President Trump Backs Commerce Department Findings, Directs Negotiations to Secure Critical Mineral Supply Chains

The Secretary of Commerce found that processed critical minerals and their derivative products are being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States. President Trump concurred with this finding, but has not directed tariffs or import restrictions at this time. Instead, the President directed the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to negotiate agreements or continue current negotiations to address the impairment to national security. In connection with these agreements, the President directed Commerce and USTR to consider “price floors for trade in critical minerals and other trade-restricting measures.” The agreements could have significant implications for producers in the mineral supply chain; consumers in wide-ranging sectors including defense, electronics and energy; and investors. These include risks and opportunities related to sourcing of critical minerals as well as commercial opportunities to support production.  

Below we review the findings, recommendations and related initiatives, and explore next steps and implications for potentially affected companies.

Commerce’s 232 Investigation Findings 
The Proclamation highlighted the following findings by Commerce:

• Processed critical minerals are essential to U.S. national security; they are indispensable to national defense programs and critical infrastructure.     
• The United States is too reliant on foreign sources of processed critical minerals. This is evidenced by the United States’ high net import reliance on various minerals across the value chain, including for processing.  
• Critical mineral markets are prone to price volatility, which hinders private sector investments and impacts the economic viability of investments in market-based economies.
• Critical mineral production has been declining, as evidenced by the closure or reduction in the size and offshoring of production facilities. At the same time, demand is increasing and will continue to increase driven by strategic industries.
• The circumstances above are a “significant national security vulnerability that could be exploited by foreign actors; weaken the industrial resilience of the United States; expose the American people to supply chain disruptions, economic instability, and strategic vulnerabilities; and jeopardize the United States’ ability to meet demands for [processed critical minerals] that are essential to its national defense and critical infrastructure.”

President Trump’s Proclamation and Ongoing Negotiations & Initiatives 
The President directed Commerce and USTR to jointly pursue negotiation of agreements, including those contemplated in 19 U.S.C. 1862(c)(3)(A)(i), or continue current negotiations to address the threatened impairment of the national security.

As noted, in negotiating these agreements, the President directed Commerce and USTR to consider “price floors for trade in critical minerals and other trade-restricting measures.” Commerce and USTR are required to update President Trump on the status or outcome of the negotiations. The first of these updates is due within 180 days (i.e., July 13, 2026).

Relevant Initiatives. In the past year, the Administration has announced various plans and framework agreements with respect to critical minerals. In June 2025, G7 countries announced the G7 Critical Minerals Action Plan (which was also endorsed by Australia, India and the Republic of Korea), which we discuss in a prior client alert. The plan has three prongs: 

• development of a standard-based marketplace, which would provide criteria for minimum thresholds of standards-based markets, including traceability standards, under which potentially, countries or entities that adopt the minimum standards can trade freely;
• mobilization of capital and investment in partnerships, including encouraging multilateral development banks and private sector lenders to support standards-based critical mineral projects, coordinating on projects with G7 financing agencies, and working with resource-rich, low- and middle-income countries on capacity building and value creation; and
• collaboration to bridge innovation gaps in critical minerals research and development.  

G7 countries also announced a Critical Minerals Production Alliance, which leverages G7 financing tools to support critical mineral projects that meet high standards. In October 2025, Canada announced 26 investments and partnerships under the Production Alliance, involving various minerals including graphite, various rare earth elements (including scandium and gadolinium), lithium, nickel, and products related to those minerals. 

The Trump Administration has announced bilateral mineral framework agreements or initiatives with various G7 members as well as other resource-rich countries, including Australia, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Pakistan. As a general matter, many of these agreements are consistent with the G7 initiatives. For example, the agreements with Australia, Japan and Malaysia provide language regarding establishing high-standard marketplaces “in which those who meet those thresholds can trade freely, protected by a pricing framework that includes price floors or similar measures.” In addition, the agreements with resource-rich countries such as the DRC provide for, among other things, investments in strategic projects designated under the agreement and capacity-building. Finally, trade framework agreements entered into with various countries including Malaysia provide for joint cooperation to address non-market policies and practices and reviewing rules of origin to ensure that benefits of the bilateral trade agreement flow to the signatories rather than third-party countries. Given that mineral trades may cross various jurisdictions, changes to rules of origin could have implications for trading with parties to bilateral agreements.

In addition, in connection with the joint review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), USTR issued a statement in which it recommended developing a “Critical Minerals Marketplace to incentivize more mining, processing, recycling, reuse, and manufacturing of critical minerals and derivatives products in the region,” and strengthening rules of origin to ensure that benefits of trade flow “substantially” to USMCA parties versus third countries.

Next Steps and Key Implications for Companies
Following the Proclamation, USTR issued a statement regarding the importance of negotiating agreements “to create an economically viable market for critical minerals.” In addition, U.S. Secretary of State Rubio will host a meeting with various foreign counterparts on February 4, 2026, regarding cooperation on mineral supply chains, which is expected to advance the negotiations.

With regard to these negotiations and related initiatives discussed above, key issues and opportunities for companies include:

• The metrics on which price floors are set (i.e., cost of production in market economies). 
• The initial set of minerals for which price floors and related mineral products will be a focus. 
• Implementation of price floors, including whether they would also apply to downstream products. Such protections can be implemented via minimum import prices (MIP) in tariffs or trade agreements, making it economically unviable to sell products below such levels, and via physical purchase arrangements designed to make a market at or above such levels. They can be established domestically as well, as in some of the investment initiatives launched by the U.S. government with U.S. producers of strategic materials.
• Potential changes to rules of origin relevant to mineral supply chains under trade agreements (such as changes to regional value content in the case of the USMCA).
• The implementation of trade restrictive measures such as export controls for certain scrap (as contemplated under the Section 232 investigation of copper imports discussed here).    
• Opportunities for diversifying supply mineral chains under the various initiatives discussed above, which focus on investing in new projects and partnerships. For producing companies, these could provide opportunities for sourcing or providing feedstock. For consuming companies, these could represent opportunities for strategic sourcing to mitigate supply chain risks. For producers and consumers, long-term offtake arrangements can secure sources of supply and throughput, and induce targeted investment in increased capabilities for production and processing of minerals and the strategic components or finished products that depend upon them. Working together with governments, these supply chain participants can further reduce and manage risk through strategic stockpiles and streamlining of the entitlement, development and finance of new mining and refining facilities in onshore and friend-shore locations.

Companies should monitor these developments closely and assess their supply chains to evaluate dependencies.   

The authors would like to thank Trade and Policy Specialist, Xavier Gillett for his contribution to this alert.