Loading summary

Transcript107 lines

[00:01]
A
What if data didn't sit still? What if intelligence moved with us, not buried in reports, but activated in real time? Where lives are being shaped, where decisions are being made. It all starts with a where is the potential? Totality turns data into clarity, intelligence into insight, insight into action. Because when intelligence moves, we all move forward. Intelligence beyond bounds.
[00:31]
B
This episode sponsored by Ridwell Ever tossed
[00:34]
C
something into your recycling bin and just hoped it would get recycled? That's wish cycling.
[00:39]
B
And most of the time those items don't actually get recycled. Ridwell makes it simple to get it right. Ridwell helps you recycle the things your curbside bin doesn't take, like plastic bags,
[00:49]
D
snack wrappers, pill bottles and bottle caps. Getting started is easy.
[00:53]
C
Just order a starter kit, fill the
[00:55]
D
bags, send them back for free, and Ridwell takes care of the rest.
[00:58]
A
Start today@ridwell.com AI is entering its most consequential phase where scale, safety and sovereignty will determine who leads and who lags. Join Bloomberg Tech in London on November 2nd and 3rd as global leaders across business, finance and policy examine the defining trade offs shaping the future of AI. Thank you to our presenting sponsor Salesforce and supporting sponsors Ida Ireland and Schneider Electric. Learn more@bloomberglive.com Tech London.
[01:33]
E
Bloomberg Audio Studios Podcasts Radio News this
[01:40]
F
is Bloomberg businessweek Daily reporting from the magazine that helps global leaders stay ahead with insight on the people, companies and
[01:49]
E
trends shaping today's complex economy. Plus global business, finance and tech news as it happens. The Bloomberg businessweek Daily podcast with Carol Massar and Tim Stanwick on Bloomberg Radio.
[02:03]
B
Joe Doe is Bloomberg News senior Economic Statecraft reporter. He is here with us. We're talking everything when it comes to rare earths and critical minerals, a crucial part of the supply chain for everything from electronics to weapons systems. Joe, we've wanted to do this for so long and we're glad you can do it. I'm I have to say we're happy to have you, Christine. Carol is so sad she's out today, but Joe is making it up to her because next week when I'm out, I guess Joe is stepping in a little bit so he's going to be here.
[02:33]
F
You get more Joe.
[02:33]
B
Okay, so Joe, I want to start with you. Then we're going to bring in this this fantastic lineup that we have for the next hour. And it's a lot of it is all of it is thanks to you and the people you've brought us over the last few years. So we are grateful to you for that. I just want to start Joe with a General question about critical minerals and rare earths. Because when I met you, you were metals and mining reporter and we talked to you sometimes about heavy equipment. And then something, something happened, something changed. What was it? And why did rare earths and critical minerals become this conversation that investors, the administration, and we're so focused on?
[03:12]
C
I mean, if we really go way back, right, the pandemic hits in 2020, if we, in case we forgot, and supply chains became a story like actual supply chains and like, you know, those of us who are in the commodity space had covered actual supply chains. You know, understanding the procurement officers at various big companies you've heard of, right? Soda companies, beer companies, car companies. And then if we just move from there, it becomes very apparent to investors in a big way why supply chains matter. Fast forward to a couple years, years later, three years later, China in the middle of the summer of 2023 shocks a lot of close watchers by saying they're putting export controls on gallium and germanium. And these are two elements that are absolutely essential to defense technologies. Right? Defense. Right. Like it's not a Silicon Valley thing. It's not Apple and Google. All it's, it is very much. These are defense applications. And we had some reporting shortly after that time, we did a big take that said when those export controls were announced, it sent off alarm bells throughout the Biden administration. And we had a senior administration official tell us for that story. That was the moment that all of the concerns that various agencies had had, in particular the Pentagon and trying to warn big players in Congress, the President, United States, that it was there. And that is where we are now. Right? So the Biden administration moves on. Trump administration comes back in. They had long had this conversation about the importance of rare earths and critical minerals. In some ways, it was Trump and Trump 1.0 that put this on the map. It got, it got supercharged, right? Liberation Day happens. The President of the United States puts tariffs on every imaginable country in the world and he goes hard on China and China responds just a few days later. Initially, nobody heard about it because it just happened in the middle of the night on a Thursday. And they said, we are putting export controls on rare earths, the important rare earths, but also permanent magnets. And this is when it went from becoming a defense technology problem to an all out tech war.
[05:36]
B
You bring up exactly what we're going to do right now perfectly, Joe, because you fast forward from then to today and we're regularly hearing from the President about this meeting with executives from the mining and critical minerals industries, including on Friday when he had them down in Washington D.C. check out what he had to say about the US versus China.
[05:58]
C
Accredited mining programs in the United States now graduate less than 170 mining engineers each year, while China graduates more than 3,000. And half of our current mining workforce is set to retire within the next three years.
[06:13]
B
Well, that was President Trump on Friday. Joe, jump in here.
[06:17]
C
Yeah, I mean, his wow at the end, right, is again a conversation that you've been hearing in the world that I've been covering for a long time. I mean, I remember sitting in this office, call it three or four years ago, with the now former CEO of Rio Tinto and you know, we would catch up with them every so often. And one of the things that he pointed out was, you know, Joe, one of the big problems we have is a lack of geologists and a lack of people who want to come in to the mining space. Rio Tinto is the second largest mining company in the world. Well, who were they losing that talent to oil and gas? So when you hear the President say last week, you know, we're having an aging workforce, well, it's largely because the people who are capable of a lot of these jobs are not going into mining. And we've had some wonderful reporting out from our commodities team even this year about the dearth of labor. And you know, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
[07:12]
B
Well, somebody who is at least going into mining from a reporting perspective is Polly Mossens, a reporter for Bloomberg News Poly, recently writing about how the President is rewriting corporate norms with this 211 mile Arctic road. The federal government granting a permit to build a road through the Alaskan wilderness. In exchange it gets part of a mining company. Polly, what is, what is happening here with the road and sort of the economic statecraft part of this, which I think investors are becoming increasingly used to.
[07:44]
A
Yeah, absolutely. I think it's funny to ask what is happening to the road. Well, right now nothing, but soon potentially everything. Right. This could completely alter the way of life there, which is that people go bush plane by bush plane from village to village. To build a road in this untouched wilderness would really strongly change the way of life there. But it would also really change the mining environment there. You're going from having extre expensive expeditions to try to prospect in very costly helicopter rides to being able to drive in and, you know, really see what's going on there, see what could be mined there. And also once the mines are actually built and say About a decade to be able to just talk, you know, get everything on tractor trailers and freight it out. That is a huge, huge difference. So right now we're at the very, very beginning stages of that. But allowing this road to potentially be built allows you to completely change the way that people live there and the way that mining is able to make money in Alaska.
[08:38]
F
Now, Polly, one of the things that stood out from your story is the fact that the due diligence by the government in terms of carrying out the project was completed in less than 72 hours. And that seems a little too short. Right, for a project that, as you say, is going to completely change the way that people live around that area. What could have been potentially missed given that rush to complete the due diligence?
[09:03]
A
Yeah, I think one of the big questions is how successful is this mining district really going to be? Right. Because there's a lot of prospecting still to be done. I think something that we and the federal government, you know, still need to see is exactly how much or is going to be able to get out of there, how profitable it will be. And also you have the big question of how much are people going to want this stuff? Maybe if we're not in a huge AI boom, what does that actually look like? So that is a big part of what due diligence traditionally would be looking at is how successful is this investment going to be on a long term? And also what does the American taxpayer necessary sincerely get out of it?
[09:40]
B
I'm so glad you went there because I'm, I'm struck by or reminded of something that Joe told us months ago at this point, and a point that, that he makes a lot, Joe, and I'm going to turn it over to you for this, is that the numbers historically have been really hard to make work for. For some of these companies, like mining and processing rare earths is not an incredibly profitable endeavor, especially if you don't have government support.
[10:07]
C
Yeah, it's. I mean, incredibly, it's just not profitable.
[10:11]
B
Like, think about the MP Materials story, right? And the Mountain Pass mine. This, this, this company, MP Materials, got on a lot of people's radar over the last couple of years for the first time. But they operate in a mine that is, they are operating a mine that has been in operation for what, almost 100 years at this point. And even in, in the last couple of decades, what was part of a company that went into bankruptcy, then emerged from bankruptcy. Like, this is not easy work.
[10:37]
C
No, you know, it's like, what do they say Squeezing blood from a rock. Right. I mean, there is a reason we have not done this in the United States for a long time. There is a reason that we don't have a, as the President puts it, mine to magnet supply chain. Right? From pulling ore out of the ground to creating the permanent magnets. I mean, with the exception of MP materials which you have stated does actually do this, there is no other real comp for the United States. There are some permanent magnet companies, there's some smaller ones, Novion is a well known one. But essentially this is not a market that exists in the United States. It is something that the United States has now decided that it needs to build. And this kind of brings us back to Polly's story, which, which Polly and I, full disclosure, she worked, she and I worked on this story together. But like one of the, one of the questions I have for you, Polly, is you, you are not, you have not spent your career writing about metals and mining, which, which also is the terrific part about working with you on this. But I am curious, what is it that brought you to this topic of trilogy medals and why you wanted to make this your big project for the year?
[11:54]
A
Yeah, I think to me it's really the economic statecraft that we were talking about at the beginning. You know, it is inherently unusual that the federal government is taking this role and taking this stake. I think that that is something that is worth exploring and we should all be interested in all of the deals that are being invested in. Right. As taxpayers, as citizens, I think that it's important to know what the federal government is doing with the taxpayer budget. I think that we should all really be aware not just the outcome of the deals and how they might make money in the long term, but how those deals get put together and who gets what out of those deals as they are being structured. Right. Because in a deal like this, the stock pops when the deal gets announced. Whether or not people make money if the stroke gets built in a decade is a totally different question than what happens when the deal gets announced and when the deal gets made.
[12:47]
F
Yeah, well, I mean, very interesting, Polly, because you know, as Joe had mentioned, really a lot of the emphasis on investment in critical minerals was all about freeing the US from its dependence in China is all about the supply chain. But you know, so the supporters, that's the argument for them. But then if the US already produces a significant amount of copper, for instance, where really is the vulnerability here?
[13:12]
