Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Ensures National Security and Economic Resilience Through Section 232 Actions on Processed Critical Minerals and Derivative Products

TLDR

This is a “fact” sheet for an executive order that directs an investigation into U.S. reliance on imported critical minerals, particularly from China. It frames this dependency as a national security risk and will use Section 232 to assess vulnerabilities and potentially recommend tariffs or other remedies. While addressing a genuine vulnerability, the immediate benefits may be overstated as developing domestic capacity requires long-term investments beyond tariffs. The approach risks escalating trade tensions and increasing costs for U.S. manufacturers.

This is a “fact” sheet for an executive order that directs an investigation into U.S. reliance on imported processed critical minerals, laying the groundwork for potential tariffs and measures to boost domestic production. The fact sheet frames this as a national security and economic resilience issue, highlighting U.S. dependency on foreign—especially Chinese—supplies, and claims the EO will strengthen American industry and security.

Claim: U.S. reliance on imported critical minerals poses a national security risk.

• The U.S. is indeed heavily dependent on imports for critical minerals, especially rare earth elements, with China providing about 70% of U.S. imports. These minerals are essential for defense, electronics, and clean energy technologies.
• While the dependency is real and recognized by experts, the U.S. has limited short-term options to replace Chinese supply due to a lack of domestic processing capacity and the long lead times required to develop new mines and refineries. The EO may raise awareness and accelerate permitting, but cannot quickly resolve the underlying supply chain vulnerability.

Claim: The EO will assess vulnerabilities, market distortions, and recommend remedies, including tariffs.

• The EO orders a Section 232 investigation, which is a legitimate tool for assessing national security risks from imports, and may recommend tariffs or other remedies.
• Section 232 investigations are often controversial, as they can be used to justify protectionist measures under the guise of national security. Previous Section 232 tariffs (steel, aluminum) led to higher costs for U.S. manufacturers and retaliatory tariffs from trade partners, with mixed results for domestic industry. Tariffs alone do not address the core issue of limited U.S. processing and mining infrastructure.

Claim: China’s export restrictions on critical minerals are a direct threat to U.S. supply chains.

• China has recently imposed export controls on several rare earth elements and related products, which could disrupt U.S. supply chains. These actions are partly in retaliation for U.S. tariffs.
• While Chinese export restrictions are a real risk, the U.S. has been aware of this vulnerability for years. The EO’s measures (tariffs, investigations) may further escalate the trade conflict, potentially leading to more restrictions and higher prices for U.S. manufacturers and consumers. The U.S. cannot quickly substitute away from Chinese supply due to a lack of domestic capacity and the complexity of building new supply chains.

Claim: The EO builds on prior actions to strengthen U.S. industry and trade policy.

• The Trump administration has previously invoked tariffs, the Defense Production Act, and expedited permitting to boost domestic mining and manufacturing.
• While these measures may eventually increase U.S. production, they have not yet resulted in significant new domestic capacity for critical minerals. Environmental, regulatory, and economic hurdles mean that new mines and processing facilities take years, if not decades, to develop. There is also a risk that aggressive tariffs could harm U.S. manufacturers who rely on imported minerals in the short term.

Claim: Tariffs and trade actions will “level the playing field” and protect U.S. security.

• The EO suggests that tariffs will reduce dependence on foreign suppliers and encourage domestic production.
• Tariffs may increase costs for U.S. industries that use critical minerals, potentially making them less competitive globally. There is little evidence that tariffs alone can create a viable domestic critical minerals industry without parallel investments in technology, infrastructure, and workforce development. Past tariffs on steel and aluminum led to higher input costs and did not significantly revive U.S. production.

The executive order acknowledges a genuine and pressing vulnerability: the United States’ heavy reliance on foreign sources—particularly China—for critical minerals. While this recognition is important, the accompanying fact sheet appears to exaggerate the immediate benefits of tariffs and trade investigations. Addressing such a complex supply chain issue requires a long-term strategy, and tariffs alone are insufficient to establish a secure domestic framework. Moreover, the EO’s current approach carries the risk of intensifying trade disputes, increasing costs for U.S. manufacturers, and potentially prompting retaliatory export restrictions from China. To create lasting resilience, the U.S. must complement trade measures with robust investments in domestic mining, mineral processing, recycling infrastructure, and workforce development.