Why This Article Sparked Concern
The New York Times article explores China’s newly announced restrictions on the export of rare earth elements, emphasizing how these restrictions could disrupt U.S. manufacturing and military operations. Given the central role rare earths play in both commercial and defense technologies, readers flagged this article due to concerns about potential alarmism and sought clarity on whether China’s move truly poses a critical threat to the United States.
Historical Context
Rare earth elements (REEs) have long played a pivotal role in global geopolitics. Despite the name, REEs are not especially rare in the Earth’s crust, but concentrated, economically viable sources are limited. Since the 1990s, China has dominated the rare earth mining and processing market, establishing itself as a near-monopoly supplier for global industries. Previous incidents, like China’s rare earth export restriction to Japan in 2010 amid a territorial dispute, demonstrated how access to these materials could be used as geopolitical leverage. Today’s echoes of that strategy amid U.S.-China tensions have raised red flags for defense and energy sectors.
Fact-Checking the Key Claims
Claim #1: “China is moving to limit the market for these metals even further, which could have disastrous consequences for American manufacturing and military power.”
This claim is partly accurate but lacks crucial context. China’s restrictions, announced in April 2025, specifically tighten controls on the export of certain magnet-grade rare earth materials and processing technologies. However, labeling potential consequences as “disastrous” overstates the imminent risk. According to the U.S. Geological Survey and Congressional Research Service, the U.S. has been actively diversifying its rare earth supply chain since 2020, investing in processing facilities and forging partnerships with Australia and Canada. While short-term impacts could disrupt certain supply lines, especially in defense applications, experts like those at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) note that severe long-term consequences can be mitigated with continued investment and policy action.
Sources:
– https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-tightens-rare-earth-export-controls-2025-04-12/
– https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46618
– https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2024/mcs2024-rare-earths.pdf
Claim #2: “The United States has just one operational rare earths mine, in Mountain Pass, Calif., which produces around 15 percent of global rare earths.”
This statement is accurate regarding the number of U.S. operational mines. The Mountain Pass mine in California is currently the only major facility extracting rare earths domestically. However, clarification is needed for the percentage claim. Mountain Pass produces around 15% of the world’s rare earth concentrate, but it does not currently process the materials into finished products — most of the concentrate is still sent to China for final separation and refinement. Thus, while Mountain Pass plays a significant role, the U.S. currently lacks a vertically integrated supply chain for rare earth materials.
Sources:
– https://www.energy.gov/articles/rare-earth-elements-critical-materials-modern-technology
– https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-center/rare-earths-statistics-and-information
Claim #3: “Rare earths are used in products ranging from LED lights to fighter jets, including semiconductor chips that power artificial intelligence.”
This claim conflates some uses inaccurately. Rare earths are essential in many high-tech applications such as permanent magnets, electric vehicle motors, wind turbines, and military hardware like radar systems and precision-guided munitions. However, they are not directly used in semiconductor chip manufacturing. Silicon, gallium, and other elements are used for chips, while rare earths influence technologies where advanced magnetism or luminescence is needed (e.g. hard drives, sensors, display screens). Therefore, the mention of “semiconductor chips” as a use for rare earths is misleading.
Sources:
– https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/03/06/the-rare-earth-dilemma
– https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/critical-materials-and-rare-earths
Claim #4: “Heavy rare earths…are prone to shortages.”
This assertion is accurate and well-supported by scientific and market evidence. Heavy rare earth elements (HREEs), such as dysprosium and terbium, are more geographically limited than light rare earths and are costlier to extract. They are especially critical for temperature-resilient magnets used in military and energy systems. Global strategic assessments from the International Energy Agency (IEA) affirm the likelihood of shortages for HREEs without investment in alternative reserves and recycling technology.
Sources:
– https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions
– https://www.csis.org/analysis/global-race-rare-earth-supply-security
Final Verdict on Accuracy and Bias
The article mostly presents accurate facts regarding rare earth elements and China’s dominance in the supply chain. However, several claims are framed in an overly dramatic manner without adequate context about ongoing U.S. mitigation efforts. The suggestion of looming “disastrous consequences” borders on sensationalism and could mislead casual readers into believing there is no domestic strategy to counter China’s move. Also, the treatment of rare earths as central to semiconductor chips is a factual error. Overall, the article contains several well-researched insights but exaggerates impact and omits key complexities that are crucial to understanding the issue thoroughly.
Want to Fact-Check More News Like This?
Download the DBUNK app or follow us on social media to verify the stories that matter most. We make it easy — no jargon, no noise, just facts.
Visit the Original Article
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/15/technology/rare-earth-metals-china-exports.html