A
Yeah, I think that's a good question. You know, I think this is really, Joe's expertise. But I think that the vulnerability can also change with time. Right. Perhaps there might not be a huge emphasis on copper in three to five years under a different administration the way that there is right now. We just don't know. And I think think that's also the really hard thing with mining is that these take so long to get built out and it takes so much longer to refine everything and the planning is really time consuming. But we're making choices with the information that we have today for a mine that might not be operable for a decade and then also once it is operable, you actually don't know everything about the quality of what's in there until things are really underway. And then also what happens if there's a natural disaster or a man made disaster or just less minerals than you expected. So it's really hard for us to sort of talk about sort of the copper and how we might need it in this moment when all of our forward thinking is so, so far out. And Joe made a great point that it's hard to make money in mining and here we're going to try to make money in mining with the taxpayers on the line.
[14:13]
B
Polly, it's a great story. You wrote it along with Jacob Lawrence and Joe Doe who's sitting here with us. Polly is covers metals and mining and she joins us this afternoon on this special. We appreciate your time. POLLY MOSS ends Thank you so much. Check out her story on the Bloomberg terminal and@Bloomberg.com if you are just joining us, we are doing a special thing this hour. It's an entire hour on economic statecraft, metals mining, specifically rare earths. Joe Doe is with us for the entire hour. He is Bloomberg News economic statecraft reporter. If you have any questions for him you can go to bloomberg.com/ask radio and leave questions for Joe. Send questions to us. We have joining us in just a few minutes Graceland Baskren, director of the critical Mineral Security Program at csis. And coming up a little later, Trip Hornick is stopping by, principal of Quinn Street Strategy. He understands the sort of connection between these private companies and the government because it's his job to go and work out those deals with the government. He's going to be stopping by in just a few minutes as well. Any questions for Bloomberg subscribers or Terminal subscribers? Bloomberg.com askradio We've got Joe Doe with us. He's Bloomberg News senior economic statecraft reporter. He's got everything on this crucial part of the supply chain for everything from electronics to weapon Systems. We're talking about critical minerals and rare earths. We're also joined right now by Graceland Basker and Director of Critical Mineral Security Program at the center for Strategic and International Studies. We're talking to both of you and our other guests today because, Joe, as you reminded us, it's been about a year since the US kicked off that critical mineral statecraft agenda. There was that unprecedented $400 million equity investment in MP materials. I can't believe it's been a year since then. Here we are a year later. Is the US any closer to weaning itself off of relying on foreign partners or adversaries for critical minerals and rare earths?
[16:17]
C
Well, I spend a lot of time writing about this and one person I like to often ask this question to happens to be our current guest.
[16:26]
B
Is that why you brought Gracelyn Basker into us?
[16:28]
C
I'm hoping she might have some answers for us.
[16:31]
B
All right. She's Director of Critical Mineral Security Program at the center for Strategic and International Studies. Gracelyn, you join us from all over the world and we're grateful for your time this afternoon and every afternoon that you do join us. Is the US any closer to no longer relying on partners and adversaries for rare earths and critical minerals?
[16:48]
E
First of all, thank you so much for having me and thank you for the phenomenal work Joe does. He is reliably also one of my sounding boards. So it's a mutually beneficial relationship. Now when I think about this question, I mean, I think there's two things we need to split out. Are we moving closer? Yes, we're moving closer. And the scale of the investment, the capabilities that are starting to come online. When China imposed restrictions in April 2025, we didn't have heavy rare earth separation capabilities outside. But slowly Malaysia came online, you know. But one of the things we have to remember is that it we're still have a very long ramp to self sufficiency. As you know, recently the G7 put forth the goal of 60% not being more than 60% reliant on a single country outside of the G7. That's a pretty ambitious target. Japan's been working on that goal for 16 years and they are now approaching that 60%. So we're getting closer, but we still have a long road to go.
[17:47]
C
Graceland, we're 12 months removed since the USA Rare Earth getting them all mixed up MP materials announcement which really brought a shock, I think to the market, to investors, to companies to suddenly realize not only was this being talked about, but the Government was there to make happen what you were just describing. I'm wondering with the President's summit that happened on Friday. Do, do we feel like coming out on Friday and making some of the comments that he did is more kind of reminding people that the government's there or do we feel like he was sending some other type of message?
[18:28]
E
The number one message I took away from Friday's roundtable with President Trump, which also saw Secretary of State Rubio, Interior Secretary Burgum, Commerce Secretary Lutnick, was that industrial policy is here and that the government here to support companies working in our national interest. In addition to making substantial funding announcements. He talked about developing the next generation of workforce through federal dollars. He talked a lot about on shoring those capabilities. So industrial policy, once a word that both the left and the right kind of frowned on, is being seen as vital to seeing American industry succeed.
[19:07]
F
Yeah, I mean, very interesting, Graceland, that, that concept of onshoring. Right. We've also heard about friend shoring, which other term that has come up in the discussion over rare earths. And you know, do you think a lot of these investments outside the US Is it ultimately more realistic than trying to build a fully domestic critical mineral supply chain?
[19:28]
E
Absolutely. There is not a country on earth, maybe you know, with the exception of China, that has the geological resources, the financial capital and the technical know how to do it alone. And this is where, you know, at a time when it sometimes feel like American foreign policy now is America alone. Critical minerals are area from the very get go that we have embraced international cooperation. And when you look at the rare earth supply chain alone over the course of the last year, you have seen substantial US support be announced with the Japanese, the Australians, Saudi Arabia, Angola, Brazil. And so these, this is really a sign that the US does not intend to go at it alone. And you know, that partnership is going to be really crucial if we are going to reach that mine to manufactured goods supply chain in any reasonable time frame.
[20:16]
C
You know, Graceland, I think in the first few months after the MP materials deal, there was a genuine concern in critical minerals circles that the US was going to go it alone. It was clear by the end of 2025 that that was not the case. But as you look back on the past 12 months, what sticks out to you as maybe the most underwhelming part of the critical minerals policy we've seen so far from the administration or something you think they really need to improve on moving forward?
[20:45]
E
I think one of the areas that's probably been the weakest are price floors. There is an acknowledgment that the problem we have today is not a political problem, it is an economic problem. It is how do we get projects outside of China to stay commercially viable. You saw a lot of discussion over the last year talking about instituting a price floor, but it's complicated, right? Because there's a principle problem that we can't seem to agree on, Even with our G7 counterpart, which is who pays for it? Is this a cost that the, the taxpayer bears, or is it a cost that the person buying the automotive bears? And I can tell you, having spent a lot of time with our counterparts in places like Australia and the uk, that they feel much less inclined to put that burden on the taxpayer when those resources could be used for health care, education, housing policy, et cetera. So one of the principal challenges we are left with is how do we ensure that projects outside of China can compete and stay open at a time when a lot of these prices may be lower than cost of production?
[21:48]
C
Is the answer ultimately a price floor?
[21:52]
E
The answer is probably a more comprehensive toolkit. So when we look at what the US Government did with Linus in Malaysia, it was basically an offtake contract as opposed to a guaranteed price floor for everything they produce. It is, we will buy X quantity at Y price. Right? The same hundred and ten dollars. So it's probably going to be a combination of procurement, procurement, facilitating private procurement with American, you know, auto manufacturers, it's going to be ongoing support, particularly for processing facilities to cover the delta between where their operating costs are and what they need to be profitable. So I see it as probably being a comprehensive toolkit. I think the reality is, when you look at 60 critical minerals, getting the US government, or even a coalition government to guarantee a price floor for everything is going to be fiscally very difficult, particularly when you look at the cost of the war in Iran. I was in Australia when a lot of the discussion centered around the additional financial support needed for fertilizer and energy and how that was going to potentially move resources away from critical minerals. So given the state of the world expecting that to be a full balance sheet, cost is difficult. So creative tools are going to be necessary.
[23:06]
B
Yeah, that's a perfect segue for what I wanted to ask you, Graceland. And it's the idea that necessity is the mother of invention. So while these might be critical minerals right now, is there innovation happening with, with some of the products that these ultimately go into, where they will not need as much or, or they will. No, no, longer need these minerals that are challenging to source.
[23:27]
E
Absolutely. I mean, I would also add to that and say scarcity is a very powerful driver of innovation. If you go back and look at the 1970s oil embargo and what it did for energy innovation. Now, if we look at what the US and our allies are, there's a couple things, right? So the first is recycling. How do we recycle our black mass? And the U.S. especially through the Department of Energy, has made significant investments in recycling to get some of these materials back out. We know how to recycle lithium, we know how to recycle copper. But rare earth permanent magnets are a little bit of a new area. So investing in innovation to recycle. The second one is investing to an innovation that uses less materials. And we see that to be true, for example, with BMW and a motor that doesn't need need rare earths. And obviously that is not a scaled technology yet. It's a nascent one, but one that has a lot of potential because that would be a big driver of demand. And the third thing I would say is we're getting a little bit more strategic with things like going back to our old tailings and recovering rare earths. So rare earth sit in our coal mines, they sit in gold mines, and we've mined that material out, but it's largely sitting in tailings. So we're looking to get that back out of it, not just in the U.S. but in our allied countries. And there is government financial support to getting out of that. So I always think, you know, again, America's strong suit is innovation, and we're already seeing that to create a less dependent future.
[24:54]
B
Gracelyn Basker and is director of the Critical Mineral Security Program at the center for Strategic and International Studies. Today she's joining us from Washington, D.C. she's joined us in the past from Africa, from Australia, from Las Vegas and more. She travels quite a bit as part of this job. Also with us, Joe Doe from our Bloomberg News team. He is here for the remainder of our hour. We're speaking next in this critical minerals special to Trip Hornick, principal of Quint Street Strategy. He's joining us to talk about the government role here. Stay with us. More from Bloomberg businessweek Daily coming up after this.
[25:34]
A
What if data didn't sit still? What if intelligence moved with us, not buried in reports, but activated in real time, where lives are being shaped, where decisions are being made. It all starts with the question, where is the potential? Totality turns data into clarity, intelligence into insight, insight into action. Because when intelligence moves, we all move forward. Totality, intelligence beyond bounds.
[26:04]
E
