Connect with us

News

China raises state funding for strategic minerals amid US trade war

Published

on

China raises state funding for strategic minerals amid US trade war

Stay informed with free updates

China is boosting state support for domestic minerals exploration as policymakers increase efforts to achieve President Xi Jinping’s ambition for resource self-sufficiency amid intensifying competition with the US.

Over the past year, at least half of China’s 34 provincial-level governments, including those of top resource-producing regions such as Xinjiang, have announced increased subsidies or expanded access for mineral exploration, according to a Financial Times analysis of official announcements.

The funding boost comes as control over the world’s strategic minerals has emerged as a flashpoint between the US and China, as the superpowers compete over the resources needed for advanced technologies such as semiconductors, electric vehicles, robotics and missiles.

Advertisement

“A series of major breakthroughs in mineral exploration have been achieved, significantly enhancing the ability to ensure the safety of important industrial chains and supply chains and to respond to external environmental uncertainties,” Xiong Zili, director of the natural resources ministry’s department of geological exploration and management, told reporters this year.

He added that the new mineral exploration plan was closely focused on boosting domestic energy resources and “strategic” minerals

China is the world’s biggest producer of 30 of 44 critical minerals tracked by the US Geological Survey. 

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

In an effort to loosen Beijing’s dominance over the sector, US President Donald Trump has prioritised domestic mining since his return to the White House in January, as well as access to critical minerals abroad, including in Greenland, Ukraine and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Advertisement

Xi has focused on China’s self-reliance in science and technology since becoming leader of the ruling Chinese Communist party in 2012.

That drive has become more imperative amid escalating tensions with the US, and Xi has turned to shoring up supply chains and prioritising advanced manufacturing and emerging high tech.

Beijing’s mineral supply chains are a critical point of geopolitical leverage in its trade and tech war with the US. The government has devoted more than Rmb100bn ($13.8bn) to investment in geological exploration annually since 2022, the highest three-year period in a decade.

China has also in the past year tightened control over exports of strategic minerals, many of which are crucial to chip manufacturing, including gallium, germanium, antimony, graphite and tungsten, in response to US curbs on tech exports to China.

Cory Combs, associate director of Beijing-based consultancy Trivium China, said China provided subsidies, tax incentives and other kinds of support for the domestic mining sector “regardless” of commodities market cycles.

Advertisement

“In a strict market sense, it is wasteful. But in a political and economic security sense, it is not wasteful at all, it is worth the cost,” Combs said. “In Beijing’s view money is not the sole point.”

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

Xinjiang — the research-rich but poor western region where Beijing has repressed Uyghur and other Muslim minorities — increased support for geological exploration to Rmb650mn in 2025, from Rmb150mn in 2023. It has also sharply stepped up issuance of mining exploration rights to record levels.

The National Development and Reform Commission, which has oversight over resources, did not respond to questions.

China has also made long-standing efforts to lock up control of critical resources overseas. The FT reported in January that China had over the course of two decades issued $57bn in loans via at least 26 state-backed financial institutions for mining and processing copper, cobalt, nickel, lithium and rare earths across the developing world.

Under Xi, Beijing has also enacted policies aimed at protecting strategic resources. These included a move in 2021 to block foreign companies from investing, even indirectly, in mining tungsten, rare earths and uranium. It also required approval from the state council, China’s cabinet, for any foreigner to enter a rare earth mining area.

Advertisement

Last year, a committee of the National People’s Congress, China’s rubber stamp parliament, established a legal mechanism to make it easier for companies to exploit farmland for mineral resource exploration and obtain mining rights.

Additional reporting by and Wenjie Ding in Beijing. Data visualisation by Haohsiang Ko

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

‘Should I Fire Him?’ Inside Trump’s Deliberations Over the Fate of Michael Waltz

Published

on

‘Should I Fire Him?’ Inside Trump’s Deliberations Over the Fate of Michael Waltz

For much of this week, President Trump was consumed by a single question. What should he do about his national security adviser, Michael Waltz?

“Should I fire him?” he asked aides and allies as the fallout continued over the stunning leak of a Signal group chat set up by Mr. Waltz, who had inadvertently added a journalist to the thread about an upcoming military strike in Yemen.

In public, Mr. Trump’s default position has been to defend Mr. Waltz and attack the media. On Tuesday, the day after Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic broke the story about being included in the chat, the president said Mr. Waltz was a “good man” who had nothing to apologize for.

