Business
Rare Earths Become China’s Sharpest Weapon Against America
China weaponizes rare earths in 2025, challenging U.S. tech, defence, and economic resilience
As trade hostilities between the United States and China deepen in 2025 under President Donald Trump’s renewed tariffs, China has turned to one of its most potent yet underappreciated weapons: rare earth elements. These obscure minerals, while rarely discussed outside industrial or scientific circles, are essential to the modern economy. From smartphones and electric vehicles to missile systems and MRI machines, rare earths are foundational to the technologies that power the 21st century. Unlike tariffs or duties, this is a front where China holds a commanding advantage—and where the U.S. faces steep obstacles to retaliate in kind.
What Are Rare Earths?
Rare earth elements comprise a group of seventeen metals that, despite their misleading name, are relatively abundant in the Earth’s crust. However, their extraction and refining are incredibly difficult, environmentally hazardous, and financially intensive. While the United States does have some deposits, it has long been dependent on China for the refined materials. According to the International Energy Agency, in 2023 China accounted for 61 percent of global mined rare earth output and a staggering 92 percent of the global processing capacity. This means that even if raw materials are mined elsewhere, they are typically shipped to China for refinement—a choke point Beijing controls with surgical precision.
These materials are essential in the production of permanent magnets that power the motors of electric vehicles and wind turbines, the data storage systems in hard drives, and even the compact engines used in consumer electronics. They are also critical to the defense industry, where they are embedded in guidance systems, jet propulsion, sonar arrays, and advanced medical technologies like MRI scanners.
April 2025: Beijing Pulls the Rare Earth Lever
Earlier this month, in direct response to President Trump’s imposition of a 34 percent tariff on a wide range of Chinese goods, the Chinese government enacted export restrictions on seven types of rare earths, specifically those used in high-performance magnets. These rules require all exporters to secure government licenses for these minerals and for any product containing even trace amounts of them. According to industry sources, including John Ormerod, founder of the rare earth consultancy JOC, shipments destined for American and European firms have already been halted while exporters scramble to understand and comply with the new licensing requirements.
The restrictions focus primarily on heavy rare earth elements, which are rarer than their lighter counterparts, more valuable on a per-kilogram basis, and significantly more difficult to separate and refine. These elements are indispensable for manufacturing the ultra-compact, high-strength magnets used in advanced electronics, military-grade equipment, and green energy applications. Joshua Ballard, CEO of USA Rare Earth, noted that China controls 98 percent of global heavy rare earth production. As a result, U.S. companies reliant on these materials for defense and tech production must now seek permission from the very government they are strategically opposing.
How Did China Corner the Market?
China’s dominance of this sector was not built overnight. Although rare earth mining in China began as early as the 1950s, it wasn’t until the late 1970s and 80s that the industry gained momentum. Leveraging low labor costs, loose environmental regulations, and imported refining technology—much of it originally developed in the United States, Japan, and Europe—China built a vertically integrated supply chain. It mastered not only the extraction of rare earths but the ability to refine, manipulate, and mass-produce the components essential to high-tech manufacturing. This long-term investment strategy was underscored in 1992 by former leader Deng Xiaoping, who famously declared, “While there is oil in the Middle East, China has rare earths”. Today, that prophecy is fulfilled.
The United States, once a pioneer in rare earth development, gradually ceded the market. As China ramped up its output, American firms found themselves unable to compete on cost. According to Ormerod, not only did these companies lose their competitive edge—they lost institutional knowledge and skilled labor. Once American manufacturing began to shutter its rare earth facilities, there was no easy path back. Meanwhile, China scaled up, modernized its refineries, and benefited from economies of scale and generous government subsidies. Between 2020 and 2023, 70 percent of all U.S. imports of rare earth compounds and metals came directly from China, according to a recent U.S. Geological Survey report.
Strategic Disruption, Surgical Strike
This isn’t China’s first use of rare earths as leverage. In 2010, it suspended shipments to Japan over a maritime dispute. More recently, it banned rare earth refining technology exports in 2023, a move designed to slow down competitors’ ability to catch up. Today, the strategy has evolved into something more precise. Rather than blanket bans, the Chinese government is deploying highly targeted restrictions—focusing on magnets, alloys, and high-purity derivatives that are fundamental to advanced technologies.
This approach hits particularly hard in sectors that depend on ultra-specialized components: aerospace, automotive, semiconductor manufacturing, and precision defense technologies. As economist Justin Wolfers told reporters, China is demonstrating its capacity to “exert incredible economic might by being strategic and surgical”.
Trump’s Executive Reaction: The Critical Minerals Probe
In response to these developments, President Trump signed an executive order to launch a national security investigation into America’s reliance on imported critical minerals. His statement cited growing concerns over the vulnerability of U.S. supply chains, warning that this dependency could jeopardize national defense readiness, price stability, and broader economic resilience. While Trump’s administration continues to wield tariffs as a primary instrument of pressure, this executive action acknowledges the deeper industrial threat posed by China’s rare earth grip.
