In November 2025, the U.S. Geological Survey released an updated list of Critical Minerals, with 60 minerals spanning aluminum to zirconium. Flagged due to their potential effects to disrupt the U.S. economy and trade, as well as single points of failure, the USGS expanded the previous list based on interagency input, including from the Pentagon to ensure it addressed national security concerns.
With these chokepoints and vulnerabilities established, this week’s new Executive Order aims to secure and defend the critical minerals in the supply chains that are foundational to U.S. economic and national security. The era of supply chain warfare is here, and this Executive Order targets the security of critical supply chains. Importantly, while the emphasis is on critical minerals, the Executive Order stresses the need for a multi-domain view of risk within your supply chain – from hardware to software to ownership to financial risk.
Defending Against Weaponized Supply Chains
For decades, the downstream sourcing of goods has been deprioritized in favor of efficiency and supply chain optimization. Exactly a decade ago, the U.S. launched a trade enforcement action at the WTO against China due to export duties on nine different raw materials. The timing coincided with heightened disputes and arbitration over the South China Sea, highlighting the tight linkage that has grown between great power competition and supply chain warfare.
This week’s Executive Order reflects the growing necessity to defend supply chains against adversarial dependencies and vulnerabilities. It states the need to secure, “not only the finished equipment deployed by our military, but also the critical materials and components necessary to manufacture, maintain, sustain, and repair that equipment, are sourced domestically or from allied nations.” Any government contractors will be required to complete an indentured Bill of Materials that traces the product back to raw materials, including parts, components, and software. This framing stresses the product hierarchy and relationships, treating supply chains as systems subject to multi-faceted risks, not just a compliance checklist.
China dominates most discussions of U.S. critical mineral dependence, especially following Chinese export controls on key commodities such as helium. However, it is important to note that while helium is essential for technologies such as semiconductor and medical devices, China is not a major exporter of helium. Instead, the new control is likely due to China’s defensive supply chain strategy to secure access to this critical element in light of disruptions to global helium with the Strait of Hormuz blockage. In contrast, China’s export controls on 12 of the 17 rare earth elements, many of which it holds a leading position or near monopoly, reflect China’s broader weaponization of supply chains. In short, China is both securing its own supply chain while weaponizing it as part of geopolitical competition and the ongoing transformations of global supply chains.
However, China is not the only country on which the U.S. has an expansive net import reliance. U.S. net import reliance on Canada covers over two dozen mineral commodities, the majority of which are also flagged as critical minerals. Brazil, South Africa, Germany and Mexico follow, each with roughly a dozen mineral commodities with a net import reliance.
In some cases, the U.S. has a 100% net-import reliance on the following critical minerals: Arsenic, Cesium, Fluorspar, Gallium (metal), Graphite (natural), Indium, Manganese, Rubidium, Scandium, Tantalum, and Yttrium (compounds). China is a leading source in over half of these critical minerals. These critical minerals are largely associated as the foundation for the digital economy, essential for all aspects of technology from semiconductors to data centers. However, their role is much more expansive, with applications from nuclear to healthcare to metallurgy and optical devices, illustrating the critical need to secure them.
Multi-domain Supply Chain Warfare
Supply chains are extremely complex, multi-faceted networks that cross many diverse, yet interconnected, domains. This is reflected in the Executive Order, which explains, “the United States must secure its supply chains against physical, cyber, and economic subversion.” In this regard, the Executive Order is about much more than critical minerals, but highlights additional supply chain risks, including financial risk, cyber, foreign ownership, and concentration risks.
In fact, the Executive Order explicitly defines financial supply chain risk occurring when, “a supplier cannot generate revenue or income resulting in the inability to meet financial obligations.” This is not a hypothetical risk, but one that is growing as bankruptcies in the U.S. and abroad continue year-over-year increases into 2026. Based on interos.ai financial risk monitoring, there was a 63% year-over-year in bankruptcies, with 2026 on a similar trajectory with approximately 400 U.S. bankruptcies to date.
Supply Chain Warfare: Not Just a Public Sector Concern
While this Executive Order is only enforceable for government contractors, the broader private sector should take notice. As MI5 Chief Ken Callum warned three years ago, “If you’re working today at the cutting edge of technology then geopolitics is interested in you, even if you’re not interested in geopolitics.” This, too, is not hypothetical. In April, Iran declared 18 U.S. tech companies as legitimate targets in warfare, following attacks on AWS and Oracle data centers in the early days of the conflict.
Whether it’s the physical supply chain powering the AI revolution or the critical minerals, securing global supply chains is a matter of economic and national security for private and public sectors alike. In fact, while this Executive Order targets government contractors, a series of other policies impact all supply chains, ranging from restrictions and sanctions to tariffs. For instance, another Executive Order released on July 20th focuses on the impact of Section 232 tariffs on securing aluminum while introducing a new incentive program to expand investment in aluminum. On the same day, the Trump Administration introduced a new 50% tariff regime on some Canadian products, and a new trade deal with Jordan, highlighting the rapid pace of change impacting supply chains.
Adjusting to the evolving characteristics of this world order will, of course, require shifts in mindset and in maturation. Just as businesses grappled with maturing their cyber defenses over the last two decades, organizations now need to harden their supply chain defenses. A holistic approach is required, one focused on both gaining visibility into the vast supply chain network, while simultaneously identifying, addressing, and securing the multi-domain risks and vulnerabilities hidden within supply chains.