Trump Administration Shifts Course, Scraps Price Guarantees for Critical Minerals Projects
In a move that signals a strategic pivot, the Trump administration has shelved its initiative to establish government-backed price floors for new U.S. critical minerals projects. The decision, conveyed to industry executives in a private Washington meeting this week, underscores a renewed emphasis on market viability over direct subsidy support for the sector.
According to sources familiar with the discussions, administration officials informed mining and processing company leaders that future projects would not be able to rely on guaranteed minimum prices. This represents a departure from earlier indications that the price support model, first established in a deal with MP Materials last July, would be expanded to other companies.
"The message was clear: your economics need to work without a government price crutch," one executive who attended the meeting told Reuters. The White House had not provided an official comment at the time of publication.
The policy shift is not retroactive and does not affect the existing $400 million agreement with MP Materials (NYSE:MP), which includes a price floor for its output. However, it dashes expectations that similar supports were forthcoming for other ventures aimed at reducing America's dependence on China for rare earths and minerals essential for defense, electronics, and renewable energy.
This recalibration comes even as the administration continues to champion domestic production through major investments, such as the recent $1.6 billion commitment to USA Rare Earth Inc. (NASDAQ:USAR). The apparent contradiction—pumping capital while pulling back on price insurance—highlights the complex balancing act between catalyzing a strategic industry and adhering to free-market principles.
Analysts suggest the reversal may be driven by practical hurdles, including uncertain congressional funding for such guarantees and the difficulty of administratively setting prices in volatile global markets. "Price floors distort markets and are notoriously hard to get right," said Dr. Evelyn Reed, a resource economist at the Atlantic Council. "This move pushes the risk back onto companies, which could slow near-term investment but may lead to more resilient, market-tested projects in the long run."
The administration has previously structured several high-profile deals to boost domestic capacity. Beyond the MP Materials pact, similar public-private partnerships were announced with Lithium Americas Corp. (NYSE:LAC) and Trilogy Metals Inc. (NYSE:TMQ). In November, a consortium involving American Resources Corp. (NASDAQ:AREC) unveiled a $1.4 billion plan to build a complete domestic rare earth magnet supply chain.
Industry Reaction: A Mix of Pragmatism and Frustration
We spoke to several observers for their take on the policy shift:
Michael Thorne, Portfolio Manager at Rocky Mountain Capital: "This is a dose of reality. While price supports are attractive in theory, they create long-term dependencies and market inefficiencies. The focus should be on reducing regulatory barriers and providing upfront capital for infrastructure, not manipulating prices."
Sarah Chen, CEO of a battery metals startup: "It's disappointing but not surprising. The initial signal gave many of us hope for a stable demand environment. Now, the calculus for securing financing just got harder. We'll need to prove profitability in a market still dominated by subsidized Chinese output."
James "Mac" Macalister, Former Mine Foreman & Industry Blogger: "Absolute betrayal of the 'America First' promise! They dangle the carrot, get companies to mobilize, then yank it away. This isn't 'free market'—it's leaving our domestic producers naked against a state-controlled competitor. It's a surefire way to keep us chained to Beijing for our most vital materials."
Priya Sharma, Policy Analyst at the Bipartisan Supply Chain Security Group: "The administration is trying to have it both ways. You cannot decouple from China on the cheap. If critical minerals are a national security priority, as stated, then a coherent, long-term support framework—which could include strategic stockpiles or offtake agreements—is needed, not an on-again, off-again approach."
Image via Shutterstock