Project Vault is a bold, $12 billion push to build a federal stockpile of rare earths and critical minerals so the United States can stop relying on foreign suppliers for the inputs that power jets, EVs, semiconductors and other vital tech. Backed by private seed money and a loan from the Export-Import Bank, the plan aims to mirror the Strategic Petroleum Reserve idea for the mineral era. Industry leaders say the move could blunt China’s chokehold on global supply chains and protect American manufacturing and defense. The stakes are simple: supply security, industrial strength and national defense.
The proposal comes as the U.S. faces stark import dependency, with the country at least 93% reliant on imports for rare earths and graphite as of 2024. That level of dependence makes critical supply lines vulnerable to geopolitical pressure and deliberate cut-offs. From a Republican perspective, building resilience at home is common-sense national security and economic policy — we should be making what we need and keeping strategic materials under American control. Project Vault is pitched as the tool to get that job done.
Executives from Graphite One say their Alaska asset could play a major role in shoring up supplies. They call Graphite Creek “truly generational,” pointing to its scale and the fact that Alaska holds known resources of almost all the critical minerals on the government list. The comparison to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is intentional; the point is to preempt crisis by storing a buffer of essentials. When you depend on rivals for foundational materials, you’re asking for trouble.
Graphite One’s advisor Dan McGroarty laid that out bluntly: “The Chinese are willing to weaponize access to … semiconductor materials like gallium and uranium,” he said, arguing China can and does treat supply as leverage. That kind of leverage is exactly what Project Vault is designed to blunt by creating domestic capacity and reserves. It’s not about hostility for its own sake but about removing the ability of adversaries to harm American industry and defense with supply controls.
President Trump framed the plan in starkly practical terms, declaring “Project Vault [will] ensure that American businesses and workers are never harmed by any shortage” in his announcement. That language signals a clear Republican priority: protect American jobs, factories and military readiness by reducing strategic dependence. A loan from the Export-Import Bank combined with private seed money shows a public-private approach tailored to move quickly and at scale.
Beyond big-picture economics, Project Vault has an underappreciated security angle tied to unstable extraction regions abroad. Graphite One’s leadership pointed out that some African deposits sit in areas where extremist groups have operated, and developing domestic sources helps cut off funding and influence tied to violence. Turning supply chains inward weakens bad actors’ revenue streams and reduces incentives for destabilizing deals with hostile states. This is the kind of hard-headed national security thinking Americans expect from their leaders.
McGroarty also referenced the Cold War-era concept of “dual-use technologies” to highlight the modern complexity of critical minerals, saying industries will have to balance dozens of metals, compounds and composites, not just oil. The implication is clear: strategic planning for minerals must be as detailed and deliberate as past plans for fuel and munitions. Project Vault aims to be that deliberate plan for the 21st century, matching supply policy to the realities of a tech-driven economy.
Industry leaders point to history for perspective. Graphite Creek, which supplied materials during World War II, is being reimagined for today’s high-tech needs — a shift from pencils and steel to battery anodes and advanced electronics. That shift changes what national security looks like, and it demands policy to match. If the U.S. hopes to remain a manufacturing and defense leader, it has to secure the geology beneath the supply chain.
Geopolitics plays into the Arctic and Greenland conversations as well, with experts noting how northern access shapes strategic posture. “See what nations have a presence in the Arctic, you’ll see the importance of Greenland; you’ll also see that the U.S. is an Arctic nation only because of Alaska,” one analyst observed, underscoring how geography and resources intersect. If rival powers cement economic ties in those regions, American access and influence could erode rapidly, so onshoring minerals is part of a broader strategic posture.
Not everybody is convinced, and some foreign analysts were dismissive of Project Vault as a long-term fix. One China-based analyst said the plan “functions more as a short-term buffer than a fundamental solution,” reflecting skepticism from Beijing on the project’s ability to overturn entrenched market realities. Still, from a Republican vantage point the project is about hardening U.S. resilience now rather than hoping competitors change their behavior later.
The bottom line is straightforward: supply security matters and Project Vault aims to provide it by pairing federal backing with private development. Supporters see this as a practical, patriotic step to keep American industry, innovation and defense systems running no matter how the global chessboard shifts. If Washington wants to stop being held hostage by foreign suppliers, this is exactly the kind of policy that needs to be pursued.
Darnell Thompkins is a Canadian-born American and conservative opinion writer who brings a unique perspective to political and cultural discussions. Passionate about traditional values and individual freedoms, Darnell’s commentary reflects his commitment to fostering meaningful dialogue. When he’s not writing, he enjoys watching hockey and celebrating the sport that connects his Canadian roots with his American journey.