think tank, said it was just a matter of time before the defense industry sounds the alarm over a rare earth shortage — noting that many of them have already done so behind closed doors.
"Defense companies are in the front line of impact, given we need thousands of pounds of rare earths in each submarine and fighter jet," Baskaran told CNBC by email.
The U.S., European Union and Australia must coordinate supply- and demand-side interventions to boost rare earths production, CSIS' Baskaran said, adding that this need arises primarily because of prevailing price dynamics.
"If the price of praseodymium-neodymium (PrNd) oxide—a critical input for rare earth permanent magnets—remains below $60 per kilogram by 2030, nearly half of the projected non-Chinese supply would become financially unviable. On the supply side, this will necessitate measures such as production tax credits and subsidies," Baskaran said.
"On the demand side, implementing incentives to procure minerals from allied nations—similar to the provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act—will be essential," she added.
Last month, China temporarily paused export restrictions targeting 28 American companies following a trade truce reached between Washington and Beijing in Switzerland.
China continued to block exports from that country of seven rare earth metals to the U.S., however. Many of the 28 American companies given a reprieve on dual-use export restrictions are common targets of Beijing's sanctions because of their activity in the defense sector.
Henry Sanderson, associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a London-based defense and security think tank, said the defense industry hasn't been nearly as vocal as the automotive sector when it comes to concerns over the impact of a rare earth shortage.
"Defense is hard because its less transparent, but they definitely use rare earths and rare earth magnets and especially what's called samarium cobalt magnets, but it's a much smaller demand than EVs or robots or anything like that," Sanderson told CNBC by phone.
"I'm less clear whether defense is as worried as the civilian industries, but saying that, looking at the level of magnet production in the West, it is very small," he added.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Washington Post

23 minutes ago

• Washington Post

Israel-Iran live updates: Trump warns Iran not to retaliate after U.S. strikes nuclear sites

President Donald Trump warned Tehran not to retaliate after a sweeping U.S. attack that he said 'totally obliterated' key Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities. Iranian officials acknowledged the strikes, but the extent of the damage was not immediately clear. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the U.S. attack, calling it 'outrageous' and saying it would have 'everlasting consequences.' Addressing the nation late Saturday night, Trump called the operation — which he said hit the heavily fortified Fordow plant, as well as Iran's main uranium enrichment site, Natanz, and the Isfahan facility — a 'spectacular military success,' while several Democrats criticized Trump's decision to enter the conflict without the approval of Congress. President Donald Trump said Saturday that U.S. warplanes had carried out strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran, escalating the most intense face-off in the history of the Israel-Iran conflict. President Donald Trump said Saturday that U.S. warplanes had carried out strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran, escalating the most intense face-off in the history of the Israel-Iran conflict. Iran's Atomic Energy Organization on Sunday described the U.S. strikes on nuclear sites in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan as an act of 'lawlessness based on the rules of the jungle' in a defiant statement that vowed the Iranian nuclear program would continue. The U.S. military carried out sweeping strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, President Donald Trump said late Saturday, marking a major escalation for his administration that tethers the United States directly to a conflict with no clear outcome or end in sight. A U.S. official familiar with the American military operation in Iran said it included B-2 bombers, as widely anticipated, but also other aircraft such as fighter jets. Numerous 30,000-pound, bunker-busting bombs known in the Air Force as Massive Ordnance Penetrators were dropped, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Newsweek

