← Insights July 20, 2026

Investing in Industrial and Mining Projects in the United States

China can strengthen cost competitiveness and production speed, while the United States can diversify market access, U.S.-dollar revenue, technology, and legal jurisdictions.

Opportunities, Risks, and a Comparative Analysis with China for Kyrgyzstan’s Strategic Companies

Executive Summary

The new presidential administration of Donald Trump, which took office in 2025, has redirected U.S. economic policy toward supporting domestic production, mineral security, and the construction of new manufacturing facilities within the United States. On March 31, 2025, a dedicated federal office was established to accelerate major investments and assist projects exceeding $1 billion in navigating federal agencies. During the same year, separate measures were adopted to expedite the permitting procedures for projects involving the extraction and processing of strategically important minerals. In 2025, foreign investors spent $232.2 billion to acquire, establish, and expand businesses in the United States, representing an increase of 49.5 percent compared with the previous year (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2026).

This policy raises a new strategic question for Kyrgyzstan’s major state-owned and strategically important mining companies: Should capital be invested in China’s lower-cost and well-established manufacturing supply chains, or should companies select more expensive U.S.-based projects that provide proximity to a major market, U.S.-dollar revenue, stronger legal protections, and advanced technology? This article does not provide a one-sided answer. Its principal conclusion is that the United States should not be viewed as a complete substitute for China. Rather, it can become a second strategic pillar that geographically diversifies Kyrgyzstan’s capital, income, technology, and international partnerships.

Principal recommendation: Kyrgyz companies should enter the U.S. market gradually—not by immediately acquiring a major mine, but through technology services, minority equity participation, processing operations, or a small manufacturing facility.

Keywords: United States, Kyrgyzstan, mining industry, manufacturing, strategic minerals, foreign investment, China, state-owned company, national security, technology transfer.

1. Framing the Issue

Kyrgyzstan’s state-owned mining companies have historically concentrated their operations on domestic mineral deposits, production facilities, and public responsibilities. This approach is understandable: these companies were established to manage national resources, generate government revenue, and preserve employment. However, as global mineral and industrial markets evolve, reliance exclusively on domestic assets increases a company’s exposure to commodity, political, technological, and currency risks.

Investment abroad is sometimes perceived in Kyrgyzstan as “moving national money out of the country.” Depending on the structure of the investment, this perception may be either justified or mistaken. If an overseas asset merely involves transferring funds into an uncertain project, the risk of capital loss is substantial. However, when the investment is accompanied by clearly calculated returns, access to technology and markets, managerial knowledge, and a contractual commitment to modernize enterprises in Kyrgyzstan, it should not be understood as the loss of national capital. It becomes an expansion of national capability.

The central question should therefore not be framed narrowly as: “Should Kyrgyzstan purchase a mine in the United States?”

The more appropriate question is:

In which U.S. industrial or mineral supply chain should a Kyrgyz strategic company participate, at what scale, with which partner and under what protective conditions to create long-term value for the country?

2. What Has Changed Under the New U.S. Industrial Policy?

The new presidential administration of Donald Trump, which took office on January 20, 2025, began connecting trade and industrial policy to the objectives of rebuilding the U.S. manufacturing base, reducing dependence on imports, and increasing American employment. The “America First” trade policy formally identified investment in manufacturing and productivity, preservation of the country’s technological advantage, and support for American producers as national priorities (The White House, 2025a).

The presidential investment policy issued on February 21, 2025, stated that the United States would continue accepting foreign capital that does not threaten national security. At the same time, transactions involving technology, critical infrastructure, and sensitive information would be subject to close examination (The White House, 2025b). This means that the United States remains open to foreign investors, but investors must disclose their ownership structure, source of funds, and governance rights.

On March 31, 2025, a dedicated investment-acceleration office was established within the U.S. Department of Commerce. Its role is to help projects exceeding $1 billion coordinate with federal agencies, navigate permitting procedures, and resolve issues involving the use of federal land (The White House, 2025c). This office does not provide automatic privileges to foreign companies. It does, however, create a formal mechanism through which large and credible projects can be coordinated at the federal level.

