Earlier this week, the U.S. and India signed a Critical Minerals Framework. As noted in the announcement, the two countries will, “engage in international efforts to protect sensitive supply chains from coercive market practices and reduce our collective vulnerability to single-source monopolies.” Announced during a meeting of the Quad (U.S., India, Japan, and Australia) partners, this bilateral agreement was accompanied by a Quad Critical Minerals Initiative Framework, a $20B effort to promote joint investment and development, regulatory alignment, and recycling and recovery of critical minerals, while diversifying from China.
This is just the latest agreement aiming to diversify away from China’s dominance in rare earths and critical minerals through global cooperation. Amid escalating conflict in the Middle East and economic volatility stemming from the Strait of Hormuz blocked from global commerce, it’s important to simultaneously monitor the areas of collaboration that are reshaping the global, geopolitical landscape.
How Is the World Responding to China’s Critical Minerals Dominance?
In 2010, China banned rare earth exports to Japan in retaliation for Japan’s detention of a Chinese fishing trawler captain whose vessel collided with the Japanese coast guard. At the time, Japan imported 90% of rare earths from China. In response, Japan initiated a plan to reduce this dependence, decreasing its dependence to 60% over a decade.
Japan is not alone in overdependence on China for the rare earth elements (REEs). China controls 90% of REE processing, 60% of mining, and manufactures 94% of magnets containing REEs, enabling significant leverage and market manipulation to deter other entrants. As this market concentration highlights, the rest of the world has been slow to make similar changes to diversify from overdependence.
The confluence of COVID-19 supply chain disruptions, an expanding trade war between the U.S. and China, and the AI revolution combined to spark multi-lateral cooperation to minimize critical mineral dependence on China in the early 2020s. The 2022 Minerals Security Partnership commenced a cooperation among 14 countries and the EU to spark investment and innovation across the critical energy minerals supply chain. Over the following years, dozens of global bilateral agreements have been formed – ranging from Memorandums of Understanding to Joint Action Plans – all with the aim to diversify from China and catalyze the processing and mining of REEs and critical minerals among like-minded nations.
In February 2026, the Critical Minerals Ministerial brought together representatives from 54 countries and the EU to secure critical minerals supply chains. This resulted in over a dozen agreements and the evolution of the Minerals Security Partnership into the Forum on Resource Geostrategic Engagement (FORGE) and complements the Pax Silica framework to secure the AI supply chain, which relies heavily on critical minerals.
The India-United States agreement stems from this forum and is just the latest of many global efforts underway to eliminate the overdependence on China while boosting production and innovation across the globe. India is home to many critical minerals and REEs, including Gallium and Graphite, as well as Copper, Phosphorous and Titanium. China is a major importer of some of India’s critical minerals and REEs, including 93% of their copper and copper alloys and 41% of their titanium. At the same time, the U.S. imports 60% of India’s tungsten, 84% of their platinum, and 60% of nickel articles. We will be monitoring if and how these trade patterns shift following this week’s agreement.
How Exposed Are Critical Mineral Deposits to Catastrophic and Conflict Risk?
Market concentration and geopolitics are not the only risks impacting critical mineral access. Several of the existing mines and mineral deposits are located in areas at high or extreme
catastrophic risk or politically unstable regions.
For instance, there are 21 critical mineral deposits at high or extreme catastrophic risk, largely comprised of titanium, zirconium, gallium, graphite, cobalt, lithium, and beryllium. Gallium is present in a third of the at-risk locations, followed by titanium comprising just under a quarter of the locations. Six of these deposits are located in the Philippines, followed by Jamaica, Sri Lanka, Madagascar, Australia, Afghanistan, Papua New Guinea, and Mexico.
Furthermore, twelve mineral deposits are present in active conflict and high instability zones, including gallium, lithium, and manganese. These are present in Afghanistan, Ukraine, Cameroon, and Russia. Although India has almost 70 critical mineral deposits, only one is near a high-risk conflict zone in Kashmir.
What Does China’s Response Mean for Critical Mineral Supply Chains?
On the same day that the Quad announced the agreements, China quickly responded stating the Quad should not target third parties. While not a formal military alliance, the Quad continues to expand cooperation to build secure and resilient supply chains, including this week’s announcements on port development in Fiji and critical mineral initiatives.
Earlier this year, China announced supply chain regulations aimed at foreign companies deemed to threaten domestic industrial supply chains. As part of this, if any foreign actor takes actions believed to be discriminatory against China, the Chinese government can take retaliatory action, ranging from sanctions to investment bans. This follows a series of rare earth export controls by China, some of which have been delayed until November 2026. If the suspension lapses in November, an estimated $6.5T in economic activity outside of China could be at risk, with the automotive and electronics sectors bearing the brunt of the impact.
In short, countries across the globe are racing to define new initiatives and collaboration focused on critical minerals. As stated in the Quad’s media note, these agreements, “support the development of secure critical minerals supply chains, which are essential for advanced technologies, economic growth, and the resilience of our industrial bases.” Only time will tell if cooperation receives a tit-for-tat response that has come to define this era of supply chain warfare.