You're listening to the Bloomberg Businessweek Daily Podcast. Catch us live weekday afternoons from 2 to 5 Eastern. Listen on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the the Bloomberg Business app or watch us live on YouTube.
[26:18]
B
We're back with our special focusing on critical minerals and rare earth. I'm Tim Steinbeck with Christina Keynote. We're joined by Joe Doe, senior economic statecraft reporter for Bloomberg News. The reason we're talking about this is because it's been about a year since the US Kicked off its critical minerals statecraft agenda with an unprecedented $400 million equity investment in materials the US government has continued in those last 12 months. We have with us Tripp Hornick. He's principal of Quint Street Strategy. He joins us here in the Bloomberg Interactive Broker studio. And the way that your company works, Tripp, is you work as like a bridge between private companies and the US Government to get funding. And I've just last year your firm did more than $1.4 billion in government funding and letters of intent to fund.
[27:06]
D
Yeah.
[27:07]
B
How's it going in 2026?
[27:09]
D
This year we're seeing quarterly growth up over 60%. So it's been a pretty good year.
[27:16]
B
What percentage of your clients right now or that money is related to critical minerals and rare earths?
[27:22]
D
I would say that everyone's related to critical minerals, energy dominance and things that are going to go into the defense infrastructure as a result thereof. It's the same giant picture. Where do those critical minerals go into the data center, into the chips, into the power grid, also into the weapons. It's all the same ecosystem.
[27:39]
C
Yeah. I mean, there's a lot there. And listen, I know that you're kind of across that supply chain, but I do want to hone in back to the president's summit on Friday with you. You know, the initial lead up to it, at least in the reporting that I was bringing in, was that it was going to be a bit of a nothing burden. Right. A lot of people thought it'd be the president maybe puffing his chest and kind of making it clear to China, especially a month ahead of the Xi Jinping meeting that's supposed to be here in the U.S. hey, we're kind of doing it our own way and we're making progress. He actually ends up making a few significant investment announcements. My question to you is, should there be concern that this is it, that we're not going to have more down the line?
[28:25]
D
No. Simple answer is a thank you for having me back. Simple answer on that is no. There will absolutely be more coming down the line and quite a bit rather shortly. I would say that two main things. One, you're seeing all the conditional announcements that are coming out of the Department of War. That's only because we don't have Title 10 passed. Title 10 is the defense Appropriations Act. But you're also seeing a bunch of things from 2024 and 2025 be forwarded into departments that do have active cash, such as aae, which is Arms and Armament. So you're seeing that money get pushed out of there. But what was uniquely interesting about this past Friday is what office ran that Office of Energy Dominance. That was. Who ran that National Security Council.
[29:06]
C
Yeah. Why is that significant, though?
[29:07]
D
Because it's where the initial announcements came from. It was not a Dow core focus. It was, we're going to hit lithium. We're going to process that here. And. And also Scandium oversees that investment into Australia is key for energy dominance. This was. And having the Secretary of State there was showing, hey, we need to have soft diplomacy on this as well, which we were not seeing from the initial announcements that were just coming into USAR and mp. And you know, we could go very
[29:33]
B
deep into MP and usar, USA Rarers and MP materials.
[29:36]
D
Absolutely. We could go very deep into whether they are domestic or not. It was fun to watch MPs say this is a wholly domestic, you know, piece of metal that he's a magnet that he presented to them.
[29:46]
B
Why are you saying it might not be?
[29:47]
D
Well, MP is and what was presented there. But what we're seeing is this is rather well known what's happened with USA Rare Earths. You have the mine in Brazil, you have their subsidiary, which is less Common metals, has put 200 million into Europe. And so, okay, that's not happening at Round Top here in the United States, that's happening in Brazil and then it's being processed in Europe. That's not domestic.
[30:09]
B
I want to get to some of our listener questions that are coming in and I apologize in advance if you sent a question and we do not get to it because we have gotten a lot of them and we will not have time to get to all of these trip. This is a question for you and it's about. And you can. Joe, of course, feel free to jump in on this. Ken from Toronto asks what is the role of Canada when it comes to supporting US critical mineral needs?
[30:30]
D
Great question. 95% of what we have or that we need, we have a continuous foreclosure 48 states. The issue that we have with Canada is that it takes much longer to permit. The President's announcements this past Friday were fast tracking things. So if Canada can push that up, they will still be very helpful.
[30:46]
B
Is there some tension between the rhetoric that the US has with Canada regarding trade, regarding wildfire smoke that could put this at risk?
[30:53]
D
My opinion is no under defense. Under statute, Canada, Australia and the UK are treated as domestic locations for profit. And that's a very important thing to point out when it comes to funding.
[31:04]
C
I would push back just a bit, which I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I do think it is relevant that you still have the clear disagreement between the President and the Prime Minister of Canada. And I think there are plenty of folks in the market and in industry who are worried that that will continue to leak over and cause any sort of problems in a space where like you're pointing out and Graceland mentioned earlier, we are clearly not just going it alone that it is a US plus allies type of type of project here.
[31:37]
D
I mean, I agree with you completely, Joe. What I'm going to say is that most of these Canadian companies are junior miners already listed on the tsx. Those companies are, how should I say, not ready for prime time. In general, 95% of the companies I deal with out of Canada are not ready for prime time.
[31:53]
C
Real quick question though, Trip. How many of the companies so far that we've seen get investments or letter of intent for investment from the United States government? We're ready for primetime.
[32:03]
D
The ones that went into Australia, most of them were that we did an announcement in October, November of last year. What you've seen out of osc. I mean, let's ask the question, is Vulcan ready for primetime? Is Phoenix ready for primetime? It's an open question.
[32:19]
F
Yeah. Well, to Joe's point, I mean we have seen a lot of agencies deploying capital, right? The Pentagon Export Import Bank. Do you sense a coherent government strategy behind this process or do you think it's kind of very slap shot at the moment? Just pick and choose.
[32:35]
D
Brilliant question. The answer is first, no, there is not a coherent singular strategy, but that is not a result of not having a desire. And excellent work by people in the administration, particularly those on energy dominance, and some excellent work by the Secretary of Commerce to say the least, and Secretary Bergam as well. So the White House has stated what they want to do, but there is the swamp and things get bogged down.
[33:00]
C
What are the type of projects you think on the horizon as we're again looking forward. You said yes, there is more to come. What type of projects do you think they're looking to invest in next?
[33:09]
D
Something you heard me say before. Metallization. Metallization. Metallization. They know well that the mid supply chain has not been solved. It's very interesting that energy fuel, mid
[33:18]
C
supply chain of rare earth, permanent magnet
[33:21]
D
creation and I would say separate from permanent magnets as well, those that need to go into fan blades and into general defense production, such as things that need to go into patriots as well, just for the basic metals or even magnesium that needs to be into every flare or tracer bullet.
[33:34]
C
That sounds important. From the stockpiling of our weapons question that we have right now, I would
[33:39]
D
love to hear that question.
[33:40]
B
Okay, I'm going to throw another one at you. That's coming from a listener viewer. Colin in Atlanta writes that MP is building their large new facility in Texas. Will that process material exclusively from the Mountain Pass mine or might it process material mined by competitors? Do you know?
[33:56]
D
My answer would be ask Jim.
[33:59]
B
Jim, you're talking about Jim Latinsky.
[34:00]
D
Jim Latinsky, the CEO of MP Materials.
[34:04]
B
All right, well, next time we get Jim on with, with Joe, we'll ask. We'll ask him. Joe, jump on in here because we only got just about 30 seconds left. If we leave our audience with, with one thought about what the next 12 months will look like when it comes to investment from the US Government or at least government involvement, what should they be thinking about?
[34:22]
C
I think the main thing they should be looking at is results. The money is out there and Tripp is talking about more money potentially coming. But the money that's already out there, and we're understanding this through our own reporting, is government wants to see results. And guess what, what that that means taxpayers are probably going to want to see results too, because it's not just, it's not just the government's money.
[34:44]
B
Okay, so that brings me trip to another question. Yesterday we had Gary Evans from US Antimony.
[34:50]
D
Yes.
[34:51]
B
On the program and I asked him about what it, what it would take for him to sell a stake in his company to the US Government and how much he would sell. He was very open to it. It's got a billion dollar market cap. He said if having the government as a shareholder, I would prefer not over 20%. It's a little crazy that under a Republican administration we're talking about investment in companies by the US Government and you know, state capitalism, state ownership of some of these companies. Right now. What are you hearing in Washington about The sort of appetite for this.
[35:26]
D
Absolutely. And we discussed this the last time that I was on with you. Appetite is all in but not out at 20%. They're looking between 10 and 20. A lot are settling at 10. The way that they look at this, at least from what I'm hearing on the Hill and in Republican circles and the support for the White House, is that this really isn't that different than the option to go in and deal with collateral once it fails, if something fails. So it's a backstop. That said, am I a big fan of state capitalism?
[35:57]
F
No.
[35:57]
D
But did it work for Independence Intel? So far, yes.
[36:00]
B
It's only been a year for intel,
[36:02]
D
and that's exactly what I said. Let's see what happens in two to three years. Is it.
[36:06]
B
Is it socialism?
[36:07]
D
It is not socialism. If we bring in dsa, we can have a whole debate on what real socialism is.
[36:12]
B
Why isn't it socialism?
[36:13]
D
It's not socialism because they're not controlling the company. It's not becoming a state entity. It's a minority control. And they're not necessarily preferred shares. Now, one of the benefits to the company is that it can set a valuation. That's the big deal. So for smaller firms that are looking to do capital raises, when the government comes in, it goes, here's a set valuation. It's not made off of a 409A. There we go. Now I can sell more capital. Pardon me. More shares for capital.
[36:35]
B
Joe, go ahead.
[36:37]
C
Can any of this fail? Is that okay?
[36:41]
D
Can the policy or can the.
[36:43]
F
The.
[36:43]
C
The companies that have been invested in is failure. Okay?
[36:47]
D
It is okay for some of them to fail. It is no different than what we have done before. I mean, what we. Even. What we were doing in World War II. But what we should be doing is coming in and backstopping our supply chain as a whole. The problem that we're having right now is we're not doing that. We've invested in and loaned to too few companies.
[37:08]
C
And do you expect we will see at some point some failures?
[37:11]
D
Oh, absolutely. Okay, 100%. Especially when it comes to metallization and when it comes to oxide processing.
[37:19]
B
Guys, I can't believe our hour is up, but we got to leave it there. Big thank you to both of you for joining us. Trip Hornick is principal at Quinn Street Strategy. He joins us here in the Bloomberg Interactive Brokers studio. Also with us is Joe Doe, Bloomberg News senior economic statecraft reporter. You can check out Joe's reporting and the entire team's reporting@bloomberg.com and of course, on the Bloomberg Terminal.
[37:43]
E
This is the Bloomberg businessweek daily podcast, available on Apple, Spotify and anywhere else you get. Your podcasts listen live weekday afternoons from 2 to 5pm Eastern on Bloomberg.com, the iHeartRadio app, TuneIn and the Bloomberg Business App. You can also watch us live Every weekday on YouTube and always on the Bloomberg Terminal.

