Seeking to replicate China’s mining model, can the U.S. make its plan work?

(Washington, Feb 5)
Following the announcement by U.S. President Donald Trump of a US$12 billion critical minerals stockpile initiative known as “Project Vault,” U.S. media commentary suggests the policy closely mirrors China’s existing approach. Whether such a model can be sustained within the U.S. system over the long term, however, remains uncertain.

China has long relied on state power to secure mineral supplies and convert them into geopolitical leverage. This strategy has been underpinned by coherent policymaking, patient industrial capital, and a willingness to absorb short-term costs in exchange for long-term control.

By contrast, the United States is shifting away from a market-efficiency-first mindset toward prioritising national security and supply-chain resilience. Yet, given shorter political cycles and a highly market-driven corporate environment, it remains unclear whether the government can consistently serve as a long-term “buyer of last resort.”

Internal tensions emerge

Commentators also point to inherent contradictions in this shift. After years of criticising China’s state-led market intervention, Washington is now adopting similar tools in the critical minerals sector. While this may help address supply-chain vulnerabilities in the short term, it could blur the line between markets and policy over time, raising concerns among allies and the private sector.

Moreover, managing strategic minerals is far more complex than managing oil reserves. Demand for critical materials evolves rapidly alongside technological change, increasing the risk of misallocation if stockpiling decisions are misplaced.

Crucially, China’s advantage lies not only in access to mineral resources, but in its integrated processing and manufacturing ecosystem. Without expanding domestic and allied processing capacity in parallel, a raw-material stockpile alone may offer limited strategic buffering.