A separate policy change occurred in the mineral sector. The presidential order of March 20, 2025, was intended to accelerate projects involving the extraction, processing, and manufacturing of finished industrial materials from strategically important minerals. Several projects were subsequently added to federal expedited-permitting lists, with additional measures adopted to increase transparency regarding review periods (The White House, 2025d; U.S. Department of the Interior, 2025).

Tax policy also provides incentives for locating manufacturing operations within the United States. Legislative changes adopted in 2025 allowed the cost of certain qualifying equipment and manufacturing property to be fully deducted in the first year. The Internal Revenue Service explained that qualifying property acquired after January 19, 2025, may be eligible for a 100 percent first-year depreciation deduction (Internal Revenue Service, 2026). However, such treatment does not automatically apply to every project. A company must review its legal and tax structure with qualified U.S. tax advisers.

Timeline of Major Policy Decisions

Date	Decision	Significance for Investors
January 20, 2025	“America First” trade policy	Expanding domestic manufacturing and technological capacity was identified as a national priority.
February 21, 2025	New foreign-investment policy	Foreign capital remains welcome, but national-security concerns and ownership transparency are subject to strict review.
March 20, 2025	Measures to increase American mineral production	The policy direction shifted toward faster permitting for mining and processing projects.
March 31, 2025	Establishment of a federal investment-acceleration office	A federal mechanism was created to assist projects exceeding $1 billion.
July 2025	Accelerated depreciation for manufacturing property	Qualifying equipment and manufacturing property may receive earlier recognition of tax deductions.
May 2026	International U.S. investment summit	More than $50 billion in investment plans and commitments were announced.

3. Opportunities Available to Foreign Investors

The new U.S. policy does not mean that foreign investors are free to purchase any asset without restriction. Rather, it strengthens two policy directions simultaneously.

First, the United States seeks to attract capital that builds manufacturing capacity, creates employment, and strengthens American supply chains.

Second, it is increasing scrutiny of transactions that may affect national security.

Under these conditions, a Kyrgyz state-owned company should not present itself merely as a foreign buyer. It should present itself as a partner that creates production capacity, employment, tax revenue, and technological capability within the United States. The more clearly a project benefits the American economy, the easier it may be to obtain political and public acceptance.

According to preliminary data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, foreign investors spent $232.2 billion in 2025 to acquire, establish, and expand U.S. businesses. This represented an increase of $76.8 billion, or 49.5 percent, compared with 2024. Most of the spending was directed toward the acquisition of existing businesses (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2026).

Therefore, constructing a major facility from the ground up is not the only path into the U.S. market.

Potential entry methods include:

acquiring an existing small or medium-sized manufacturing company;
purchasing a minority interest in an operating mine or processing facility;
establishing a joint venture with an American partner;
acquiring an equipment, laboratory, or industrial-services company;
participating in a project that recovers metals from historical industrial or mining waste;
locating the final processing stage in the United States while importing feedstock from another country;
initially providing technology or industrial services and acquiring an equity position only after performance has been demonstrated.

In 2026, more than 5,500 participants from over 100 countries and territories attended the federal investment summit in the United States, where more than $56 billion in investment plans and commitments were announced (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2026). This indicates that U.S. states, cities, and local economic-development organizations actively compete for foreign investment.

4. Why Should Manufacturing in the United States Be Considered?

4.1 Direct Access to One of the World’s Largest High-Income Markets

The principal advantage of locating manufacturing in the United States is not simply the ability to sell finished products across the border. It is the ability to manufacture close to the customer.

American buyers of mining equipment, metal compounds, industrial components, construction materials, and strategic minerals place significant value on:

reliable supply;
compliance with technical requirements;
rapid delivery;
accessible technical service;
predictable quality.

A domestically located facility can often respond to these requirements more effectively than an overseas exporter.

4.2 Protection Against Changes in Tariff and Trade Policy

Beginning in 2025, the United States introduced broad tariff measures and increased restrictions affecting products from China and other strategically important sectors. National-security-based trade measures were also considered for processed forms of critical minerals (Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2025; The White House, 2026).

When the final customer is located in the United States, domestic manufacturing may reduce some of the exposure to future tariff changes.