29 minutes ago

• Newsweek

Seven Options for Iran After US Attacks

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Iran must decide on a response to the attacks on three key nuclear sites by the United States while facing U.S. President Donald Trump's threat of further military action if it retaliates itself. Below are seven options for possible action by Iran. 1. Pursue Nuclear Talks Iran earlier this year engaged in talks with the United States to find a peaceful resolution to the dispute over its nuclear program, but it had failed to move quickly enough to satisfy Trump. Iran last week ruled out further talks while Israel continued its strikes on the Islamic Republic, a possible factor in the U.S. decision to attack days after Trump had said he would decide within the next two weeks. The main sticking point to nuclear talks had been uranium enrichment. The U.S. position was that Iran should not be permitted any enrichment, which can be used for building nuclear weapons. Iran said it would never agree to that and that it sought enrichment only for peaceful purposes. 2. Rally Diplomatic Support Against U.S. Iran will do this anyway. It was clear from the initial statement of Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi that the U.S. attack was being condemned as a violation of international law and with an appeal to the U.N. Charter and to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Iran's condemnation may well be echoed by other powers such as China and Russia, which have a close relationship with Iran. But the United States could veto any U.N. Security Council resolution and it may also have support from western allies. More important would be whether China and Russia took any stronger action against the United States beyond words. 3. Attacks on U.S. Military Targets The United States maintains military facilities in no fewer than 19 locations throughout the Middle East. Among these, eight are established as permanent bases situated in Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, with a deployed force ranging from 40,000 to 50,000 personnel. Attacking any of these would be a major escalation that would be likely to bring an even bigger military response from the United States. It would also involve strikes on Arab countries that have so far condemned the actions of Israel in attacking Iran and had warned the United States against further escalation and would therefore be a diplomatic as well as military challenge. 4. Disrupting Oil Supplies The head of Iran's parliamentary committee on defense and national security has previously stated that shutting the Strait of Hormuz — the key passage linking the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and a route for roughly one-fifth of global oil shipments — is being seriously considered, according to Iranian state media. Any such disruption could drive oil prices higher and heighten tensions between Iran and Western powers, potentially prompting naval clashes aimed at maintaining access to the vital waterway. A closure would also negatively impact China, a major recipient of Iranian oil, as well as Gulf states that have criticized Israeli strikes on Iran. 5. Using Proxy Forces Iran's network of proxy groups—including the Houthis in Yemen, militias in Iraq, Palestinian factions, and Hezbollah in Lebanon—could potentially carry out rocket attacks, sabotage operations, and covert actions. But all have been heavily battered by recent Israeli and U.S. military operations. Hamas continues to wage the war in the Gaza Strip that began with the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel that triggered the regional conflict, but is in little place to do more than try to survive. The Houthis in Yemen agreed a truce with the Ameicns after weeks of air strikes. Hezbollah was also badly bruised by its most recent fighting with Israel. A Hezbollah spokesperson told Newsweek that it did not have immediate plans to retaliate against Israel and the United States after the U.S. strikes on Iran. 6. Covert Action This could include physical attacks by groups designated as terrorists by the United States, but would not be limited to those — for which severe retaliation could also be expected if any link were proved. Iran's also has cyber units, including the Mabna Institute, which have carried out attacks on U.S. and Israeli banks, utilities, and military networks, inflicting both economic harm and symbolic blows while preserving plausible deniability. Iranian hackers have escalated cyberattacks on key Israeli infrastructure—such as water and energy systems—highlighting an increasing emphasis on cyber warfare as a primary tool of retaliation. 7. Accelerating Nuclear Program The attacks could prompt Iran to try to achieve a nuclear weapons capability as quickly as possible and this was a threat that had previously been raised by Iranian officials. Countries that have managed to build their own nuclear weapons, such as North Korea, become much harder targets for attacks. The damage to the nuclear facilities from Israeli and U.S. strikes and Israel's killing of nuclear scientists may well be a setback for nuclear weapons ambitions – which Iran had denied – such facilities can be rebuilt and Iran now has the know-how to be able to build nuclear weapons. Should it acquire them it could set off a bigger regional nuclear arms race. Israel is believed to have nuclear weapons already.

