The Critical Minerals Ministerial hosted by the United States on February 4, 2026, marked an important turning point in how major economies now view minerals that underpin modern industry, advanced technology, and national security. Held in Washington, the meeting brought together ministers and senior officials from more than fifty countries across Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas. Its timing was deliberate.
As global competition intensifies over semiconductors, electric vehicles, renewable energy systems, and defence technologies, governments are increasingly recognising that control over critical minerals has become as strategically consequential in the twenty-first century as oil was in the twentieth. The ministerial was therefore not a routine technical consultation but a strategic signal that mineral supply chains now sit at the heart of economic security, geopolitical stability, and technological leadership.
The 2026 ministerial was a Trump administration initiative aimed at reshaping global markets for critical minerals and rare earths, an area where China currently enjoys overwhelming dominance. China leads production in roughly thirty minerals designated as critical by the US Geological Survey and accounts for about seventy per cent of global rare earth mining and more than ninety per cent of global processing capacity. This concentration has heightened concerns in Washington and other capitals about supply-chain vulnerability, price manipulation, and the potential use of resource dominance for political leverage.
Against this backdrop, the United States framed discussions among the fifty-five participating countries around the need to address excessive concentration in mining, refining, and processing. American officials argued that supply chains dominated by a single country create structural risks, distort markets, and undermine trust in global trade. To counter these vulnerabilities, Washington proposed deeper coordination among like-minded partners, including mechanisms to stabilise prices, improve investment predictability, and encourage diversification across the entire value chain, from extraction to downstream manufacturing. One of the most closely watched proposals was the idea of coordinated price-support or price-floor arrangements for certain critical minerals, designed to reduce volatility and make long-term investments viable for producers operating outside dominant supply hubs.
The meeting’s objectives aligned with broader frameworks such as Pax Silica. At its core, the ministerial sought to diversify global supply chains to reduce bottlenecks and geopolitical risk, build shared systems that give investors and manufacturers greater confidence, and establish common norms for cooperation across mining, processing, refining, and technology sectors.
A central aim was to reduce overdependence on highly concentrated sources, particularly China, that currently dominate rare earths and other critical minerals. Underscoring the seriousness of intent, President Donald Trump announced the launch of a strategic US minerals stockpile, known as Project Vault, to be funded through two billion dollars of private capital alongside a ten-billion-dollar loan from the US Export-Import Bank. India should learn from this and build its own reserves too.
India’s participation in the ministerial stood out both for its substance and its symbolism. With top-level political clearance granted to advance a broader trade understanding, New Delhi and Washington moved forward on strengthening planned partnerships, including cooperation on critical minerals. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar used the forum to stress that supply chain concentration is not merely an economic concern but a systemic global risk.
In an interconnected world, he argued, resilience cannot be built unilaterally and must instead rest on structured international cooperation. India, he emphasised, sees itself not only as a major consumer of critical minerals but also as a partner capable of contributing to more diversified, transparent and reliable supply chains. This approach reflects New Delhi’s broader effort to de-risk its economic dependencies while preserving strategic autonomy.
Jaishankar also signalled India’s support for the Forum on Resource and Geostrategic Engagement, or FORGE, an initiative unveiled at the summit to deepen cooperation on critical resources. Together with Pax Silica, these efforts build on the existing India–US Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies, reinforcing the idea that minerals, technology and geopolitics are now inseparable. With India joining the original nine-country Pax Silica grouping, an institutional framework is beginning to take shape that links mineral security directly to semiconductor manufacturing, advanced technologies and trusted supply chains.
The outcomes of the ministerial dovetail closely with the objectives of Pax Silica. While Pax Silica focuses on the full technology stack, from semiconductors to advanced manufacturing, the Critical Minerals Ministerial addressed the foundational layer on which that rests. Together, they reflect a growing consensus that economic security, technological leadership and geopolitical stability can no longer be treated as separate policy domains. For India, this convergence is particularly significant. Participation places it inside the room where future rules, standards and cooperative mechanisms are being shaped, rather than leaving it to adapt later to frameworks designed by others.
The advantages for India are tangible. Engagement at the ministerial strengthens its case as a trusted destination for global investment in mineral exploration, processing and downstream manufacturing. It reinforces domestic initiatives such as the National Critical Minerals Mission by linking them to international cooperation and market access. Diplomatically, India’s presence alongside major industrial and resource-rich economies enhances its credibility as a country willing to contribute to global supply chain resilience rather than merely benefit from it. Strategically, it allows India to deepen cooperation with the United States and its partners while retaining room for independent decision-making.
At the same time, the discussions also highlighted what India must do to fully capitalise on these opportunities. International partnerships will yield lasting gains only if India accelerates domestic capacity in exploration, refining and processing, improves regulatory clarity, and creates conditions that attract sustained private investment. Participation alone will not guarantee advantage; delivery on commitments and credibility in execution will matter as much as diplomatic alignment. The level of ambition of the Critical Minerals Mission also needs to be enhanced.
Seen in this light, the February 4 ministerial was less an endpoint than a beginning. It marked the moment when critical minerals moved decisively from the margins of economic policy to its strategic core. For India, being part of this moment strengthens its ambition to emerge as a key node in global technology and resource networks. Whether that ambition is realised will depend on how effectively high-level engagement is translated into on-the-ground capability, investment and institutional reform in the years ahead.
(The writer is a former ambassador to Germany, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Asean, and the African Union, and the author of ‘The Mango Flavour: India & Asean After 10 Years of the AEP’. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Firstpost.)
End of Article
