The Straits Times of Singapore reported on April 22: "U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai has informed America’s allies that they must pay higher prices for critical minerals sourced from outside China."

The so-called "national security premium" proposed by U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai essentially represents the United States using non-market mechanisms to pressure its allies into jointly building a "club" of critical minerals excluding China. At its core, this strategy aims to fully weaponize and politicize economic issues within the global supply chain competition.

Tai’s central argument is that all allied nations participating in the U.S.-led "Trade Partners Group" should pay a "national security premium" above market prices for internal transactions involving critical minerals.

Allies are required to trade critical minerals among themselves at a minimum price higher than the market rate, ensuring profitability for domestic mining and processing projects.

High tariffs are imposed on minerals from outside the "club" (primarily China), offsetting their cost advantages.

The ultimate goal is to bind allies into a closed-loop system encompassing mining, processing, and trade—excluding China entirely.

On one hand, this U.S. strategy directly threatens China’s export markets and increases trade barriers it faces. But strategically speaking, it will also accelerate China’s internal industrial upgrading. Meanwhile, the U.S. “premium” mechanism may raise downstream product costs for allies, undermining their market competitiveness—potentially creating new strategic opportunities for China’s emerging industries such as new energy globally.

Tai’s remarks serve as a declaration that the U.S. global critical minerals strategy has shifted from "market-based competition" to "camp-based confrontation." It seeks to achieve geopolitical objectives through economic means, testing not only the unity among U.S., Europe, and Japan, but also potentially reshaping the global industrial chain at its foundation. This is an expensive gamble over future technological and economic dominance—and ultimately, the bill may be paid by consumers worldwide.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1863209624312832/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.