China’s decision to suspend its ban on exporting three critical minerals—gallium, germanium, and antimony—to the United States has sent ripples through global supply chains, drawing cautious optimism from manufacturers and policymakers while leaving deeper strategic concerns unresolved. The move, announced by China’s Ministry of Commerce on November 9, 2025, temporarily lifts restrictions imposed in December 2024, when trade tensions between the world’s two largest economies were at a boiling point over technology and defense.
The suspension is set to last until November 27, 2026, and comes in the wake of high-level diplomatic engagement. Presidents Xi Jinping and Donald Trump met in Busan, South Korea, on October 30, 2025, where both sides agreed to roll back some of the most contentious measures in their ongoing tariff and export-control standoff. According to Mining.com.au, this was preceded by economic and trade talks in Kuala Lumpur on October 25, 2025, signaling a tentative thaw in relations.
At first glance, Beijing’s move is being celebrated as a diplomatic breakthrough. U.S. manufacturers, especially in the semiconductor and electronics sectors, see it as a much-needed reprieve from supply shortages that had forced them to reroute shipments and absorb higher costs. “The changes reopen limited civilian channels,” Mining.com.au reports, “yet the core ban cutting off the US defence industrial base effectively remains in place, underscoring the strategic dimensions of Beijing’s mineral dominance.”
But the fine print tells a more complicated story. The Ministry of Commerce’s announcement clarified that while the outright ban is suspended, gallium, germanium, and antimony exports remain under China’s dual-use export control regime. This means that exporters must still apply for licenses from the ministry or authorized provincial authorities, and shipments destined for U.S. military end-users remain strictly prohibited. According to Reuters, “the metals remain under dual-use export controls, meaning they can serve both civilian and military applications.”
This distinction is crucial. Gallium is indispensable for semiconductors, LEDs, and solar panels, while germanium is essential for fiber optics and infrared systems. Antimony, meanwhile, is used in battery technologies and military armor plating. China’s dominance in these markets is staggering: it accounts for 94% of global gallium production and 83% of global germanium output, according to a 2024 EU report. For antimony, China, along with Russia and Tajikistan, controls 90% of global production, and nearly half of all mined antimony comes from Chinese operations. Mining.com.au notes that China also controls roughly 99% of refined gallium production and more than 59% of refined germanium output.
The U.S., by contrast, has no primary antimony mine production and negligible domestic refining capacity for gallium and germanium. These gaps have turned the minerals into strategic vulnerabilities for Western countries, especially as they play critical roles in defense systems ranging from night vision goggles to nuclear weapons and naval warships. As Mining.com.au observes, “America’s defence systems are deeply reliant on critical minerals, and China’s grip on exports, technology, and production is exacerbating supply chain disruption.”
The recent decision to suspend the export ban was accompanied by other de-escalation measures. On November 10, 2025, Beijing extended the suspension of additional tariffs on U.S. goods for one year and halted extra duties on soybeans and other American agricultural imports—a move that carries political significance for President Trump’s base. These steps, according to Nova News, are “seen as a step towards improving economic relations between China and the US.”
Yet, for all the diplomatic fanfare, the strategic chess match continues. The Ministry of Commerce’s spokesperson emphasized the spirit of cooperation achieved in the recent talks but also noted, “the outcomes are hard won, China looks forward to working with the US side to jointly ensure the implementation of the consensus, and inject more certainty and stability into bilateral economic and trade cooperation as well as the global economy.” Still, as Mining.com.au points out, “the silence underneath is louder.” The suspension is widely viewed by analysts as a temporary gesture of goodwill, not a full policy reversal.
For the U.S. defense sector, the partial rollback offers little comfort. The ban on exports of dual-use items linked to U.S. defense programs remains in place, and the licensing requirements give Beijing a powerful lever to control supply. “Civilian cooperation has limits, and strategic dominance and control remains policy,” Mining.com.au concludes.
Meanwhile, the scramble to reduce reliance on Chinese minerals is intensifying. The U.S. government has ramped up efforts to secure domestic and allied sources of critical minerals through legislation such as the Defense Production Act and the CHIPS and Science Act. New mining projects in Alaska and California are aiming to produce military-grade antimony concentrate. Felix Gold’s Treasure Creek Antimony Project in Alaska and Locksley Resources’ Mojave Project in California have both reported promising results, with high-grade, low-impurity stibnite mineralization that meets or exceeds military specifications.
Felix Gold’s Executive Director Joseph Webb, who recently relocated to the U.S., told Mining.com.au that China’s latest move “underscores the urgency for America to secure its own supply chains.” He added that while the decision has been widely reported as a diplomatic breakthrough, “it falls well short of reopening strategic supply channels.” Locksley Resources, for its part, says its high-grade concentrate “holds the potential to deliver feedstock superior to current market supply streams and prospects.”
Still, building out alternative supply chains is a slow process. The U.S. Geological Survey reports that new mining and refining capacity will take years to scale. For now, American industries remain exposed to China’s export controls, and any escalation in trade or geopolitical tensions could quickly reignite shortages and price spikes—antimony prices, for example, soared to $60,000 per tonne during the 2025 ban.
Looking ahead, both sides are expected to continue negotiations on critical minerals and chip export rules, balancing economic interdependence with national security imperatives. Exporters and global markets will be watching closely as licensing procedures and compliance checks remain a potent tool in China’s economic statecraft. As Reuters notes, “analysts expect continued negotiations between Washington and Beijing on critical minerals and chip export rules, as both sides balance economic interdependence with national security concerns.”
For now, China’s minerals move hints at diplomacy but reeks of strategy. The critical minerals arms race is very much on, and the question of who will ultimately win remains as open—and urgent—as ever.