Summary7 min read

Bloomberg Businessweek: A Deep Dive on Critical Minerals

Date: August 12, 2026
Hosts: Tim Stenovec, Christina Keynote (Carol Massar out)
Guests: Joe Doe (Bloomberg News Senior Economic Statecraft Reporter), Polly Mossens (Bloomberg News), Gracelyn Basker (Director, Critical Mineral Security Program at CSIS), Tripp Hornick (Principal, Quint Street Strategy)

Overview

This special hour-long episode explores the evolving landscape of critical minerals and rare earths, focusing on supply chain vulnerabilities, government intervention, and the broader implications for national security, technology, and the global economy. Through in-depth conversations with leading reporters and experts, the hosts unpack why critical minerals have come into sharp focus, the economic and geopolitical drivers at play, initiatives to bolster domestic capacity, and lingering challenges that policymakers, industry leaders, and taxpayers face.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Why Critical Minerals Matter Now

Guest: Joe Doe
Timestamp: 02:02–05:35

Backdrop: The pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in global supply chains, making even niche commodities a mainstream concern.
Tipping Point: China’s imposition of export controls on gallium and germanium in 2023 set off “alarm bells” in Washington, especially for defense technologies.
Political Shift: The Trump administration put rare earths and critical minerals on the map; subsequent U.S. administrations heightened the sense of urgency, particularly due to strategic rivalry with China.
Quote:

“When those export controls were announced, it sent off alarm bells throughout the Biden administration. ... That is where we are now.” – Joe Doe (04:28)

2. U.S. Workforce and Education Challenges

Timestamp: 05:57–07:11

President Trump highlighted the U.S. graduating <170 mining engineers yearly versus China’s >3,000, with half the U.S. mining workforce nearing retirement.
Quote:

“His ‘wow’ at the end... is a conversation that’s been happening for a long time—there’s a lack of geologists and a lack of people who want to come into the mining space.” – Joe Doe (06:17)

3. The Arctic Mining Road – Economic Statecraft in Action

Guest: Polly Mossens
Timestamp: 07:11–09:39

The federal government’s rapid permitting for a 211-mile mining road in Alaska could radically change both local communities and the U.S. mining landscape.
Concerns: Due diligence was completed in under 72 hours; questions remain about long-term profitability, necessity, and potential environmental impact.
Quote:

“To build a road in this untouched wilderness would really strongly change the way of life there... but it would also really change the mining environment.” – Polly Mossens (07:44)

4. Economics and Profitability of U.S. Mining

Timestamp: 09:39–12:46

Mining and processing rare earths is not highly profitable without government support; U.S. mining has historically struggled due to low margins and high operational risks.
The MP Materials case illustrates recurring bankruptcies and economic challenges.
Quote:

“It’s like, what do they say? Squeezing blood from a rock. There is a reason we have not done this in the United States for a long time.” – Joe Doe (10:36)

5. Strategic Rationale and State Involvement

Timestamp: 11:53–14:13

Economic statecraft: Unusual federal government intervention, including taking direct stakes in mining companies.
Deals can spark short-term market reactions, but long-term profitability is not assured.
Investments aim to diversify away from Chinese supply but carry significant uncertainty about market demand, timelines, and mineral quality.

6. Progress Toward Reducing Foreign Dependence

Guest: Gracelyn Basker
Timestamp: 16:16–20:16

Current Status: Significant new investments and capabilities are emerging, but U.S. self-sufficiency remains distant.
The G7’s target: Not being more than 60% reliant on a single country; Japan, after 16 years, is now approaching that goal.
Quote:

“We’re getting closer, but we still have a long road to go.” – Gracelyn Basker (17:35)

7. Onshoring vs. Friendshoring

Timestamp: 19:07–20:16

Full domestic supply chains are unrealistic; allied cooperation (with Japan, Australia, others) is essential for speed and scale.
The U.S. is investing with international partners; critical minerals may be the exception to “America alone” rhetoric.