Politico

32 minutes ago

• Politico

Republican plans to cap student borrowing could shatter an everyday profession

A series of changes to long-running federal student loan programs tucked into the Republican tax plan has doctors panicked and struggling to find GOP allies. The Senate education committee's portion of President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill includes a new cap on how much people can borrow for medical school and other professional programs that is well below the sticker price most students are facing. Lawmakers are also proposing to nix a class of federal loans graduate students use to cover housing and other non-tuition expenses. For low-income and first-generation college students with aspirations of becoming physicians, these plans, if enacted, could squash their dreams, according to medical college leaders. As the full Senate irons out the bill and Trump rattles school finances with funding freezes, doctors' groups are asking Congress to preserve the more generous loan options or risk a sharp drop in who's studying medicine — a profession that's already facing a shortage. While part of the stress on poorer students comes from the ever-increasing cost of higher education, the bill would likely push more of them toward private loans that require a co-signer, which are out of reach for many, and come with steeper interest rates. 'A lot of our medical schools, mine included, have a lot of first-generation college students. When they come into medical education, more times than not, they don't have co-signers,' said John L. Hummer, president of Burrell College of Osteopathic Medicine, a school with campuses in New Mexico and Florida for which 81 percent of students depend on the federal Grad PLUS program Republicans are looking to eliminate. The Senate education tax bill establishes a $200,000 ceiling on federal student loans for professional degrees, like medicine. But the median cost of attending four years of medical school for the class of 2025 is $286,454 for public institutions and $390,848 for private schools, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. It's a range that exceeds the costs many doctors now serving in Congress paid when they earned their degrees. Many did not respond to inquiries from POLITICO about how the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would affect medical school enrollment — and those that did were not sympathetic about student debt. 'You're looking at a person, a first-generation college student, who went to medical school, and didn't borrow money,' Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), who sits on the Senate HELP Committee, said. 'I worked my tail off. Anyone who is paying more than $100,000 to go to school is making a huge mistake.' Marshall graduated from the University of Kansas School of Medicine in 1987, when the average in-state tuition for a public medical school nationally was around $4,696. That sum in today's dollars is about $13,300 — far less than what the Kansas program costs in 2025. Members of the medical community believe limits on federal loans or steering students to borrow from private lenders will exacerbate a long-running national physician shortage the Association of American Medical Colleges projects could be as high as 86,000 doctors by 2036. David Bergman, senior vice president of government relations and health affairs at the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, said students at medical schools his group represents have said it's been difficult to access private loans. Some lenders, like PNC Bank, hold student debt for which about 90 percent of private loans have a co-signer, while others had interest rates as high as 16 percent — nearly twice that of a Grad PLUS loan. 'The consequence of all this, of course, is that it's the low-income students who are going to suffer the most,' Bergman said. 'They may not have great credit, so then they may not be able to get the loans. Or they may get higher rate loans that put them further in debt.' One former Trump administration official shares this concern. 'I do worry about the assumption that the private sector is going to step in,' said Diane Jones, a former Education Department official from Trump's first term. 'Maybe they would, but I'm not sure they would step in to make loans available to low-income students.' Even some people in the lending business are skeptical the industry's bigger players will change their rules around co-signers. 'It just takes a lot more energy because it's riskier. Period. Banks aren't in the business of doing riskier products,' said Ken Ruggiero, co-founder and CEO of Ascent, a private loan company that will lend to applicants without a co-signer. 'They are in the business of talking to a person who has a very good income and credit score and letting the student sign the agreement.' The House version of the bill would also shut down Grad PLUS and put a cap on lending to graduate students for professional programs, putting pressure on the Senate to change course. But HELP Committee Chair Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said there needs to be more accountability for the high tuition prices writ large that aren't exclusive to medical schools. 'There should be some ratio between earning potential and what it costs,' Cassidy said. 'I met with neurosurgeons and cosmetologists and they had the same discussion about the cost of education.' Jason Goldman, president of the American College of Physicians, which represents internal medicine doctors, related specialists and medical students, is skeptical that capping loan amounts would force medical schools to immediately lower tuition. Over the span of 21 years, medical school tuition has gone up 81 percent, outpacing inflation, according to AAMC. 'The reality is it's very expensive to train a physician — the amount of hours that go into lectures, labs, professors and housing and everything it takes to graduate is expensive,' Goldman said. He fears that some students may be dissuaded from becoming primary care doctors, a specialty where shortages are profound, especially in rural areas. Some in Congress have pushed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to address proposed limits to federal lending for student borrowers pursuing health care-related degrees. During a House Appropriations Committee hearing in May, Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Fla.) asked McMahon to take a look at aid programs that help students complete their degrees. 'We do know we have a shortage of nurses and doctors,' McMahon said. 'I think there are a lot of programs we can look at to train nurse technicians to get them into the marketplace faster.' Other Congress members have proposed student loan changes outside of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to address health care shortages. Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Jackie Rosen (D-Nev.) introduced legislation in April that would create a student loan repayment program for specialists within medical professions who practice in rural areas. They also introduced the Specialty Physicians Advancing Rural Care Act in previous legislative sessions citing a dearth of providers in rural communities. 'The entire nation is dealing with a physician shortage, and rural communities in Mississippi have been particularly affected,' Wicker said in a statement. 'Congress can help provide a solution.' Jones, the official from Trump's first term, also worries that some students may have to forgo medical school because they won't be able to secure financial assistance. She attended medical school in the 1980s when the loan program she was using was suspended, ultimately leading her to drop out because she could no longer afford the program. 'I didn't have a parent who could co-sign for a private loan, and I didn't have access to any other resources,' she said. 'I personally lost the opportunity to pursue the career that I wanted, that I had earned the right to pursue.'