It has been a head-spinning 48 hours in Washington. Liberal TV host Rachel Maddow showed up at the funeral of conservative vice-president Dick Cheney. Donald Trump embraced Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist set to be the first Muslim mayor of New York, like a brother.

And then Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Trump acolyte-turned-nemesis who bested him over the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, stunned the political establishment again. In what should have been her hour of triumph, the Maga star abruptly announced that she was quitting the House of Representatives.

Everyone seemed surprised but one man was very happy. “I think it’s great news for the country,” Trump told ABC News. “It’s great.”

It was also great news for a president having the worst month of his second term. Trump’s approval rating is in freefall. Democrats romped to victory in elections. Unthinkably, even the Republican party is finding a spine, defying him on the Epstein files, Senate filibuster and congressional redistricting in Indiana.

They know that every day takes Trump a little further away from his epic comeback victory in 2024 and a little closer to the status of a lame duck. Watching the limelight and cameras shift from the Oval Office to his would-be successors may be too much for him to bear.

But Greene’s departure shows all that may be wishful thinking for now. In one timeline, she could have used the Epstein win as the foundation of an anti-Trump resistance in the Republican ranks. The party has spent the past decade demonstrating that cowardice is contagious; perhaps the courage to reassert congressional autonomy would be too.

It was not to be. Instead Greene follows the likes of fellow dissenters Liz Cheney, Bob Corker, Jeff Flake and Adam Kinzinger in heading for the exit. Trump has presided over the homogenisation of the Republican party: you are loyal to him or you are out. He drives out opposition with the fear and intimidation tactics of a mob boss.

Trump’s backing can make all the difference in Republican primary contests that select which candidate will run for Congress. He endorsed a challenger to Cheney in Wyoming and she was duly unseated. Weary of Greene’s independent streak, he called her “wacky”, accused her of going “far left” and pledged to endorse a primary challenger “if the right person runs”.

Greene could have fought a primary in her Georgia district and maybe won. But it would have taken place in a poisonous and violent political climate. She says the insults from Trump have already led to unwanted pizza deliveries, hoax emergency calls and death threats. He has given his antagonists too many reasons not to run.

Explaining her decision, Greene said: “I have too much self-respect and dignity, love my family way too much, and do not want my sweet district to have to endure a hurtful and hateful primary against me by the president we all fought for, only to fight and win my election while Republicans will likely lose the midterms. I refuse to be a battered wife hoping it all goes away and gets better.”

The image of a “battered wife” is one that will linger, especially in light of Trump’s recent misogynistic outbursts and those who defend them.

Greene, 51, did not indicate in her resignation speech what she will do next. Her sudden break from Trump prompted speculation that she is lining up her own presidential bid in 2028, although she has dismissed that “baseless gossip”.

Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin told the Axios news site on Friday: “I wouldn’t be surprised if MTG runs for president as a rightwing independent in 2028.”

Kinzinger said on the Bulwark podcast: “I’ll give her a little credit, which is she could see the tea leaves, which is like, Trump is going away, if I want to run for president or governor or whatever – I can be the former crazy that now is normal. It’s not a bad tactic to be honest with you because you’ll maintain credit with the crazies.”

When it comes to crazy, Greene used to be most famous for endorsing the death penalty against her opponents, heckling Joe Biden’s State of the Union address and theorising that a wildfire was caused by a space laser controlled by a Jewish banking family. She argued in 2019 that Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, both Muslim women, were not “official” members of Congress because they used Qur’ans rather than Bibles in their swearing-in ceremonies.

But last week she hinted at a conversion on the road to Damascus. Greene told CNN she was “sorry for taking part in the toxic politics” of recent years, acknowledging that “it’s very bad for our country”. Does this mean she will now stand for civility, tolerance and building bridges? If so, the tragedy is she will be anywhere but Washington.

With names like neodymium and dysprosium, rare-earth elements sound exotic — and their perceived scarcity has only added to the mystique.

In reality, rare earths aren’t that rare, but just difficult to extract and refine. Yet they’ve become indispensable to modern life, embedded in everything from our smartphones and electric-vehicle motors to wind turbines and medical imaging machines.

And demand is climbing.

The real choke point is processing and refining — a complex and environmentally sensitive step that the U.S. has lagged behind in and that China now dominates, controlling nearly 90% of global output.

The need for high-torque, compact EV motors — which use rare-earth magnets that are three to four times stronger than conventional magnets — is helping drive demand. Production of these motors is soaring by roughly a third each year. Military aircraft also rely heavily on these elements; one RAND estimate suggests an F-35 contains over 900 pounds of rare-earth materials in its engines and electronics.

Taking a private-public approach

To reduce reliance on foreign supply, the White House is pursuing U.S. self-sufficiency in rare-earth production. The federal government under President Trump has supported the sector in ways that depart from traditional free-market principles. Rather than relying solely on private industry, the federal government has followed a strategy similar to China’s, providing hundreds of millions in loans and even taking stakes in key mines and startups.

