From Oil to Minerals: U.S. Revives Cold War-Era Stockpile Strategy for Critical Resources

In the 1970s, an oil embargo sent the U.S. economy into shock, spurring the creation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve—a vast emergency stockpile buried in Gulf Coast salt caverns. Half a century later, facing a new kind of resource vulnerability, Washington is turning to a familiar playbook. This time, the focus isn't on crude oil, but on the obscure metals powering the modern world.

According to senior administration officials, President Donald Trump is advancing "Project Vault," a plan to establish a national stockpile of critical minerals. The initiative, first reported by Bloomberg, would leverage a $10 billion loan from the U.S. Import-Export Bank alongside $1.67 billion in private capital. A White House spokesperson confirmed the plan's existence to Fortune, marking a significant escalation in efforts to secure materials deemed irreplaceable for defense, technology, and clean energy industries.

The move is the latest in a series of steps by the administration to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign—primarily Chinese—supplies. It mirrors the strategic logic born from the 1973-74 oil crisis, when an embargo by Middle Eastern producers triggered stagflation and fuel lines. That trauma led to the SPR's creation under President Ford. Today, analysts warn of a parallel threat: China's dominance over the mining and processing of minerals like cobalt, lithium, and rare earths, which are essential for everything from electric vehicles and smartphones to fighter jets.

"The comparison to the 1970s is apt, but the dependency is deeper now," says Dr. Evelyn Reed, a geopolitical risk analyst at the Hudson Institute. "Back then, it was about fuel for cars and factories. Today, it's about the foundational elements of our entire digital and green economy. Losing access isn't an inconvenience; it's an existential threat to national competitiveness."

The data underscores the concern. A Center for Strategic and International Studies report notes China controls between 40% and 90% of global processing for key minerals. Of 50 materials labeled critical by the U.S. Geological Survey, China is the leading producer for 29. The U.S. is fully import-dependent for a dozen and more than 50% reliant on imports for another 29.

This vulnerability has already been tested. Since 2023, Beijing has imposed—and periodically adjusted—export controls on minerals crucial for semiconductors and telecoms. In response, the Trump administration has moved aggressively. Recent actions include a $1.6 billion investment in supplier Rare Earths USA, a $400 million Defense Department investment in MP Materials, and persistent interest in Greenland's vast rare earth deposits.

"This is a classic case of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted," argues Mark Tolbert, a former trade official and now a vocal critic on industry panels. "We spent decades offshoring our industrial base and gutting our mining regulations. Now we're using taxpayer money to create a warehouse for minerals we should be capable of producing ourselves. It's a costly band-aid, not a strategy."

Others see it as a necessary, pragmatic step. "Strategic reserves are a market signal and a security buffer," comments Anya Sharma, a supply chain consultant for several tech firms reportedly involved in Project Vault, including Google and GM. "It stabilizes prices during shocks and gives companies confidence to invest here. Pairing this with new investments in domestic processing, as the recent executive order aims to do, is the right combination."

The U.S. is not alone in this thinking. Australia recently announced its own $800 million critical minerals reserve. This week, Washington will host a summit with allies including the U.K., EU, Australia, and New Zealand to discuss forming a strategic minerals alliance, explicitly seeking to replicate China's state-coordinated approach to supply chain dominance.

As the global race for resources reshapes alliances and industrial policy, Project Vault symbolizes a return to a form of economic statecraft many thought was relegated to the era of oil crises and Cold War stockpiles. The question now is whether this 1970s remedy can cure a 21st-century dependency.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com