But behind the scenes, Mr. Trump has been asking people inside and outside the administration what they thought he should do.

He told allies that he was unhappy with the press coverage but that he did not want to be seen as caving to a media swarm, according to several people briefed on his comments. And he said he was reluctant to fire people in the senior ranks so early in his second term.

Advertisement

But for Mr. Trump, the real problem did not appear to be his national security adviser’s carelessness about discussing military plans on a commercial app, the people said. It was that Mr. Waltz may have had some kind of connection to Mr. Goldberg, a Washington journalist whom Mr. Trump loathes. The president expressed displeasure about how Mr. Waltz had Mr. Goldberg’s number in his phone.

On Wednesday evening, Mr. Trump met with Vice President JD Vance; the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles; the White House personnel chief, Sergio Gor; his Mideast envoy, Steve Witkoff, and others about whether to stick with Mr. Waltz.

Late Thursday, as the controversy swirled, Mr. Trump summoned Mr. Waltz to the Oval Office. By the next morning, the president signaled to people around him that he was willing to stick with Mr. Waltz, three people with knowledge of the president’s thinking said.

People close to Mr. Trump say Mr. Waltz has been able to hang on in part because some in the administration still support him, and because Mr. Trump has wanted to avoid comparisons to the chaotic staffing of his first term, which had the highest turnover of top aides of any presidential administration in modern history.

And while Mr. Trump can always change his mind, the episode shows Mr. Trump’s willingness to disregard external pressures in his second term, while also grappling with the limits of the loyalty tests he imposed for staff across the administration.

Advertisement

Even before the Signal leak, Mr. Waltz was on shaky footing, viewed as too hawkish by some of the president’s advisers and too eager to advocate for military action against Iran when the president himself has made clear he prefers to make a deal.

An association with Mr. Goldberg, however hazy, gave Mr. Waltz’s opponents more fuel to feed the skepticism.

Some of Mr. Trump closest allies have questioned whether Mr. Waltz, a former George W. Bush administration official, was compatible with the president’s foreign policy. Mr. Waltz had gotten crosswise with Mr. Vance and Ms. Wiles in policy discussions, particularly regarding Iran, according to several people briefed on the matter.

In a statement, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said Mr. Trump has a team whose members debate each other but know that he is the “ultimate decision maker.” “When he makes a decision, everyone rows in the same direction to execute,” she added.

Weeks ago, a discussion arose among some aides about whether Mr. Waltz was ideologically aligned with the president. Mr. Trump, who has at times been effusive in private about Mr. Waltz, made clear he did not want to start the cycle of dismissals so early in his second administration, according to two people briefed on the conversation. Mr. Trump, who regretted pushing out his first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, after less than a month in 2017, believed it would feed a narrative that he engenders chaos.

Advertisement

After the Signal thread leaked, someone shared on X a snippet of a 2016 video of Mr. Waltz, produced by a group primarily funded by the billionaire Koch brothers. Speaking as a military veteran, Mr. Waltz looked directly into the camera as he condemned Mr. Trump as a draft-dodger and said, “Stop Trump now.” That snippet drew attention from Mr. Waltz’s critics.

By contrast, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s job appears to be safe, even though he shared detailed information about strike times for the attack on Houthi militants in Yemen in the Signal thread. MAGA stalwarts like Charlie Kirk have defended him online.

Mr. Hegseth “had nothing to do with this,” the president said on Wednesday.

Mr. Hegseth survived a bruising confirmation process in the Senate after being pushed through with help from Mr. Vance, and he has a solid relationship with Mr. Trump.

While Mr. Waltz may keep his job, the controversy has reminded Mr. Trump’s aides that the president’s strategy of crisis management — doubling down and denying, no matter how problematic the facts are — does not seem to work as well for them as it has over the years for Mr. Trump.

Advertisement

When the Atlantic story broke, Mr. Waltz denied meeting, knowing or communicating with Mr. Goldberg. But that claim was quickly called into question by photos that surfaced from a 2021 event at the French Embassy in Washington, where Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Waltz were pictured standing next to one another. Mr. Waltz’s allies dismissed the idea that the photo suggested the two men knew each other.

But the reality is that while Mr. Trump has demanded loyalty from his staff, some top officials are longtime Washington hands who have relationships, past experiences and contacts with people whom Mr. Trump despises.