Indiana-based ReElement Technologies is among the beneficiaries of this government backing. Earlier this month, the Trump administration announced a partnership between the Pentagon, via its Office of Strategic Capital (OSC), ReElement and Vulcan Elements, a North Carolina based firm that produces rare-earth magnets for military applications.

ReElement says it has developed a more efficient, environmentally friendly method of rare-earth processing and recycling that involves chromatography. The company operates a commercialization facility in Noblesville, Ind., with a larger production site in Marion, Ind., slated to come online next year.

Stacks separate rare earths at ReElement’s Noblesville, Ind., plant.

ReElement Technologies Corp.

hide caption

toggle caption

ReElement Technologies Corp.

Advertisement

ReElement Technologies CEO Mark Jensen says confidently that by the end of 2026, “we’ll be the largest producer of rare earth oxides in the United States.”

Because China’s dominance in refining is so great, the U.S. benchmark for success is modest, according to Bert Donnes, a research analyst at investment banking firm William Blair.

ReElement, in partnership with Vulcan Elements, aims in the next few years to produce 10,000 metric tons of neodymium-iron-boron magnets used not only in EVs, but also wind-turbine generators, hard-disk drives and MRI machines. Even that ambitious target is a fraction of the approximately 230,000 tons produced globally in 2024, according to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, or IEEE.

“I would say if you see those numbers, you think this is going to be a massive facility,” says Donnes of ReElement’s current operation. “It isn’t.”

Compared to a traditional processing facility, ReElement’s operation is compact, he says, helping avoid any “not-in-my-backyard” (NIMBY) backlash. “So it’s not like people are scared of this process. Maybe they don’t know about it as much because you can keep the process so small,” he says.

How the U.S. lost its lead

Starting in the 1980s, China began surging ahead of the U.S. and the rest of the world in rare earth production. Around the same time, environmental concerns mounted at the only major U.S. rare earth mine, Mountain Pass in California, where spills of radioactive and toxic wastewater — byproducts of refining — raised alarms.

Mountain Pass is an open-cut mine where they “drill and blast, blend their types and locations in the pit” before grinding the solid materials into smaller particles, according to Kelton Smith, a lead process engineer for mining at Tetra Tech, a global consulting and engineering services firm. A flotation process then concentrates the rare earths that are in turn leached with hydrochloric acid.

The California mine had to halt production multiple times over the years due to environmental concerns. During that time, it changed ownership and ultimately filed for bankruptcy protection before being acquired by MP Materials in 2017, which reopened the mine.

The troubles at Mountain Pass helped China to gain a foothold and eventually overtake the U.S. in rare earths — just as demand for them was rising. Beijing now produces about 60% of the world’s supply of these substances, according to the International Energy Agency. China also holds a substantial amount of the world’s proven reserves of the ores that contain these elements — roughly 34%, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, but several other countries — including the U.S. — have substantial reserves as well.

Trump’s trade war with China has made the squeeze in rare earths even more acute. Because the U.S. lacks the ability to process rare earths on a large scale, MP Materials has had to send its ore from Mountain Pass to China for refining. But no more. Instead, the company is having to ramp up its limited capability to process the ore on-site.

Further complicating the issue are expanded export controls that Beijing announced last month that require foreign companies to obtain a license in order to sell products overseas that contain Chinese-sourced rare earths.

Aaron Mintzes is deputy policy director and counsel at Earthworks, a national group focused on preventing the adverse impacts of mineral and energy development. “What we’re urging … is to do that processing in ways that reduce energy and water intensity and toxicity,” he says.

Brent Elliott, a research associate professor of geology at the University of Texas, estimates the U.S. has sufficient resources to meet demand. “It’s about the extraction potential and the logistics of getting it out of the ground in a way that is environmentally sensitive but also socially responsible,” he says.

Partly because it is environmentally messy, with toxic byproducts, Beijing has gained an advantage by ignoring those consequences. “China can do it faster and better because they don’t have the environmental concerns that we have,” Elliott says.

Many experts agree that the U.S. has enough reserves but lacks the processing capability to go along with it. Simon Jowitt, a geologist and the director of the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, says there are a number of rare earth deposits in the U.S. that have potential, but it’s rarely a straightforward proposition.

“You need a source of the rare earths, some way of transporting the rare earths, some way of concentrating the rare earths, and some way of putting those rare earths into a form that they can then be extracted,” Jowitt says. “If you don’t have one of those, then you end up with something that isn’t a mineral deposit and you’ll never get anything out of it.”

Last year, China decreed new regulations for rare earth processing that include strict environmental and safety regulations, but it remains to be seen how stringent enforcement will be.

Meanwhile, it not only processes its own ore, but it imports raw ore from places like Southeast Asia and Africa. It’s part of a broader strategy by China to set itself up as a global hub for rare earths, according to Gracelin Baskaran, director of the Critical Minerals Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“They put a lot of state resources behind building processing capabilities, such that the minerals come from different places and then they get sent to China for refining,” Baskaran says. “What China has been extraordinarily good at is connecting their foreign policy to secure rare earths from around the world.”

A new process and federal investments

Refining is where ReElement comes in. The company uses large columns in a specialized filtration process developed at Purdue University to extract and purify valuable metals from raw ore, but also recycled rare earths from old magnets. The process is more efficient and less environmentally damaging than older methods, such as those used by China.

Jensen, the ReElement CEO, says that method, known as solvent extraction, is “ecologically challenging” and difficult to scale. “It’s a dead technology,” he says, adding that his company’s ultimate goal isn’t necessarily to achieve U.S. dominance, but to produce enough rare earths domestically to break China’s monopoly.

The One Big Beautiful Bill passed in July appropriated $7.5 billion toward securing critical minerals. Days later, the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital announced a $400 million investment  in MP Materials, making the U.S. government the company’s largest shareholder. The Pentagon agency plans further investments in “[c]ritical components, raw materials, and rare earth elements utilized in microelectronic manufacturing.”

As part of the deal with ReElement, Vulcan Elements will get a $620 million loan from the Pentagon’s OSC with an additional $50 million provided by the Department of Commerce under the CHIPS and Science Act signed by former President Joe Biden. ReElement Technologies will receive an $80 million loan to support the expansion of its recycling and processing operations.

“I think we’re making big strides now because of all the grants and all the critical-mineral-focused grants coming out,” says Elliott, the University of Texas geology professor. “I think it really can set us up for success.”

President Donald Trump has yet again suggested that his political opponents deserve to be executed. And yet again, he’s basing this argument on a rather novel legal theory and a dubious interpretation of the facts.

A half-dozen congressional Democrats cut a video this week urging members of the military not to obey unlawful orders that Trump might issue. Trump then responded by issuing a series of social media posts suggesting these members had committed sedition and possibly even deserved to die.

Trump went from saying they should be arrested, to re-posting someone who said George Washington would “HANG THEM,” to saying “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt clarified Thursday that Trump does not, in fact, want members of Congress put to death.

But she otherwise stood by the idea that these members were acting dangerously and undermining the commander in chief. She said the members were urging members of the military to “defy the chain of command.”

“They are literally saying to 1.3 million active-duty servicemembers to defy the chain of command – not to follow lawful orders,” Leavitt said.

But that is not what they were literally saying.

In fact, the members were not urging anyone to disobey “lawful orders.” They explicitly referred in the video only to unlawful orders – and repeatedly so.

The other problem is that “defying the chain of command” isn’t just something military servicemembers are allowed to do in such cases; it’s something they’re often required to do.

The section of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice dealing with failing to obey orders states that members can only be sanctioned for disobeying lawful orders. And servicemembers are generally obligated to not follow orders that are “manifestly unlawful.”

If there’s a potentially more legitimate objection to Democrats’ video, it’s that they’re erecting a straw man – basically that they’re inventing out of whole cloth the prospect of Trump issuing illegal orders, in order to make military servicemembers hesitant to abide his orders.

This is the argument that some of Trump’s allies have gone for on Fox News.

“If you can’t name the unlawful orders that these guys are bringing up in their video, you know, that just shows me that you don’t have the courage to even call out what you’re talking about,” Republican Rep. Eli Crane of Arizona said.

Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum in a separate segment pressed Democratic Rep. Jason Crow, one of the lawmakers in the video, repeatedly on the same subject.

“What specific order from the commander in chief that we are asking our military to carry out are you objecting to?” MacCallum said. “This is very, very vague.”

But it’s not as if this is a prospect Democrats have invented out of whole cloth. Trump has given them plenty to work with, including some things Crow mentioned in the interview.

Trump has repeatedly proposed doing things – with the military and otherwise – that appear to be illegal. People who served with him have said he suggested illegal action. And Trump is certainly testing the bounds of the law with his use of the military even as we speak.

The big example right now is Trump’s strikes on alleged drug vessels in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean – strikes that have killed more than 80 people without a legal process.

CNN has reported that both the United Nations and top allies like the United Kingdom regard the strikes as illegal extrajudicial killings. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has echoed those claims, while other GOP senators have questioned their legality as well. The administration has also declined to publicly detail its legal justification, even as the Justice Department has produced a classified legal opinion authorizing the strikes. It has released survivors of the strikes who, if they had been kept in US custody, could have forced it to defend itself in court. Also, a top commander who CNN has reported raised questions about the legality of the strikes is now retiring early.

There is a very real question about whether the servicemembers involved in those strikes are carrying out illegal orders. And the administration has proactively avoided a more robust legal process that could settle that question.

But that’s hardly all. Here are some other key data points:

It’s certainly provocative for Democrats to raise this issue like they have. But it’s not as if they’ve conjured it out of thin air.