The Reality of U.S. Military-Industrial Mineral Supply Chains 'Decoupling from China'

Editor’s Note In recent years, the United States has simultaneously deployed a suite of measures—including procurement bans, government equity investments, price supports, long-term purchase commitments, strategic stockpiling, allied-country sourcing, and overseas mine financing—to restructure its supply chains. Funding volumes have continued to expand, and some segments have begun production; however, mining, separation, metal refining, magnet manufacturing, and military certification remain unconnected into a fully independent, end-to-end operational chain. Zhibi Open-Source Intelligence has compiled and translated relevant information for readers’ reference. I. The 2027 Ban Looms Large, Yet Capacity Gaps Remain Substantial Current U.S. regulations—the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and Title 10, Section 4872 of the U.S. Code—designate China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea as restricted sources for sensitive materials. Starting January 1, 2027, restrictions on neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) permanent magnets will extend upstream to cover raw material mining (e.g., neodymium, iron, boron) and the entire magnet production chain; tighter origin controls will also apply to tantalum, tungsten, and other materials. For many years, the Pentagon has been able to issue exemptions when domestic supply proved insufficient—meaning the ban’s existence has not equated to completed supply-chain substitution. On July 20, former President Trump signed an executive order further tightening exemption criteria. Contractors must now specify the exact origins of restricted materials, provide evidence that all compliant procurement channels have been exhausted, and submit detailed plans and timelines for eliminating noncompliant materials. The order also directs the Pentagon to develop comprehensive supply-chain maps—from raw materials to finished end-products—and to hold contractors contractually liable for intentional misrepresentation or failure to implement corrective action plans. Capacity data underscore the constraints facing the ban. According to Reuters’ citation of Arthur D. Little consulting firm data, U.S. demand for mainstream rare-earth permanent magnets in 2025 is projected at approximately 48,000 metric tons, while domestic supply stands at only about 300 tons. U.S. firms anticipate achieving roughly 5,000 tons of annual production capacity by end-2026. Yet this 5,000-ton figure reflects planned and equipment-based capacity—not actual output—and still falls short of market demand by an order of magnitude. U.S. companies ceased tungsten production after 2015; domestic tantalum production ended as early as 1959. Guardian Metals Resources plans to commission a U.S. tungsten mine in 2028; Lion Rock Resources is developing a tantalum mine in South Dakota—but no official startup date has yet been announced. Military-system demand for these materials cannot be meaningfully offset by minor substitutions. According to publicly released 2024 U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) documents: the F-35 fighter jet uses over 900 pounds of rare-earth elements; the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer requires approximately 5,200 pounds; and the Virginia-class nuclear submarine needs roughly 9,200 pounds. NdFeB permanent magnets are also embedded in Tomahawk cruise missiles, radar systems, unmanned aerial vehicles, Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), and submarine sonar systems. Disruptions in mineral supply ultimately translate into delays in weapons production, maintenance, and replenishment. Figure 2: U.S. Department of Defense illustration showing rare-earth permanent magnets and metal shavings. Source: U.S. Department of Defense, March 2024. II. Decades of U.S. Efforts to Bridge the 'Mine-to-Magnet' Chain In its 2018 Defense Industrial Base Assessment, the U.S. Department of Defense already identified 'overreliance on China for strategic and critical materials' as a prominent risk. The report warned that China’s concentrated dominance across several material supply and processing stages could jeopardize continuity in U.S. weapons programs. Since then, U.S. responses have evolved from issuing risk reports toward direct industrial intervention. Beginning in 2020, the Pentagon has funded critical-minerals projects through authorities such as Title III of the Defense Production Act and the Manufacturing Capability Expansion and Investment Program.

Elon Musk Is Losing His Magic. Tesla Is Paying the Price.

A $1.3 billion shortfall in quarterly earnings triggered widespread skepticism. Some investors have grown weary of 'hype without follow-through.' Tesla’s stock plunged following its earnings release—not merely because results missed expectations, but for a more ominous reason: Elon Musk may be losing his Midas touch. The facts cannot be glossed over: Tesla’s second-quarter results were abysmal. On Wednesday evening, the company reported $398 million in operating profit—down sharply from $923 million a year earlier and far below Wall Street’s consensus estimate of $1.7 billion (per FactSet). This $1.3 billion gap stemmed from weak pricing, an unfavorable vehicle mix, declining regulatory credit sales, rising costs, and increased R&D spending. Yet underperformance is Tesla’s smallest problem. Trading this stock has never truly rested on fundamentals. It has always been a bet on the future—and on Musk’s ability to see and articulate that future more clearly than anyone else. But with the stock dropping 14% after the earnings release, there is growing concern that markets are beginning to doubt his vision. 'Investors have lost patience with hype without follow-through,' said Gary Black, co-founder of Future Fund. The earnings call was saturated with hype. Musk claimed the robotaxi business continues to show 'very high compound growth rates' and insisted robots will remain 'the largest product ever.' The mercurial CEO even unveiled a potential new venture: Megapod—a compact, modular AI data center leveraging Tesla hardware for most of its computing. Wall Street doesn’t appear overly worried about Tesla’s future—at least not yet. In the immediate aftermath of the quarter’s release, no analysts raised or lowered their ratings on the stock, according to FactSet; the average target price dipped just $8—to $392. The analyst community broadly holds the view that Tesla is currently ramping up expenditures to secure future growth—and that such elevated spending typically compresses profitability.

REX American Resources Reports Q4 2026 Earnings Beat

May 8, 2026

REX American Resources reported Q4 2026 earnings with an EPS of $1.32, significantly beating analyst estimates despite revenue falling short of consensus. The company is projected to report its Q1 2027 earnings on May 27, 2026.

MarketBeat

2026-05-08

REX American Resources Reports Q4 2026 Earnings Beat

2026-05-11

Rex American Resources posts strong Q3 beat as ethanol output remains robust

2026-05-15

REX American Resources Sets May 28 Q1 2026 Results Call

2026-05-28

Ethanol maker REX sets record Q1 EPS, plans up to $230M for carbon capture

2026-05-28

REX American Resources Reports Record Q1 Fiscal 2026 Earnings