“I would say the principle of getting a bunch of yes men and yes women around him is the guiding principle, a foundation of which is not having, or renouncing, any past that may be proof to the contrary,” said John R. Bolton, who worked as Mr. Trump’s third of four national security advisers and then wrote a revealing book about his time in the White House.

“Anybody who’s been around Washington 10 years, 15 years, has all kinds of backgrounds,” Mr. Bolton said.

In Greenland on Friday, Mr. Vance, who was traveling with Mr. Waltz on a visit to try to apply pressure for the United States to take over the territory, made clear that Mr. Waltz was at fault for adding Mr. Goldberg to the Signal thread.

Advertisement

But Mr. Vance, who was also in the group chat and has defended Mr. Waltz internally in the past, made a point of doing so again. It was a sign that Mr. Trump was ready to move on, for now.

“If you think you’re going to force the president of the United States to fire anybody, you’ve got another think coming,” he said. “President Trump has said it on Monday, on Tuesday, on Wednesday, on Thursday, and I’m the vice president saying it here on Friday, we are standing behind our entire national security team.”

Continue Reading

News

Glass Lewis criticises Goldman’s ‘egregious’ executive bonuses

Published

on

Glass Lewis criticises Goldman’s ‘egregious’ executive bonuses

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Goldman Sachs’ bonuses to chief executive David Solomon and president John Waldron worth $80mn apiece “raise significant concerns” and should be rejected by the bank’s shareholders, advisory firm Glass Lewis has recommended.

In a report published late on Friday, the proxy adviser said the duo’s awards, which the bank announced in January, were “further exacerbated by their structure, with the grants deviating from the company’s historical use of performance-based equity awards”.

The bonuses will be paid entirely in stock and are not tied to performance conditions, the firm said.

Advertisement

While “media headlines” depicted a “high level of poaching” experienced at the bank, shareholders had received mostly “boilerplate language” about the need for the pay, Glass Lewis said.

“The absence of any disclosure surrounding these elements of such a substantial award is egregious and, on that basis alone, would warrant a vote against this proposal this year,” it said in the report.

Goldman granted the five-year retention bonuses to ensure that their top two executives remained at the bank. The award for Waldron cemented the popular view among Wall Street observers that he is Solomon’s most likely eventual successor. 

The bonuses are separate to the annual compensation for Solomon and Waldron, which last year totalled $39mn and $38mn respectively. They also dwarfed recent awards paid to the chief executives of rivals JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley.

Inside Goldman, there have been concerns for weeks that investors would reject the so-called say on pay vote at the investment bank’s annual general meeting on April 23 in Dallas, according to people familiar with the matter. 

Advertisement

Goldman, whose top investors include Vanguard, BlackRock and State Street, said in a statement: “Competition for our talent is fierce. The board took action to retain our current leadership team, to sustain our firm’s momentum and maintain a strong succession plan. A 100 per cent stock based grant is fully aligned with long-term shareholder value creation.”

The advisory vote, adopted as part of the Dodd-Frank financial regulation reforms, is nonbinding. But if shareholders voted no, it would represent a public rebuke for the bank. 

At US banks, it is rare for investors to vote against compensation plans; in recent years, only JPMorgan Chase has faced such a rebellion. Shareholders were frustrated by a special award projected to be worth about $50mn for chief executive Jamie Dimon in 2022. JPMorgan subsequently said it would not give Dimon special awards in the future. 

At Goldman Sachs, shareholder support for its executive pay awards dipped to 86 per cent in 2024, from 94 per cent the year before.

Glass Lewis also warned shareholders about the new carried interest pay plan for executives. The complexity of the plan makes it harder for shareholders to assess pay arrangements before bonuses are paid out, the firm said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Greenland: JD Vance takes ominous message to Danish territory

Published

on

Greenland: JD Vance takes ominous message to Danish territory
Andrew Harding
Reporting fromNuuk, Greenland
Reuters JD Vance and his wife Usha in thick coats against a snowy backdropReuters

A cultural tour of Greenland by JD Vance’s wife Usha has been cancelled

A green shimmer, like a curtain of light being drawn across the night sky, formed beside the impossibly bright stars above Nuuk late on Friday evening.

The appearance of the spectacular northern lights – a common wonder in these parts – seemed to mark the end of a hugely significant day in the arctic, one that brought icebound Greenland’s hopes and challenges into the sharpest relief.

It was a day in which an acquisitive foreign power had sent an uninvited delegation to the world’s largest island with an uncomfortable message.