Domestic production does not eliminate all trade risk. A company may still depend on imported machinery, components, or feedstock. Nevertheless, manufacturing inside the United States may provide a more stable route to the American market than exporting a finished product from abroad.

4.3 U.S.-Dollar Revenue and Geographic Diversification of Capital

When the income of a Kyrgyz state-owned company depends on one country, one currency, or one commodity, its overall risk increases.

A U.S.-based asset may generate U.S.-dollar revenue and improve the company’s diversification across currencies and legal jurisdictions. This benefit is not guaranteed. However, a properly selected operating asset may generate an additional cash flow that is not directly dependent on the production cycle of the company’s Kyrgyz operations.

4.4 Technology and Management Knowledge

The value of participation in a U.S. industrial asset should not be measured solely by dividends.

Mining and processing facilities in the United States make extensive use of:

digital geological modeling;
production monitoring;
predictive maintenance;
closed-loop water systems;
waste-management technology;
industrial safety systems;
independent technical reporting;
automated sorting;
data-based production planning.

If an investment agreement includes measurable commitments to transfer knowledge to Kyrgyzstan, train Kyrgyz specialists, and test technologies at domestic operations, the U.S. investment may also increase productivity inside Kyrgyzstan.

4.5 Broader Access to Financing and Future Exit Options

A U.S. company with transparent accounting, a stable operating record, and predictable cash flow is generally better positioned to access:

bank financing;
private equity;
strategic co-investors;
capital markets;
acquisition financing.

A Kyrgyz state-owned company would not need to assume full ownership from the first day. It could initially acquire a minority position, increase its ownership if operational results are satisfactory, or retain the right to sell the investment under favorable conditions.

5. The United States and China: Not Direct Substitutes, but Two Different Strategic Directions

China is one of Kyrgyzstan’s closest and most practical industrial partners. It possesses extensive capabilities in:

equipment manufacturing;
engineering and construction;
mineral processing;
rapid delivery of components;
large-scale production;
integrated industrial supply chains.

According to the International Energy Agency’s 2025 analysis, China was the world’s largest processor of 19 of the 20 strategic minerals examined, with an average market share of approximately 70 percent (International Energy Agency, 2025a).

This dominance is both a major Chinese advantage and a source of global supply-chain risk. Export restrictions imposed in 2025 on certain heavy rare-earth elements slowed production for some foreign manufacturers. This demonstrated the risks of excessive dependence on a single country (International Energy Agency, 2026).

The strategic choice should therefore not be reduced to the political slogan of “the United States or China.”

Kyrgyzstan should use the capabilities of each country according to its own economic objectives.

China generally offers advantages in:

equipment cost;
construction speed;
industrial scale;
processing experience;
established supply chains;
lower initial capital requirements.

The United States offers advantages in:

access to a major high-income market;
U.S.-dollar revenue;
legal protection;
technology;
capital-market access;
diversification across jurisdictions.

Comparative Assessment

Criterion	United States	China	Implication for a Kyrgyz Company
Initial cost	Labor, construction, insurance, and regulatory compliance are expensive.	Equipment and construction are often less expensive and faster.	Begin on a limited scale and conduct a detailed cost comparison.
Market access	Direct access to a large, high-income domestic market.	Proximity to China’s domestic market and wider Asian markets.	The decision should depend on the location of the final customer.
Processing supply chain	Being rebuilt and still insufficient in certain areas.	One of the deepest mineral-processing supply chains in the world.	Chinese technology is valuable, but dependence on a single source should be avoided.
Permitting	Multi-level, with extensive public and environmental review.	May be faster in some areas, although local rules and government policy remain important.	Legal stability must be evaluated together with project duration.
Capital and exit opportunities	Broad access to banking, private capital, and stock exchanges.	Strong state and industrial financing, although structures available to foreign companies may differ.	A U.S. asset may facilitate access to international capital.
Political risk	Strict national-security review and changing trade policy.	Exposure to U.S.–China tensions, export restrictions, and technological dependence.	The two directions should be separated, and sensitive technologies should not be mixed without prior review.
Currency	U.S.-dollar revenue.	Renminbi and other forms of settlement.	Diversifying income across several currencies may be beneficial.
Knowledge transfer to Kyrgyzstan	Governance, safety, environmental management, and financial transparency.	Equipment, construction, mass production, and processing.	The strengths of both sides should be captured through separate transfer programs.

Strategic conclusion: China can strengthen cost competitiveness and production speed, while the United States can diversify market access, U.S.-dollar revenue, technology, and legal jurisdictions.

6. Benefits for Kyrgyzstan’s State-Owned Companies

6.1 Reducing Dependence on One Country and One Commodity

Kyrgyzstan’s mining income remains closely connected to domestic gold assets. Changes in the gold price, ore quality, domestic political decisions, or operational difficulties at a single enterprise can materially affect the entire company.

An investment in another metal, processing operation, or industrial-service business in the United States could diversify the company’s risk exposure.

6.2 Transforming a State-Owned Company into an International Industrial Group

Responsible participation in a foreign asset requires:

independent financial audits;
a unified accounting policy;
a risk committee;
a professional board of directors;
transparent procurement procedures;
internal compliance systems;
consolidated financial reporting.

If these requirements are properly implemented, the foreign investment may improve not only the overseas asset but also the governance quality of the parent company.

6.3 Developing Kyrgyz Specialists to a Higher Professional Level

The investment agreement should include provisions allowing Kyrgyz engineers, geologists, processing specialists, finance professionals, and production managers to work and train at the U.S. enterprise.

Without such provisions, the technological benefit of the foreign asset may remain abroad, while Kyrgyzstan receives only dividends.

The transfer of knowledge should therefore be:

contractual;
measurable;
time-bound;
connected to specific domestic modernization projects.

6.4 Deepening Economic Relations Between the Two Countries

Kyrgyz capital that creates jobs in the United States could elevate bilateral relations from the level of assistance and diplomacy to the level of industry, trade, and technology.

Such a project could increase Kyrgyzstan’s economic visibility in the United States and provide a foundation for future cooperation involving:

universities;
engineering institutions;
financial organizations;
manufacturers;
research centers.

7. Appropriate Methods of Entering the U.S. Market

The greatest mistake for a Kyrgyz state-owned company would be to acquire a large and complex asset immediately after political interest in the market emerges.

The first U.S. project should serve as an institutional learning platform. The form of entry should therefore be selected to maintain managerial control over risk.

Minority Equity Participation

The company acquires a noncontrolling interest in an operating American company. Its management rights are limited, but it gains access to experience, financial information, and the market.

Staged Earn-In Agreement

The investor finances specified work and gradually increases its ownership interest after technical or commercial milestones are achieved.

Joint Venture

The Kyrgyz and American parties establish a separate company and divide responsibility for capital, technology, operations, and market access.

Industrial-Services Agreement

The Kyrgyz party provides equipment, specialists, or productivity-improvement services and receives payment or equity based on verified results.

Small Processing Facility

Before acquiring or developing a mine, the investor establishes a limited-scale facility that processes waste, concentrate, secondary raw materials, or recycled material.

Acquisition of an Existing Small Manufacturer

A company with established customers and cash flow is acquired through either full ownership or a controlling interest.

Technology Center

Capital is invested in sorting, water-saving, laboratory, maintenance, or processing technologies that can later be applied in Kyrgyzstan.

8. Principal Risks and Methods of Mitigation

Risk	Possible Consequence	Mitigation Measure
High construction and labor costs	The project budget increases and profitability declines.	Select an operating asset or small facility; compare U.S. states by cost; use fixed-price construction contracts where appropriate.
Delayed permitting	Capital remains idle and additional costs accumulate.	Prepare a permitting map before selecting a location; examine federal, state, and local requirements simultaneously.
National-security review	The transaction may be delayed, subjected to conditions, or prohibited.	Conduct a preliminary assessment with specialized U.S. counsel before the transaction begins; consider a noncontrolling interest.
Environmental liability	Cleanup and rehabilitation costs may exceed expectations.	Commission an independent environmental baseline assessment; allocate liability contractually; maintain adequate financial assurance.
Local opposition	Permitting may be suspended, litigation may arise, and reputation may be damaged.	Engage communities early and provide transparent information regarding water, employment, roads, and environmental effects.
Distance from management	Decisions made in Bishkek may be slow or inconsistent with local conditions.	Appoint professional U.S.-based management, an independent director, clear delegated authority, and monthly reporting.
Policy change	Tariffs, taxes, or permitting incentives may change.	Ensure the project remains viable without incentives; do not rely exclusively on commitments made by one administration.
China-linked supply chain	A sensitive U.S. project may face additional review or trade restrictions.	Conduct a legal review before combining Chinese equipment or technology with U.S. national-security-sensitive systems.
Political influence over a state-owned company	Commercial decisions may be subordinated to political objectives.	Establish an independent investment committee, professional decision criteria, and annual public reporting.