8. Policy Gaps and Economic Weak Spots

Timestamp: 20:16–23:05

Biggest Weakness: Lack of clear price floors for minerals outside China makes projects risky and potentially unprofitable.
Policy debates continue over whether taxpayers or end-consumers should bear the costs of price supports.
Quote:

“There is an acknowledgment that the problem we have today is not a political problem, it is an economic problem.” – Gracelyn Basker (20:48)

9. Innovation and the Search for Alternatives

Timestamp: 23:05–24:53

Scarcity and high prices are fueling innovation in recycling, substitution, and new extraction techniques (e.g., retrieving rare earths from tailings).
Examples include BMW motors designed without rare earths and increased funding for recycling critical minerals.
Quote:

“America’s strong suit is innovation, and we’re already seeing that to create a less dependent future.” – Gracelyn Basker (24:38)

10. The Government-Industry Bridge and Funding Flows

Guest: Tripp Hornick
Timestamp: 26:18–29:33

Tripp Hornick’s firm acts as a bridge between private industry and government, facilitating over $1.4B in commitments last year.
Over 60% growth in 2026; most projects funded tie back to critical minerals, energy dominance, and national security.
Announcements are accelerating, with more funding on the horizon, particularly as different government departments deploy resources.

11. Domestic vs. International Sourcing and “State Capitalism”

Timestamp: 29:33–36:13

Some “domestic” investments actually involve overseas mining and processing (e.g., USA Rare Earths mining in Brazil, processing in Europe).
Canada plays a key role, albeit with slower permitting; legal frameworks treat Canada, Australia, and the UK as "domestic" for defense procurement.
Rising U.S. government ownership stakes in resource companies fuel debate about state capitalism. Most deals target a 10–20% government stake as a backstop, not full control.

Notable Exchange:
- Q: "Is it socialism?"
  A: "It is not socialism because they're not controlling the company. ... It's a minority control." – Tripp Hornick (36:13)

12. Are Failures Acceptable?

Timestamp: 36:34–37:10

Government acknowledges some investments will fail; this is seen as a necessary risk to secure supply chains.
More diversification and larger portfolios of investments could mitigate concentrated risk.
Quote:

“It is okay for some of them to fail. ... We have invested in and loaned to too few companies.” – Tripp Hornick (36:47)

Notable Quotes

Joe Doe on the turning point:

“When those export controls were announced, it sent off alarm bells throughout the Biden administration.” (04:28)
President Trump on workforce challenges:

“Accredited mining programs in the United States now graduate less than 170 mining engineers each year, while China graduates more than 3,000.” (05:57)
Polly Mossens on the Alaskan road:

“To build a road in this untouched wilderness would really strongly change the way of life there, but it would also really change the mining environment.” (07:44)
Gracelyn Basker on allied cooperation:

“There is not a country on earth… that has the geological resources, the financial capital and the technical know how to do it alone.” (19:27)
Tripp Hornick on U.S. state capitalism:

“It is not socialism because they’re not controlling the company. ... It's a minority control.” (36:13)

Important Timestamps

02:02–03:11: Why critical minerals became top-of-mind
05:57: President Trump on U.S. mining workforce vs. China
07:11–09:39: Polly Mossens on the economic, social, and environmental impacts of the Alaska mining road
10:06–10:36: Mining is not profitable without government intervention
16:16–17:46: Gracelyn Basker on U.S. progress toward self-sufficiency
23:05–24:53: Innovations to replace or recycle critical minerals
26:18–29:33: Tripp Hornick on the government-industry funding landscape
29:47–31:36: Domestic vs. international sourcing and the blurred boundaries thereof
36:34–37:10: On potential failures and acceptable risk

Conclusion & Takeaways

The episode makes clear that supply chain security for critical minerals is now a matter of national interest crossing technological, economic, and geopolitical lines.
Government intervention has moved center stage—from direct equity stakes to investment in alternative supply, processing, and recycling.
Challenges abound:
- Workforce training and generational turnover
- Profitability of mining and processing in the U.S. without sustained government support
- The need for creative, not just financial, policy tools (procurement, price floors, joint ventures)
- Balancing environmental, economic, and social factors in new projects
- Navigating the ideological tension between free-market principles and state intervention
Innovation around materials and recycling offers hope, but timelines are long.
Alliances with friends and partners are crucial to achieving security of supply, as is continued vigilance concerning the inherent risks and uncertainties of major public investments.

