Refined tellurium is shown at the Rio Tinto Kennecott refinery Wednesday, May 11, 2022, in Magna, Utah. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer) For the U.S., the critical minerals challenge is usually framed as a race against China. That is true but incomplete. The more immediate question is whether the U.S. can build reliable, commercially viable supply chains with the partners it already has. And at the top of that list is Canada.
Critical minerals are not just about mining. They are about batteries, semiconductors, defense systems, electric motors, transmission infrastructure, nuclear technologies and the advanced manufacturing platforms that will define economic and national security in the coming decades. The U.S. can and should increase domestic production, but no serious strategy can rely on domestic production alone. Supply chains are too complex, investment needs too large and timelines too long.
Canada offers a practical answer. It produces or holds significant potential in many of the minerals that matter most to the U.S., including nickel, cobalt, graphite, lithium, copper, rare earths, uranium, tungsten, potash and aluminum. Its Critical Minerals Strategy is designed not only to expand extraction, but also to strengthen processing, manufacturing, recycling, infrastructure and partnerships with Indigenous communities, provinces, industry and allies.
Canada also has physical advantages that are often overlooked in Washington. Mining and processing require reliable electricity, abundant water, transport corridors, environmental management capacity and communities that can support long-term development. Canada has constraints, especially in remote and northern regions, but compared with many alternative suppliers it offers a rare combination of mineral endowment, rule of law, clean power potential, water availability and environmental credibility.
The logic is especially clear as the auto industry shifts toward electric vehicles, batteries, lightweight materials and advanced electronics. A battery plant in Michigan, an auto assembly plant in Ontario, a nickel mine in Manitoba and a processing facility in the Midwest should not be seen as separate national projects. They are pieces of one continental strategy.
The same logic applies to defense and advanced manufacturing. The 2020 U.S.-Canada Joint Action Plan on Critical Minerals Collaboration recognized that both countries have a shared interest in secure supply chains for communications technology, aerospace, defense and clean technology. That framework was right then, and it is even more urgent now. The U.S. defense industrial base cannot afford to depend on minerals and processing capacity controlled by strategic competitors, and it cannot ignore Canadian projects simply because they sit north of the border.
There are already examples of what a more serious approach can look like. Joint U.S.-Canadian support for the Mactung tungsten project in the Yukon shows how Washington and Ottawa can help move a strategically important project through the difficult pre-construction phase. Not every project deserves public money, but many critical minerals projects fail because infrastructure, permitting, studies and early-stage financing create a long “orphan period” before capital is ready to commit. Smart public support can crowd in investment where the strategic case is strong.
The same principle should guide processing and refining. Extraction is only the first step. Unless North America builds more capacity to process and refine minerals into usable industrial inputs, it will remain vulnerable.
But Canada also needs to do its part. Its permitting system is too slow, and infrastructure gaps are real, although recent efforts such as the creation of a federal Major Projects Office signal positive intent. Indigenous consultation and partnership must be central to project design, not treated as a late-stage obstacle. Regulatory reform is needed, not to lower standards, but to make high-standard projects move faster. A system that takes a decade or more to approve a mine is not compatible with geopolitical competition or the energy transition.
The United States has its own reforms to make. Washington needs to treat Canadian minerals and processing capacity as part of a shared defense and industrial base. That means using tools such as the Defense Production Act, the Export-Import Bank, loan guarantees, offtake agreements and joint research funding to support projects that serve North American security. It also means aligning standards, reducing duplication, improving permitting coordination and using the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement to strengthen, rather than fragment, the continental economy.
Most urgently, the diplomatic relationship needs repair. Recent turmoil, including tariff threats and the questioning of long-standing assumptions about North American partnership, has damaged trust. Critical minerals projects require billions of dollars, long timelines and patient capital. Investors will not commit if they believe political volatility can suddenly turn an ally into a target.
Rebuilding trust with Canada is a strategic necessity. The United States cannot mine, process, refine and manufacture every input at home at the scale and speed required. What it can do is build a secure North American platform with countries that share its geography, industrial base and strategic interests.
Canada is not a substitute for U.S. ambition — it is a force multiplier for it. The critical minerals race will not be won by dreams of self-sufficiency. It will be won by building trusted supply chains that work. That means recognizing a simple reality: America’s critical minerals strategy runs through Canada.
Duncan Wood is a fellow at the Wilson Center and CEO of Hurst International Consulting. Jack Wood Slavin is a founder of Drury Lane Partners in Ontario, Canada.
Add as preferred source on Google Tags Canada cobalt Copper critical minerals Critical Minerals Strategy Defense Production Act Donald Trump Global Supply Chains lithium Mactung tungsten project Major Projects Office mining ontario Ottawa rare earths united states US-Canada relations USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) WashingtonCopyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Comments: Link copiedMore Opinions - Energy and Environment News
See All
Opinions - Energy and Environment How AI is accelerating America’s environmental cleanup mission by Timothy J. Walsh, opinion contributor 2 days ago Opinions - Energy and Environment / 2 days ago 
