Highlights

• Foreign Policy claims rare earth diversification will inevitably raise prices, but this oversimplifies supply-chain economics—upfront costs can lead to long-term stability and reduced geopolitical risk premiums.
• The $8.5B U.S.-Australia minerals deal isn't about price control but supply assurance, building redundant processing hubs to insulate Western defense and EV chains from Chinese export restrictions.
• Current rare earth price volatility signals market recalibration, not collapse—diversification is an industrial hedge against coercion, with short-term costs buying future autonomy and fairer global markets.

---

Foreign Policy recently ran a provocative headline (opens in a new tab): “Why Rare Earths Are About to Cost a Lot More.” The author, Patrick Schröder of Chatham House, blames global price escalation on export controls, supply bottlenecks, and lingering dependence on China. But while the piece offers sharp historical insight, its conclusion—that diversification won’t lower prices—deserves a closer look from those who actually track the economics of rare earth extraction, processing, and trade.

Fact, Fiction, and the Price Narrative

Schröder is right about one thing: the world created its own vulnerability. Western buyers let China absorb the environmental burden of refining for decades, enabling prices so low that alternative producers couldn’t survive. That’s a historical fact.

But the article’s claim that diversifying supply will make rare earths more expensive simplifies a complex reality. Prices are set not only by production cost but by processing bottlenecks, technology licensing, and inventory control—areas where China still dominates. In the short term, yes, diversification means new capital spending. But in the medium term, distributed refining capacity—in the U.S., Australia, and potentially Brazil—could smooth volatility and reduce the political risk premium now baked into prices.

In other words, prices may rise before they stabilize, but calling it inevitable inflation is premature. That’s economic theater, not certainty.

Trump’s Boast, Schröder’s Counterpoint—and the Real Market Signal

President Trump’s remark that rare earths would “be worth two dollars” is predictably hyperbolic. Schröder’s rebuttal, though, risks the opposite kind of overreach—treating state-led diversification as a cost trap. In truth, the new U.S.–Australia $8.5 billion minerals deal, signed Oct. 20, is less about price control and more about supply assurance, building redundant processing hubs and strategic reserves to insulate Western defense and EV supply chains.

When markets reprice risk—not just ore—they find equilibrium. Investors know that the rare earth story isn’t about scarcity; it’s about control, transparency, and logistics. Those who build redundancy early will capture future margins when Beijing tightens export valves again.

Keeping the Narrative Honest

Foreign Policy’s piece reflects a familiar bias: global pessimism framed through Western guilt. It’s not misinformation—it’s selective focus. What’s missing is that diversification efforts aren’t charity projects; they’re industrial hedges against geopolitical coercion. The “cost” today is an investment in autonomy tomorrow.

Rare Earth Exchanges (REEx) readers should remember: the supply chain isn’t collapsing—it’s rebalancing. And volatility, far from a failure, is the sound of markets rediscovering how to price freedom.

REEx Summary

This REEx analysis reviews _Foreign Policy_’s article, “Why Rare Earths Are About to Cost a Lot More.” While accurate on China’s dominance and historical context, the piece leans pessimistic, overlooking how diversification, though costly upfront, improves long-term stability and independence. The article’s claim that prices must rise indefinitely oversimplifies supply-chain economics. REEx finds the truth more nuanced: short-term volatility is not structural failure but a recalibration toward a fairer, more resilient global rare earth market.

©!-- /wp:paragraph -->