Loading summary

Transcript107 lines

[00:01]
A
What if data didn't sit still? What if intelligence moved with us, not buried in reports, but activated in real time? Where lives are being shaped, where decisions are being made. It all starts with a where is the potential? Totality turns data into clarity, intelligence into insight, insight into action. Because when intelligence moves, we all move forward. Intelligence beyond bounds.
[00:31]
B
This episode sponsored by Ridwell Ever tossed
[00:34]
C
something into your recycling bin and just hoped it would get recycled? That's wish cycling.
[00:39]
B
And most of the time those items don't actually get recycled. Ridwell makes it simple to get it right. Ridwell helps you recycle the things your curbside bin doesn't take, like plastic bags,
[00:49]
D
snack wrappers, pill bottles and bottle caps. Getting started is easy.
[00:53]
C
Just order a starter kit, fill the
[00:55]
D
bags, send them back for free, and Ridwell takes care of the rest.
[00:58]
A
Start today@ridwell.com AI is entering its most consequential phase where scale, safety and sovereignty will determine who leads and who lags. Join Bloomberg Tech in London on November 2nd and 3rd as global leaders across business, finance and policy examine the defining trade offs shaping the future of AI. Thank you to our presenting sponsor Salesforce and supporting sponsors Ida Ireland and Schneider Electric. Learn more@bloomberglive.com Tech London.
[01:33]
E
Bloomberg Audio Studios Podcasts Radio News this
[01:40]
F
is Bloomberg businessweek Daily reporting from the magazine that helps global leaders stay ahead with insight on the people, companies and
[01:49]
E
trends shaping today's complex economy. Plus global business, finance and tech news as it happens. The Bloomberg businessweek Daily podcast with Carol Massar and Tim Stanwick on Bloomberg Radio.
[02:03]
B
Joe Doe is Bloomberg News senior Economic Statecraft reporter. He is here with us. We're talking everything when it comes to rare earths and critical minerals, a crucial part of the supply chain for everything from electronics to weapons systems. Joe, we've wanted to do this for so long and we're glad you can do it. I'm I have to say we're happy to have you, Christine. Carol is so sad she's out today, but Joe is making it up to her because next week when I'm out, I guess Joe is stepping in a little bit so he's going to be here.
[02:33]
F
You get more Joe.
[02:33]
B
Okay, so Joe, I want to start with you. Then we're going to bring in this this fantastic lineup that we have for the next hour. And it's a lot of it is all of it is thanks to you and the people you've brought us over the last few years. So we are grateful to you for that. I just want to start Joe with a General question about critical minerals and rare earths. Because when I met you, you were metals and mining reporter and we talked to you sometimes about heavy equipment. And then something, something happened, something changed. What was it? And why did rare earths and critical minerals become this conversation that investors, the administration, and we're so focused on?
[03:12]
C
I mean, if we really go way back, right, the pandemic hits in 2020, if we, in case we forgot, and supply chains became a story like actual supply chains and like, you know, those of us who are in the commodity space had covered actual supply chains. You know, understanding the procurement officers at various big companies you've heard of, right? Soda companies, beer companies, car companies. And then if we just move from there, it becomes very apparent to investors in a big way why supply chains matter. Fast forward to a couple years, years later, three years later, China in the middle of the summer of 2023 shocks a lot of close watchers by saying they're putting export controls on gallium and germanium. And these are two elements that are absolutely essential to defense technologies. Right? Defense. Right. Like it's not a Silicon Valley thing. It's not Apple and Google. All it's, it is very much. These are defense applications. And we had some reporting shortly after that time, we did a big take that said when those export controls were announced, it sent off alarm bells throughout the Biden administration. And we had a senior administration official tell us for that story. That was the moment that all of the concerns that various agencies had had, in particular the Pentagon and trying to warn big players in Congress, the President, United States, that it was there. And that is where we are now. Right? So the Biden administration moves on. Trump administration comes back in. They had long had this conversation about the importance of rare earths and critical minerals. In some ways, it was Trump and Trump 1.0 that put this on the map. It got, it got supercharged, right? Liberation Day happens. The President of the United States puts tariffs on every imaginable country in the world and he goes hard on China and China responds just a few days later. Initially, nobody heard about it because it just happened in the middle of the night on a Thursday. And they said, we are putting export controls on rare earths, the important rare earths, but also permanent magnets. And this is when it went from becoming a defense technology problem to an all out tech war.
[05:36]
B
You bring up exactly what we're going to do right now perfectly, Joe, because you fast forward from then to today and we're regularly hearing from the President about this meeting with executives from the mining and critical minerals industries, including on Friday when he had them down in Washington D.C. check out what he had to say about the US versus China.
[05:58]
C
Accredited mining programs in the United States now graduate less than 170 mining engineers each year, while China graduates more than 3,000. And half of our current mining workforce is set to retire within the next three years.
[06:13]
B
Well, that was President Trump on Friday. Joe, jump in here.
[06:17]
C
Yeah, I mean, his wow at the end, right, is again a conversation that you've been hearing in the world that I've been covering for a long time. I mean, I remember sitting in this office, call it three or four years ago, with the now former CEO of Rio Tinto and you know, we would catch up with them every so often. And one of the things that he pointed out was, you know, Joe, one of the big problems we have is a lack of geologists and a lack of people who want to come in to the mining space. Rio Tinto is the second largest mining company in the world. Well, who were they losing that talent to oil and gas? So when you hear the President say last week, you know, we're having an aging workforce, well, it's largely because the people who are capable of a lot of these jobs are not going into mining. And we've had some wonderful reporting out from our commodities team even this year about the dearth of labor. And you know, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
[07:12]
B
Well, somebody who is at least going into mining from a reporting perspective is Polly Mossens, a reporter for Bloomberg News Poly, recently writing about how the President is rewriting corporate norms with this 211 mile Arctic road. The federal government granting a permit to build a road through the Alaskan wilderness. In exchange it gets part of a mining company. Polly, what is, what is happening here with the road and sort of the economic statecraft part of this, which I think investors are becoming increasingly used to.
[07:44]
A
Yeah, absolutely. I think it's funny to ask what is happening to the road. Well, right now nothing, but soon potentially everything. Right. This could completely alter the way of life there, which is that people go bush plane by bush plane from village to village. To build a road in this untouched wilderness would really strongly change the way of life there. But it would also really change the mining environment there. You're going from having extre expensive expeditions to try to prospect in very costly helicopter rides to being able to drive in and, you know, really see what's going on there, see what could be mined there. And also once the mines are actually built and say About a decade to be able to just talk, you know, get everything on tractor trailers and freight it out. That is a huge, huge difference. So right now we're at the very, very beginning stages of that. But allowing this road to potentially be built allows you to completely change the way that people live there and the way that mining is able to make money in Alaska.
[08:38]
F
Now, Polly, one of the things that stood out from your story is the fact that the due diligence by the government in terms of carrying out the project was completed in less than 72 hours. And that seems a little too short. Right, for a project that, as you say, is going to completely change the way that people live around that area. What could have been potentially missed given that rush to complete the due diligence?
[09:03]
A
Yeah, I think one of the big questions is how successful is this mining district really going to be? Right. Because there's a lot of prospecting still to be done. I think something that we and the federal government, you know, still need to see is exactly how much or is going to be able to get out of there, how profitable it will be. And also you have the big question of how much are people going to want this stuff? Maybe if we're not in a huge AI boom, what does that actually look like? So that is a big part of what due diligence traditionally would be looking at is how successful is this investment going to be on a long term? And also what does the American taxpayer necessary sincerely get out of it?
[09:40]
B
I'm so glad you went there because I'm, I'm struck by or reminded of something that Joe told us months ago at this point, and a point that, that he makes a lot, Joe, and I'm going to turn it over to you for this, is that the numbers historically have been really hard to make work for. For some of these companies, like mining and processing rare earths is not an incredibly profitable endeavor, especially if you don't have government support.
[10:07]
C
Yeah, it's. I mean, incredibly, it's just not profitable.
[10:11]
B
Like, think about the MP Materials story, right? And the Mountain Pass mine. This, this, this company, MP Materials, got on a lot of people's radar over the last couple of years for the first time. But they operate in a mine that is, they are operating a mine that has been in operation for what, almost 100 years at this point. And even in, in the last couple of decades, what was part of a company that went into bankruptcy, then emerged from bankruptcy. Like, this is not easy work.
[10:37]
C
No, you know, it's like, what do they say Squeezing blood from a rock. Right. I mean, there is a reason we have not done this in the United States for a long time. There is a reason that we don't have a, as the President puts it, mine to magnet supply chain. Right? From pulling ore out of the ground to creating the permanent magnets. I mean, with the exception of MP materials which you have stated does actually do this, there is no other real comp for the United States. There are some permanent magnet companies, there's some smaller ones, Novion is a well known one. But essentially this is not a market that exists in the United States. It is something that the United States has now decided that it needs to build. And this kind of brings us back to Polly's story, which, which Polly and I, full disclosure, she worked, she and I worked on this story together. But like one of the, one of the questions I have for you, Polly, is you, you are not, you have not spent your career writing about metals and mining, which, which also is the terrific part about working with you on this. But I am curious, what is it that brought you to this topic of trilogy medals and why you wanted to make this your big project for the year?
[11:54]
A
Yeah, I think to me it's really the economic statecraft that we were talking about at the beginning. You know, it is inherently unusual that the federal government is taking this role and taking this stake. I think that that is something that is worth exploring and we should all be interested in all of the deals that are being invested in. Right. As taxpayers, as citizens, I think that it's important to know what the federal government is doing with the taxpayer budget. I think that we should all really be aware not just the outcome of the deals and how they might make money in the long term, but how those deals get put together and who gets what out of those deals as they are being structured. Right. Because in a deal like this, the stock pops when the deal gets announced. Whether or not people make money if the stroke gets built in a decade is a totally different question than what happens when the deal gets announced and when the deal gets made.
[12:47]
F
Yeah, well, I mean, very interesting, Polly, because you know, as Joe had mentioned, really a lot of the emphasis on investment in critical minerals was all about freeing the US from its dependence in China is all about the supply chain. But you know, so the supporters, that's the argument for them. But then if the US already produces a significant amount of copper, for instance, where really is the vulnerability here?
[13:12]
A
Yeah, I think that's a good question. You know, I think this is really, Joe's expertise. But I think that the vulnerability can also change with time. Right. Perhaps there might not be a huge emphasis on copper in three to five years under a different administration the way that there is right now. We just don't know. And I think think that's also the really hard thing with mining is that these take so long to get built out and it takes so much longer to refine everything and the planning is really time consuming. But we're making choices with the information that we have today for a mine that might not be operable for a decade and then also once it is operable, you actually don't know everything about the quality of what's in there until things are really underway. And then also what happens if there's a natural disaster or a man made disaster or just less minerals than you expected. So it's really hard for us to sort of talk about sort of the copper and how we might need it in this moment when all of our forward thinking is so, so far out. And Joe made a great point that it's hard to make money in mining and here we're going to try to make money in mining with the taxpayers on the line.
[14:13]
B
Polly, it's a great story. You wrote it along with Jacob Lawrence and Joe Doe who's sitting here with us. Polly is covers metals and mining and she joins us this afternoon on this special. We appreciate your time. POLLY MOSS ends Thank you so much. Check out her story on the Bloomberg terminal and@Bloomberg.com if you are just joining us, we are doing a special thing this hour. It's an entire hour on economic statecraft, metals mining, specifically rare earths. Joe Doe is with us for the entire hour. He is Bloomberg News economic statecraft reporter. If you have any questions for him you can go to bloomberg.com/ask radio and leave questions for Joe. Send questions to us. We have joining us in just a few minutes Graceland Baskren, director of the critical Mineral Security Program at csis. And coming up a little later, Trip Hornick is stopping by, principal of Quinn Street Strategy. He understands the sort of connection between these private companies and the government because it's his job to go and work out those deals with the government. He's going to be stopping by in just a few minutes as well. Any questions for Bloomberg subscribers or Terminal subscribers? Bloomberg.com askradio We've got Joe Doe with us. He's Bloomberg News senior economic statecraft reporter. He's got everything on this crucial part of the supply chain for everything from electronics to weapon Systems. We're talking about critical minerals and rare earths. We're also joined right now by Graceland Basker and Director of Critical Mineral Security Program at the center for Strategic and International Studies. We're talking to both of you and our other guests today because, Joe, as you reminded us, it's been about a year since the US kicked off that critical mineral statecraft agenda. There was that unprecedented $400 million equity investment in MP materials. I can't believe it's been a year since then. Here we are a year later. Is the US any closer to weaning itself off of relying on foreign partners or adversaries for critical minerals and rare earths?
[16:17]
C
Well, I spend a lot of time writing about this and one person I like to often ask this question to happens to be our current guest.
[16:26]
B
Is that why you brought Gracelyn Basker into us?
[16:28]
C
I'm hoping she might have some answers for us.
[16:31]
B
All right. She's Director of Critical Mineral Security Program at the center for Strategic and International Studies. Gracelyn, you join us from all over the world and we're grateful for your time this afternoon and every afternoon that you do join us. Is the US any closer to no longer relying on partners and adversaries for rare earths and critical minerals?
[16:48]
E
First of all, thank you so much for having me and thank you for the phenomenal work Joe does. He is reliably also one of my sounding boards. So it's a mutually beneficial relationship. Now when I think about this question, I mean, I think there's two things we need to split out. Are we moving closer? Yes, we're moving closer. And the scale of the investment, the capabilities that are starting to come online. When China imposed restrictions in April 2025, we didn't have heavy rare earth separation capabilities outside. But slowly Malaysia came online, you know. But one of the things we have to remember is that it we're still have a very long ramp to self sufficiency. As you know, recently the G7 put forth the goal of 60% not being more than 60% reliant on a single country outside of the G7. That's a pretty ambitious target. Japan's been working on that goal for 16 years and they are now approaching that 60%. So we're getting closer, but we still have a long road to go.
[17:47]
C
Graceland, we're 12 months removed since the USA Rare Earth getting them all mixed up MP materials announcement which really brought a shock, I think to the market, to investors, to companies to suddenly realize not only was this being talked about, but the Government was there to make happen what you were just describing. I'm wondering with the President's summit that happened on Friday. Do, do we feel like coming out on Friday and making some of the comments that he did is more kind of reminding people that the government's there or do we feel like he was sending some other type of message?
[18:28]
E
The number one message I took away from Friday's roundtable with President Trump, which also saw Secretary of State Rubio, Interior Secretary Burgum, Commerce Secretary Lutnick, was that industrial policy is here and that the government here to support companies working in our national interest. In addition to making substantial funding announcements. He talked about developing the next generation of workforce through federal dollars. He talked a lot about on shoring those capabilities. So industrial policy, once a word that both the left and the right kind of frowned on, is being seen as vital to seeing American industry succeed.
[19:07]
F
Yeah, I mean, very interesting, Graceland, that, that concept of onshoring. Right. We've also heard about friend shoring, which other term that has come up in the discussion over rare earths. And you know, do you think a lot of these investments outside the US Is it ultimately more realistic than trying to build a fully domestic critical mineral supply chain?
[19:28]
E
Absolutely. There is not a country on earth, maybe you know, with the exception of China, that has the geological resources, the financial capital and the technical know how to do it alone. And this is where, you know, at a time when it sometimes feel like American foreign policy now is America alone. Critical minerals are area from the very get go that we have embraced international cooperation. And when you look at the rare earth supply chain alone over the course of the last year, you have seen substantial US support be announced with the Japanese, the Australians, Saudi Arabia, Angola, Brazil. And so these, this is really a sign that the US does not intend to go at it alone. And you know, that partnership is going to be really crucial if we are going to reach that mine to manufactured goods supply chain in any reasonable time frame.
[20:16]
C
You know, Graceland, I think in the first few months after the MP materials deal, there was a genuine concern in critical minerals circles that the US was going to go it alone. It was clear by the end of 2025 that that was not the case. But as you look back on the past 12 months, what sticks out to you as maybe the most underwhelming part of the critical minerals policy we've seen so far from the administration or something you think they really need to improve on moving forward?
[20:45]
E
I think one of the areas that's probably been the weakest are price floors. There is an acknowledgment that the problem we have today is not a political problem, it is an economic problem. It is how do we get projects outside of China to stay commercially viable. You saw a lot of discussion over the last year talking about instituting a price floor, but it's complicated, right? Because there's a principle problem that we can't seem to agree on, Even with our G7 counterpart, which is who pays for it? Is this a cost that the, the taxpayer bears, or is it a cost that the person buying the automotive bears? And I can tell you, having spent a lot of time with our counterparts in places like Australia and the uk, that they feel much less inclined to put that burden on the taxpayer when those resources could be used for health care, education, housing policy, et cetera. So one of the principal challenges we are left with is how do we ensure that projects outside of China can compete and stay open at a time when a lot of these prices may be lower than cost of production?
[21:48]
C
Is the answer ultimately a price floor?
[21:52]
E
The answer is probably a more comprehensive toolkit. So when we look at what the US Government did with Linus in Malaysia, it was basically an offtake contract as opposed to a guaranteed price floor for everything they produce. It is, we will buy X quantity at Y price. Right? The same hundred and ten dollars. So it's probably going to be a combination of procurement, procurement, facilitating private procurement with American, you know, auto manufacturers, it's going to be ongoing support, particularly for processing facilities to cover the delta between where their operating costs are and what they need to be profitable. So I see it as probably being a comprehensive toolkit. I think the reality is, when you look at 60 critical minerals, getting the US government, or even a coalition government to guarantee a price floor for everything is going to be fiscally very difficult, particularly when you look at the cost of the war in Iran. I was in Australia when a lot of the discussion centered around the additional financial support needed for fertilizer and energy and how that was going to potentially move resources away from critical minerals. So given the state of the world expecting that to be a full balance sheet, cost is difficult. So creative tools are going to be necessary.
[23:06]
B
Yeah, that's a perfect segue for what I wanted to ask you, Graceland. And it's the idea that necessity is the mother of invention. So while these might be critical minerals right now, is there innovation happening with, with some of the products that these ultimately go into, where they will not need as much or, or they will. No, no, longer need these minerals that are challenging to source.
[23:27]
E
Absolutely. I mean, I would also add to that and say scarcity is a very powerful driver of innovation. If you go back and look at the 1970s oil embargo and what it did for energy innovation. Now, if we look at what the US and our allies are, there's a couple things, right? So the first is recycling. How do we recycle our black mass? And the U.S. especially through the Department of Energy, has made significant investments in recycling to get some of these materials back out. We know how to recycle lithium, we know how to recycle copper. But rare earth permanent magnets are a little bit of a new area. So investing in innovation to recycle. The second one is investing to an innovation that uses less materials. And we see that to be true, for example, with BMW and a motor that doesn't need need rare earths. And obviously that is not a scaled technology yet. It's a nascent one, but one that has a lot of potential because that would be a big driver of demand. And the third thing I would say is we're getting a little bit more strategic with things like going back to our old tailings and recovering rare earths. So rare earth sit in our coal mines, they sit in gold mines, and we've mined that material out, but it's largely sitting in tailings. So we're looking to get that back out of it, not just in the U.S. but in our allied countries. And there is government financial support to getting out of that. So I always think, you know, again, America's strong suit is innovation, and we're already seeing that to create a less dependent future.
[24:54]
B
Gracelyn Basker and is director of the Critical Mineral Security Program at the center for Strategic and International Studies. Today she's joining us from Washington, D.C. she's joined us in the past from Africa, from Australia, from Las Vegas and more. She travels quite a bit as part of this job. Also with us, Joe Doe from our Bloomberg News team. He is here for the remainder of our hour. We're speaking next in this critical minerals special to Trip Hornick, principal of Quint Street Strategy. He's joining us to talk about the government role here. Stay with us. More from Bloomberg businessweek Daily coming up after this.
[25:34]
A
What if data didn't sit still? What if intelligence moved with us, not buried in reports, but activated in real time, where lives are being shaped, where decisions are being made. It all starts with the question, where is the potential? Totality turns data into clarity, intelligence into insight, insight into action. Because when intelligence moves, we all move forward. Totality, intelligence beyond bounds.
[26:04]
E
You're listening to the Bloomberg Businessweek Daily Podcast. Catch us live weekday afternoons from 2 to 5 Eastern. Listen on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the the Bloomberg Business app or watch us live on YouTube.
[26:18]
B
We're back with our special focusing on critical minerals and rare earth. I'm Tim Steinbeck with Christina Keynote. We're joined by Joe Doe, senior economic statecraft reporter for Bloomberg News. The reason we're talking about this is because it's been about a year since the US Kicked off its critical minerals statecraft agenda with an unprecedented $400 million equity investment in materials the US government has continued in those last 12 months. We have with us Tripp Hornick. He's principal of Quint Street Strategy. He joins us here in the Bloomberg Interactive Broker studio. And the way that your company works, Tripp, is you work as like a bridge between private companies and the US Government to get funding. And I've just last year your firm did more than $1.4 billion in government funding and letters of intent to fund.
[27:06]
D
Yeah.
[27:07]
B
How's it going in 2026?
[27:09]
D
This year we're seeing quarterly growth up over 60%. So it's been a pretty good year.
[27:16]
B
What percentage of your clients right now or that money is related to critical minerals and rare earths?
[27:22]
D
I would say that everyone's related to critical minerals, energy dominance and things that are going to go into the defense infrastructure as a result thereof. It's the same giant picture. Where do those critical minerals go into the data center, into the chips, into the power grid, also into the weapons. It's all the same ecosystem.
[27:39]
C
Yeah. I mean, there's a lot there. And listen, I know that you're kind of across that supply chain, but I do want to hone in back to the president's summit on Friday with you. You know, the initial lead up to it, at least in the reporting that I was bringing in, was that it was going to be a bit of a nothing burden. Right. A lot of people thought it'd be the president maybe puffing his chest and kind of making it clear to China, especially a month ahead of the Xi Jinping meeting that's supposed to be here in the U.S. hey, we're kind of doing it our own way and we're making progress. He actually ends up making a few significant investment announcements. My question to you is, should there be concern that this is it, that we're not going to have more down the line?
[28:25]
D
No. Simple answer is a thank you for having me back. Simple answer on that is no. There will absolutely be more coming down the line and quite a bit rather shortly. I would say that two main things. One, you're seeing all the conditional announcements that are coming out of the Department of War. That's only because we don't have Title 10 passed. Title 10 is the defense Appropriations Act. But you're also seeing a bunch of things from 2024 and 2025 be forwarded into departments that do have active cash, such as aae, which is Arms and Armament. So you're seeing that money get pushed out of there. But what was uniquely interesting about this past Friday is what office ran that Office of Energy Dominance. That was. Who ran that National Security Council.
[29:06]
C
Yeah. Why is that significant, though?
[29:07]
D
Because it's where the initial announcements came from. It was not a Dow core focus. It was, we're going to hit lithium. We're going to process that here. And. And also Scandium oversees that investment into Australia is key for energy dominance. This was. And having the Secretary of State there was showing, hey, we need to have soft diplomacy on this as well, which we were not seeing from the initial announcements that were just coming into USAR and mp. And you know, we could go very
[29:33]
B
deep into MP and usar, USA Rarers and MP materials.
[29:36]
D
Absolutely. We could go very deep into whether they are domestic or not. It was fun to watch MPs say this is a wholly domestic, you know, piece of metal that he's a magnet that he presented to them.
[29:46]
B
Why are you saying it might not be?
[29:47]
D
Well, MP is and what was presented there. But what we're seeing is this is rather well known what's happened with USA Rare Earths. You have the mine in Brazil, you have their subsidiary, which is less Common metals, has put 200 million into Europe. And so, okay, that's not happening at Round Top here in the United States, that's happening in Brazil and then it's being processed in Europe. That's not domestic.
[30:09]
B
I want to get to some of our listener questions that are coming in and I apologize in advance if you sent a question and we do not get to it because we have gotten a lot of them and we will not have time to get to all of these trip. This is a question for you and it's about. And you can. Joe, of course, feel free to jump in on this. Ken from Toronto asks what is the role of Canada when it comes to supporting US critical mineral needs?
[30:30]
D
Great question. 95% of what we have or that we need, we have a continuous foreclosure 48 states. The issue that we have with Canada is that it takes much longer to permit. The President's announcements this past Friday were fast tracking things. So if Canada can push that up, they will still be very helpful.
[30:46]
B
Is there some tension between the rhetoric that the US has with Canada regarding trade, regarding wildfire smoke that could put this at risk?
[30:53]
D
My opinion is no under defense. Under statute, Canada, Australia and the UK are treated as domestic locations for profit. And that's a very important thing to point out when it comes to funding.
[31:04]
C
I would push back just a bit, which I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I do think it is relevant that you still have the clear disagreement between the President and the Prime Minister of Canada. And I think there are plenty of folks in the market and in industry who are worried that that will continue to leak over and cause any sort of problems in a space where like you're pointing out and Graceland mentioned earlier, we are clearly not just going it alone that it is a US plus allies type of type of project here.
[31:37]
D
I mean, I agree with you completely, Joe. What I'm going to say is that most of these Canadian companies are junior miners already listed on the tsx. Those companies are, how should I say, not ready for prime time. In general, 95% of the companies I deal with out of Canada are not ready for prime time.
[31:53]
C
Real quick question though, Trip. How many of the companies so far that we've seen get investments or letter of intent for investment from the United States government? We're ready for primetime.
[32:03]
D
The ones that went into Australia, most of them were that we did an announcement in October, November of last year. What you've seen out of osc. I mean, let's ask the question, is Vulcan ready for primetime? Is Phoenix ready for primetime? It's an open question.
[32:19]
F
Yeah. Well, to Joe's point, I mean we have seen a lot of agencies deploying capital, right? The Pentagon Export Import Bank. Do you sense a coherent government strategy behind this process or do you think it's kind of very slap shot at the moment? Just pick and choose.
[32:35]
D
Brilliant question. The answer is first, no, there is not a coherent singular strategy, but that is not a result of not having a desire. And excellent work by people in the administration, particularly those on energy dominance, and some excellent work by the Secretary of Commerce to say the least, and Secretary Bergam as well. So the White House has stated what they want to do, but there is the swamp and things get bogged down.
[33:00]
C
What are the type of projects you think on the horizon as we're again looking forward. You said yes, there is more to come. What type of projects do you think they're looking to invest in next?
[33:09]
D
Something you heard me say before. Metallization. Metallization. Metallization. They know well that the mid supply chain has not been solved. It's very interesting that energy fuel, mid
[33:18]
C
supply chain of rare earth, permanent magnet
[33:21]
D
creation and I would say separate from permanent magnets as well, those that need to go into fan blades and into general defense production, such as things that need to go into patriots as well, just for the basic metals or even magnesium that needs to be into every flare or tracer bullet.
[33:34]
C
That sounds important. From the stockpiling of our weapons question that we have right now, I would
[33:39]
D
love to hear that question.
[33:40]
B
Okay, I'm going to throw another one at you. That's coming from a listener viewer. Colin in Atlanta writes that MP is building their large new facility in Texas. Will that process material exclusively from the Mountain Pass mine or might it process material mined by competitors? Do you know?
[33:56]
D
My answer would be ask Jim.
[33:59]
B
Jim, you're talking about Jim Latinsky.
[34:00]
D
Jim Latinsky, the CEO of MP Materials.
[34:04]
B
All right, well, next time we get Jim on with, with Joe, we'll ask. We'll ask him. Joe, jump on in here because we only got just about 30 seconds left. If we leave our audience with, with one thought about what the next 12 months will look like when it comes to investment from the US Government or at least government involvement, what should they be thinking about?
[34:22]
C
I think the main thing they should be looking at is results. The money is out there and Tripp is talking about more money potentially coming. But the money that's already out there, and we're understanding this through our own reporting, is government wants to see results. And guess what, what that that means taxpayers are probably going to want to see results too, because it's not just, it's not just the government's money.
[34:44]
B
Okay, so that brings me trip to another question. Yesterday we had Gary Evans from US Antimony.
[34:50]
D
Yes.
[34:51]
B
On the program and I asked him about what it, what it would take for him to sell a stake in his company to the US Government and how much he would sell. He was very open to it. It's got a billion dollar market cap. He said if having the government as a shareholder, I would prefer not over 20%. It's a little crazy that under a Republican administration we're talking about investment in companies by the US Government and you know, state capitalism, state ownership of some of these companies. Right now. What are you hearing in Washington about The sort of appetite for this.
[35:26]
D
Absolutely. And we discussed this the last time that I was on with you. Appetite is all in but not out at 20%. They're looking between 10 and 20. A lot are settling at 10. The way that they look at this, at least from what I'm hearing on the Hill and in Republican circles and the support for the White House, is that this really isn't that different than the option to go in and deal with collateral once it fails, if something fails. So it's a backstop. That said, am I a big fan of state capitalism?
[35:57]
F
No.
[35:57]
D
But did it work for Independence Intel? So far, yes.
[36:00]
B
It's only been a year for intel,
[36:02]
D
and that's exactly what I said. Let's see what happens in two to three years. Is it.
[36:06]
B
Is it socialism?
[36:07]
D
It is not socialism. If we bring in dsa, we can have a whole debate on what real socialism is.
[36:12]
B
Why isn't it socialism?
[36:13]
D
It's not socialism because they're not controlling the company. It's not becoming a state entity. It's a minority control. And they're not necessarily preferred shares. Now, one of the benefits to the company is that it can set a valuation. That's the big deal. So for smaller firms that are looking to do capital raises, when the government comes in, it goes, here's a set valuation. It's not made off of a 409A. There we go. Now I can sell more capital. Pardon me. More shares for capital.
[36:35]
B
Joe, go ahead.
[36:37]
C
Can any of this fail? Is that okay?
[36:41]
D
Can the policy or can the.
[36:43]
F
The.
[36:43]
C
The companies that have been invested in is failure. Okay?
[36:47]
D
It is okay for some of them to fail. It is no different than what we have done before. I mean, what we. Even. What we were doing in World War II. But what we should be doing is coming in and backstopping our supply chain as a whole. The problem that we're having right now is we're not doing that. We've invested in and loaned to too few companies.
[37:08]
C
And do you expect we will see at some point some failures?
[37:11]
D
Oh, absolutely. Okay, 100%. Especially when it comes to metallization and when it comes to oxide processing.
[37:19]
B
Guys, I can't believe our hour is up, but we got to leave it there. Big thank you to both of you for joining us. Trip Hornick is principal at Quinn Street Strategy. He joins us here in the Bloomberg Interactive Brokers studio. Also with us is Joe Doe, Bloomberg News senior economic statecraft reporter. You can check out Joe's reporting and the entire team's reporting@bloomberg.com and of course, on the Bloomberg Terminal.
[37:43]
E
This is the Bloomberg businessweek daily podcast, available on Apple, Spotify and anywhere else you get. Your podcasts listen live weekday afternoons from 2 to 5pm Eastern on Bloomberg.com, the iHeartRadio app, TuneIn and the Bloomberg Business App. You can also watch us live Every weekday on YouTube and always on the Bloomberg Terminal.