On a brief visit to a remote US military base in the far north of Greenland, US Vice-President JD Vance may have tried at times to soften his boss’s stated aim of simply annexing the autonomous Danish territory.

Advertisement

“We do not think that military force is ever going to be necessary,” Vance said, perhaps attempting to sound reassuring.

But the vice-president’s overarching message remained stark and intimidating: the world, the climate, and the Arctic region are changing fast, and Greenland needs to wake up to threats posed by an expansionist China; long-standing Western security partnerships have run their course; the only way the island can protect itself, its values and its mineral wealth is by abandoning weak and miserly Danish overlords and turning instead to the muscular and protective embrace of the US.

“We need to wake up from a failed, 40-year consensus that said that we could ignore the encroachment of powerful countries as they expand their ambitions.

“We can’t just bury our head in the sand – or, in Greenland, bury our head in the snow and pretend that the Chinese are not interested in this very large landmass,” Vance told US troops at the Pituffik base.

If you look at a map of the world that has the north pole at its centre, rather than the equator, it is easy to see how Greenland suddenly switches from being a bland, easily overlooked smudge of uninhabited territory and into a key strategic landmass at the heart of what many analysts now accept as an emerging power struggle between China, the US, and Russia, for control of the arctic, its minerals and its shipping lanes.

Advertisement

But the speed and contempt with which the Trump White House has rejected its traditional reliance on Western allies – Nato in particular – has left its partners bewildered.

“Not justifiable,” was the bristling response of Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen after hearing Vance attack her government as he stood on its sovereign territory.

‘Like a threat’

But 1,500km (930 miles) south of America’s Pituffik base, in Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, the American story vied for attention with a very different local event on Friday.

“We will prevail,” a smiling crowd sang, at a ceremony to celebrate the formation of a new coalition government for Greenland.

Advertisement

The mood felt mostly joyful and communal, with people locking arms and swaying gently as a band played inside the town’s house of culture.

It was a powerful reminder of the shared values that bind Greenland’s tiny, and overwhelmingly native Inuit population together – the need for consensus and co-operation in an often hostile natural climate, the desire to protect and celebrate Inuit culture and the wish to be respected by outsiders, be they from familiar but distant Denmark or marginally closer America.

“There are many ways to say things. But I think the way [Trump] is saying it is not the way. It’s like a threat,” said Lisbeth Karline Poulsen, 43, a local artist attending the ceremony.

Her reaction appeared to capture the broader mood here – a recent poll showed just 6% of the population support the idea of being part of the US.

The journey to independence

Advertisement

Under its new government, and with overwhelming public support, Greenland is beginning a slow, very cautious move towards full independence from Denmark.

It’s a process that will likely take many years, and which will involve lengthy dialogue with both Copenhagen and with Washington.

After all, Greenlanders well understand that their economy needs to be far more developed if their bid for independence is to stand any realistic chance of success.

But they need to balance that development against realistic fears of exploitation by powerful outside commercial forces.

Which brings us to the fundamental confusion, in Greenland and beyond, about the Trump administration’s approach towards their territory.

Advertisement

What does America want?

On his visit, Vance mentioned Greenland’s aspirations for independence, and implied that America’s real intention was not a sudden annexation of the island, but something far more patient and long-term.

“Our message is very simple, yes, the people of Greenland are going to have self-determination. We hope that they choose to partner with the United States, because we’re the only nation on earth that will respect their sovereignty and respect their security.”

If that is genuinely the American pitch – Mr Trump’s messaging remains more aggressive than Mr Vance’s – then Greenlanders can surely relax a little and take their time.

There are still large reserves of goodwill towards the US here, and a keen interest in doing more business with American companies.

Advertisement

On the security front, a 74-year-old treaty with Denmark permitting the US to increase its military presence in Greenland at any time – from new bases to submarine harbours – should surely take care of Washington’s concerns about countering the threat from China, just as it did during the Cold War years.

What remains puzzling is Donald Trump’s impatience – the same impatience he’s displayed in attempting to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine.

Short of owning Greenland, America could get everything it desires and needs from this vast island without much difficulty. Instead, many people in Nuuk feel they’re being bullied.

It’s a deeply counterproductive approach, which has already forced Washington into one humiliating climbdown – cancelling a planned cultural tour by Vance’s wife, Usha, to Nuuk and another town in the face of planned local protests.

A slower, more respectful, behind-the-scenes sort of engagement would, surely, make more sense.

Advertisement

But that’s not to every politician’s taste.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending