News
Rare earths: Federal backing and tech advances aim to help the U.S. catch up to China
A rare earth minerals mine in China’s Jiangsu province, photographed in 2010.
/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
/AFP via Getty Images
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.
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.”
News
Map: 5.1-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes off the Coast of California
Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown. The New York Times
A moderately strong, 5.1-magnitude earthquake struck in the North Pacific Ocean on Wednesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The temblor happened at 5:45 a.m. Pacific time about 40 miles west of Petrolia, Calif., data from the agency shows.
As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.
Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.
Aftershocks detected
Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles
Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.
The New York Times
When quakes and aftershocks occurred
Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Wednesday, June 3 at 6:03 a.m. Pacific time. Aftershocks data is as of Wednesday, June 3 at 8:01 a.m. Pacific time.
News
California’s primary for governor is undecided as candidates vie to be in the top two
Xavier Becerra, Democratic gubernatorial candidate for California, and Steve Hilton, Republican gubernatorial candidate for California, shake hands while arriving for a gubernatorial debate at KRON Studios in San Francisco in April.
Jason Henry/Getty Images North America
hide caption
toggle caption
Jason Henry/Getty Images North America
SAN FRANCISCO — The primary election for California governor is too close to call, with vote counting continuing Wednesday. Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican business executive Steve Hilton lead the field with Democrat Tom Steyer in third place.
In California’s unusual primary system, all candidates, regardless of party, appear on a single ballot open to any registered voter. The top two candidates then move on to the general election, even if they’re from the same party. This year, voters had 60 names for governor to choose from.
The winner will lead the country’s most populous state, where leaders often take on national political prominence. Incumbent Gov. Gavin Newsom is at his two-term limit and could be a Democratic contender for president.
Becerra, former Health and Human Services secretary under President Joe Biden, pitched himself to voters as an experienced political leader who isn’t afraid of President Trump, but his lead caps one of the most surprising and dramatic comebacks in recent state political history. As recently as April, polls were showing Becerra — also a former member of Congress and California attorney general — languishing in single digits in a crowded field.
In his remarks at his watch party in Los Angeles, Becerra noted his underdog status.
“Here in Hollywood’s hometown, we love a good underdog success story,” he said, drawing parallels between his campaign and his immigrant parents’ success story in California. “Guess what? The underdog stayed in the fight. Like my parents, I never gave up. Never stopped putting one foot in front of the other. Never stopped believing in the beacon-like goodness of California. And thankfully, neither did you.”
Hilton is a former Fox News commentator who also served as a political adviser to former British Prime Minister David Cameron. He was endorsed by President Trump in April, helping him to pull ahead of Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, the other major Republican in the race. Hilton has campaigned on the idea that California needs change after 16 years under total Democratic control.
The race is narrowing down after a tumultuous campaign
At his watch party in Huntington Beach, the British-born candidate — who became an American citizen five years ago — said it was the “honor of his lifetime” to receive over 1 million votes so far.
“Change is coming to California and it’s long overdue,” Hilton said. “We’re not there yet, but it’s looking good. It looks very much as if Californians really will have the chance to vote for change in November and take our state in a new direction.”
Democratic billionaire activist Steyer spent more than $213 million of his own money to boost his candidacy and push a progressive, populist message. While he was trailing Becerra and Hilton on Tuesday night, he said at his watch party in San Francisco that he remains confident he can close the gap in the days ahead.
“Together, we’ve scared the hell out of the corporate interests used to getting their way,” Steyer said. “It might take some time to figure out where this is going. We’re going to wait until every ballot is counted. We’re gonna give democracy a time to work. And we know we finished really strong.”
The early results are not certain to hold, in part because of unusual voting patterns in this primary election: Ballot-tracking data heading into Tuesday evening showed that Republicans were more likely to vote early by mail, while Democratic voters in this deep-blue state held onto their mail-in ballots or chose to vote in person. That’s the reverse of recent elections, which saw more Democrats voting by mail and Republicans tending to vote in person on Election Day.
The uncertainty on election night capped a race that remained crowded and unsettled to the end. To some extent, the race was defined by who wasn’t running.
Some of the state’s most high-profile Democrats — former Vice President Kamala Harris, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla and California Attorney General Rob Bonta — all passed on a potential bid to succeed Newsom.
The race was disrupted in April when then-U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign for governor imploded amid allegations of sexual assault and harassment. Swalwell resigned from Congress shortly after the accusations surfaced and has denied assault allegations.
Swalwell had been gaining in polls and racking up high-profile endorsements, and his exit seemed to primarily benefit Becerra, who had been stuck in single digits in many polls. Ultimately, it quieted fears among Democrats who worried that the messy Democratic field could result in Bianco and Hilton winning the top spots in the June primary.
Marisa Lagos covers California politics at KQED and co-hosts the Political Breakdown show and podcast.
News
Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts
The U.S. Supreme Court
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.
The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.
The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.
The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.
Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.
But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.
What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.
Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.
This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.
The case, however, was not over.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”
So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.
The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”
The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”
Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.
-
Cleveland, OH2 minutes agoAll Future Cleveland Cavaliers Draft Picks in 2026, 2027 & Beyond
-
Austin, TX5 minutes agoHighly pathogenic virus found in herd of Texas dairy cows
-
Alabama10 minutes agoIs Tommy Tuberville an Alabama resident? GOP candidate challenges status
-
Alaska17 minutes agoUniversity of Alaska names U.S. Army commander as new UAF chancellor
-
Arizona20 minutes agoDiamondbacks Fans Can Now Vote for Arizona’s All-Stars
-
Arkansas25 minutes agoArkansas DFA Agents seize illegal products in Corning
-
California32 minutes agoCalifornia may take weeks to finalize primary results. ‘This is normal’
-
Colorado35 minutes agoColorado governor vetoes block on surveillance pricing as other states push for bans