Is the U.S. Ready to Compete?
The Biden administration, and now Trump’s second term, have poured hundreds of millions into domestic rare earth initiatives. Since 2020, the Department of Defense has invested over $439 million in rare earth development projects with the goal of achieving a self-sustaining mine-to-magnet supply chain by 2027. Some American firms are beginning to gain ground. Phoenix Tailings, a Massachusetts-based startup, has developed a clean technology process for refining rare earths without waste or emissions. The company currently produces 40 metric tons of rare earth alloys annually and plans to expand tenfold with a new facility in New Hampshire. Similarly, USA Rare Earth is constructing a plant in Texas that will eventually manufacture 5,000 tons of rare earth magnets each year. The company also owns a heavy rare earth deposit in West Texas containing all the elements targeted by China’s latest restrictions.
Still, challenges remain formidable. While the U.S. has raw materials and promising startups, it lacks the commercial-scale infrastructure and industrial workforce needed to process rare earths at competitive prices. The technological processes, environmental clearances, and capital requirements involved are immense. Even with federal support, industry leaders acknowledge that catching up to China could take years—if not a decade.
A New Cold War?
The rare earth battle is not merely an economic skirmish. It is part of a broader geopolitical contest over technological supremacy, resource security, and strategic autonomy. Control over rare earths increasingly means control over the future of clean energy, artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, and next-generation defense systems. By asserting dominance through these latest export controls, China is not just retaliating against U.S. tariffs—it is signaling its industrial confidence and geopolitical maturity.
The United States now faces a stark choice: either rebuild the supply chains it dismantled decades ago or continue operating at the mercy of a rival superpower that has mastered the art of converting obscure minerals into strategic leverage.
As of July 2025, the United Kingdom is entering a new era of pragmatic diplomacy with its European neighbors. On May 19, Prime Minister Keir Starmer hosted the first formal UK-European Union summit since Brexit, marking a decisive step away from the combative tone of recent years. While rejoining the EU remains off the table, the summit produced a series of significant agreements that reflect a broader strategic reset.
Rather than reversing Brexit, Starmer’s government is pursuing targeted re-engagement—focusing on shared interests in defense, trade, youth mobility, and climate coordination. The aim is clear: to restore Britain’s economic competitiveness and geopolitical relevance while respecting the boundaries set by the 2016 referendum.
This approach reflects both necessity and opportunity. On one hand, the UK continues to grapple with economic headwinds, including trade frictions and a shrinking labor pool. On the other, global challenges such as the war in Ukraine, climate volatility, and energy insecurity demand closer cooperation with European allies. Starmer’s vision is not to rewind Brexit—but to reshape its legacy into something more functional, stable, and globally connected.
The agreements from the summit speak volumes. The UK will now participate in EU-led defense programs and gain access to the €150 billion SAFE fund, supporting joint military research, procurement, and intelligence-sharing. This marks the most significant security convergence between Britain and the EU since Brexit.
On trade, a new veterinary agreement will streamline sanitary checks on food and agriculture, easing export headaches for UK businesses. And a 12-year fisheries deal, allowing limited EU access to UK waters, underscores the spirit of compromise at the heart of this new chapter.
Meanwhile, a youth mobility scheme will allow 18- to 30-year-olds to live and work in each other’s territories—an initiative welcomed by educators and employers alike. Negotiations are also underway to align emissions trading systems, boosting climate cooperation and price stability.
These moves are not about rejoining EU institutions, but about rebuilding influence and trust. By choosing functional integration over ideological isolation, Starmer is positioning Britain as a European stakeholder without forfeiting sovereignty.
But what does this mean for the United States? London’s stalled efforts to secure a comprehensive trade deal with Washington have long been hindered by regulatory divergence from the EU. If the UK selectively aligns with European standards—particularly in key sectors like digital trade, electric vehicles, and pharmaceuticals—it could become a more attractive, stable partner for U.S. investors and exporters.
This convergence might also create opportunities for youth exchanges, tech cooperation, and mutual recognition agreements between the UK and the U.S. Rather than limiting transatlantic ambitions, the EU reset may unlock new paths for engagement with Washington.
Critics at home are less convinced. Hardline Brexiteers warn that sectoral alignment erodes sovereignty. But for many in business, education, and defense, the benefits of stability and access outweigh the symbolism of separation.
The summit closed with a pledge for annual UK-EU meetings—a quiet but powerful signal that long-term partnership is back on the agenda. This isn’t Britain going backward. It’s Britain going forward—on its own terms, but not alone.
If managed well, this re-engagement could set the stage for a new type of transatlantic diplomacy. One not built on nostalgia, but on pragmatism and shared strategic interests.
Britain’s relationship with Europe is evolving. Its relationship with America could be next.
Nigeria has officially cleared its $3.4 billion emergency loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), marking a significant milestone in its economic recovery and fiscal responsibility. The IMF confirmed that the final repayment was completed on April 30, 2025, concluding a five-year loan cycle initiated during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In April 2020, amidst a global health crisis and plummeting oil prices that severely impacted Nigeria’s economy, the IMF extended a $3.4 billion loan under its Rapid Financing Instrument. This facility was designed to provide urgent financial assistance to countries facing balance of payments challenges without the need for a full-fledged program. The loan carried a low interest rate of 1% and was to be repaid over five years.
The repayment journey began earnestly in late 2023, with Nigeria disbursing \$401.73 million in the fourth quarter, followed by $409.35 million in the first quarter of 2024, and $404.24 million in the second quarter. By June 2024, the country’s debt to the IMF had reduced from $3.26 billion to $1.16 billion. The final installment was paid by April 30, 2025, effectively settling the debt.
Despite the completion of the principal repayments, Nigeria will continue to make annual payments of approximately $30 million in Special Drawing Rights (SDR) charges, as per IMF protocols. The successful repayment has been lauded by various stakeholders. The Tinubu Media Volunteers (TMV) commended President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration for its commitment to meeting international obligations, highlighting the financial re-engineering that facilitated the timely repayments.
However, the journey was not without controversy. In early 2024, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) filed a lawsuit against President Tinubu over allegations that the $3.4 billion loan was missing, diverted, or unaccounted for. These allegations were based on the 2020 annual audited report by the Auditor-General of the Federation, which suggested a lack of documentation on the movement and spending of the IMF loan.l
SERAP urged the government to investigate these claims, prosecute those responsible, and recover any missing funds. The organization emphasized that servicing IMF loans allegedly missing or unaccounted for constitutes a double jeopardy for Nigerians, potentially exacerbating the country’s debt burden.
In response to the loan approval in 2020, the Nigerian government had assured the IMF of its commitment to transparency and accountability. Measures included publishing procurement plans and notices for all emergency-response activities, as well as undertaking an independent audit of crisis-mitigation spending. As Nigeria turns a new page in its economic narrative, the successful repayment of the IMF loan stands as a testament to its resilience and commitment to fiscal responsibility. However, the lingering allegations of mismanagement underscore the need for continued vigilance and transparency in public financial management.
Business
Scoop of Dissent: Ben & Jerry’s Co-Founder Disrupts Senate Over Gaza
Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Ben Cohen arrested protesting U.S. bomb funding for Gaza conflict
On May 14, 2025, Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, was arrested during a U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing. The session, which featured Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was disrupted by Cohen and several other protesters who voiced opposition to U.S. involvement in the Gaza conflict.
As Kennedy Jr. was testifying, Cohen stood up and shouted, “Congress pays for bombs to kill children in Gaza,” accusing lawmakers of prioritizing military spending over domestic welfare programs like Medicaid. The Capitol Police swiftly intervened, removing Cohen and six other demonstrators from the room. Cohen was charged with a misdemeanor under a Washington, D.C. statute that prohibits “crowding, obstructing or incommoding,” which is commonly applied in cases of nonviolent protests. If convicted, he faces a potential sentence of up to 90 days in jail, a $500 fine, or both.
In an interview following his release, Cohen expressed his frustration with U.S. foreign policy, stating, “It got to a point where we had to do something.”
He criticized the approval of $20 billion worth of bombs for Israel, arguing that such expenditures come at the expense of domestic programs that support American children.
Cohen’s protest aligns with Ben & Jerry’s longstanding tradition of political activism. In 2021, the company halted sales in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, citing its commitment to social justice. Additionally, in March 2024, Ben & Jerry’s filed a lawsuit alleging that its parent company, Unilever, had removed its CEO, David Stever, in retaliation for the brand’s progressive stances, including its support for Palestinian rights.
The incident has sparked widespread attention and debate over the U.S. government’s role in the Gaza conflict and the allocation of federal resources. Cohen’s arrest underscores the ongoing tensions between political activism and governmental policies, highlighting the challenges faced by individuals and organizations advocating for change in the current political climate.
Britain’s Strategic Recalibration: The UK-EU Reset and What It Means for Washington
Tooth or Consequences: DeSantis Signs Anti-Fluoride Bill Into Law
Nigeria Pays Off IMF Debt, Faces Scrutiny Over Missing Funds
-
Business3 months agoWhy Are Planes Falling from the Sky?
-
Opinion3 months ago
How I Spent My Week: Roasting Musk, Martian ICE, and Government Absurdities
-
Politics5 months ago
Comrade Workwear Unveils ‘Most Wanted CEO’ Playing Cards Amidst Controversy
-
Opinion4 months ago
From Le Pen to Trump: The Far-Right Legacy Behind a Presidential Comeback
-
Opinion2 months ago
Oval Office Chaos: How Trump and Zelensky’s Meeting Went Off the Rails
-
Business1 month ago
Trump’s ‘Gold Card’ Visa: Citizenship for Sale at $5 Million a Piece
-
Politics4 months ago
The Changing Face of Terrorism in 2025
-
Opinion4 months ago
2025: The Turning Point in Global Power and Security
