Rare Earths Dominate US Critical Minerals Funding as Tungsten, Nickel Lag Behind

The US government’s critical minerals strategy is heavily skewed toward rare earth elements. Approximately $18.6 billion in combined committed and uncommitted funding is flowing into the sector, according to new analysis. While rare earths remain strategically important for defence and clean energy technologies, their relatively small global market size contrasts sharply with the scale of government investment. This is particularly evident when compared with other industrial metals.

US Critical Minerals Funding Reaches $18.6 Billion

The latest funding wave spans around 60 financing initiatives across loans, equity investments, and grants. This capital is being deployed through multiple US policy and financial channels. Notably, these include the Export-Import Bank (EXIM), the International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), and the CHIPS Act. Additionally, it includes newer legislative tools.

Analysts highlight that the US “financial pivot” toward critical minerals represents one of the most aggressive state-backed supply chain interventions in decades. The goal is to reduce dependence on China. In addition, China has held a dominant position in rare earth processing and separation technologies since the late 20th century.

Despite the strategic importance of securing supply chains for defence and high-tech manufacturing, funding distribution remains uneven across different metals.

Rare Earth Supply Chain Takes Priority Over Bulk Metals

Rare earth elements receive a disproportionate share of attention due to their role in magnets, defence systems, electric vehicles, and advanced electronics. However, their total global market value is relatively small at roughly $3.5 billion annually. This is very small compared with far larger markets such as copper, lithium, and uranium.

In contrast, base and industrial metals that underpin infrastructure and electrification—such as nickel, cobalt, tungsten, and antimony—have received significantly less government support. This is despite their broader industrial relevance.

One of the most notable examples is MP Materials, which received a $400 million investment from the US Department of Defense, underscoring rare earths’ strategic weight in national security supply chains.

Graphite and Tungsten Highlight Funding Imbalance

Graphite has become a major focus of US funding. It is linked to battery supply chains and large-scale development plans. Graphite One is one of the key projects. It may receive up to $2.1 billion from EXIM. The plan targets an anode plant in Ohio and mining operations in Alaska.

In contrast, tungsten projects receive much smaller funding. Tungsten is vital for cutting tools, aerospace parts, and defence applications. Major deposits like Mactung in Canada and the Sisson project in New Brunswick have only limited Department of Defense support.

Nickel, cobalt, tantalum, and tin also face weak funding. These metals are important for energy transition and advanced manufacturing.

Market observers say rare earths dominate policy focus. However, bulk metals are more important for industrial output and supply chain stability.

Market Impact

○ Impacted Metals: Rare earth oxides (NdPr, Dy, Tb), tungsten concentrate, nickel sulphate, cobalt hydroxide, graphite anode material

○ Direction: Mixed

○ Time Horizon: Medium-term to 2026–2027

○ Affected Industries: Defence manufacturing, electric vehicles, battery materials, aerospace, electronics, industrial tooling, energy transition

○ Related Price Reports: Rare Earth Weekly Price Report, Tungsten Weekly Price Report, Nickel Alloy Weekly Price Report, Cobalt Alloy Weekly Price Report, Lithium Weekly Price Report

○ Watch Item: Monitor whether US funding begins to shift toward base metals such as nickel and tungsten as supply chain security priorities broaden beyond rare earths.

SuperMetalPrice Commentary:

The current US funding structure reveals a clear strategic imbalance between politically prioritized rare earths and economically larger industrial metals. While rare earths are critical for defence and high-tech applications, they represent a relatively small share of global commodity value.

If policy focus expands toward broader industrial metals, capital allocation could gradually shift toward battery supply chains and hard rock minerals where volume and pricing influence global manufacturing costs more directly.