9. National-Security Review

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States reviews the national-security implications of certain corporate and real-estate transactions involving foreign investors.

Its authority may extend not only to acquisitions that transfer control, but also to certain noncontrolling investments involving:

critical technologies;
critical infrastructure;
sensitive personal data;
property located near military or strategic facilities.

(U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2026)

When a state-controlled company enters the U.S. economy, American authorities may pay particular attention to:

the ownership structure;
decision-making procedures;
the source of funds;
connections with other governments;
access to sensitive information;
the destination and end use of products;
board rights;
control over technology.

This does not mean that the investment will automatically be prohibited. However, attempts to conceal the transaction or use a nominal intermediary would increase regulatory risk.

The following principles should therefore be observed:

the ultimate owner and state-governance structure must be fully disclosed;
the source of funds must be available for independent verification;
board rights and limits on access to confidential information must be defined in advance;
assets involving military, communications, or sensitive technologies should not be selected for the first project;
a plan for creating U.S. employment and domestic production should be prepared;
the need for national-security review should be assessed when the asset is selected, not after the transaction agreement has been signed.

10. Permitting, Environmental Requirements, and Local Communities

A U.S. mining or industrial project may be subject to a combination of federal, state, and local requirements.

If federal land or a federal decision is involved, the project may require an environmental-impact assessment.

If excavated or fill material will be placed into waters or wetlands, authorization may be required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This requirement may also apply to mining projects (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2026).

Although the new presidential administration is seeking to accelerate permitting procedures, environmental and public-review requirements have not been completely eliminated.

Acceleration does not mean that no review will occur. It generally means that:

responsible agencies are expected to coordinate more effectively;
review timelines may become clearer;
duplicated procedures may be reduced;
priority projects may receive closer administrative attention.

Consultation with Tribal Nations should not be treated as a procedural formality. It is an essential process for understanding the historical and cultural significance of the land.

If issues involving land rights, water, burial grounds, sacred sites, or traditional land use are not identified at an early stage, the project may later face substantial opposition.

A Kyrgyz company must be particularly careful in this area. A management culture in which receipt of a government permit is treated as equivalent to the start of a project may not function effectively in the United States.

In addition to formal permits, the financial model must account for:

public trust;
insurance;
worker safety;
waste-closure planning;
future cleanup liability;
rehabilitation costs;
long-term environmental monitoring.

11. Financial Evaluation and Governance

The value of a mining or manufacturing project cannot be determined solely by the current metal price or projected sales volume.

The investment committee should assess the following indicators together:

the present value of future free cash flows;
the internal rate of return;
the investment payback period;
the effects of construction costs increasing by 10, 20, or 30 percent;
the outcome if the selling price declines;
the effect of a one- or two-year permitting delay;
the full cost of environmental rehabilitation;
exchange-rate changes involving the U.S. dollar, Kyrgyz som, and other currencies;
management and insurance costs;
the ability to sell or increase the equity position later.

It is inappropriate to rely on a single “base case.”

The project should be evaluated under at least four scenarios:

favorable conditions;
base-case conditions;
adverse conditions;
crisis conditions.

If the project is profitable only under favorable conditions, its risk may be excessive for a state-owned company.

Governance structure is also part of financial protection.

The U.S. subsidiary should have:

a locally based chief executive;
a financial controller;
a compliance officer;
an independent director;
clear delegated authority;
monthly operational and financial reporting.

The parent company should control strategy and capital allocation, but it should not attempt to micromanage daily operations from Bishkek.

12. A Possible Structure for a Kyrgyzstan–United States Industrial Bridge

The long-term objective should not be limited to owning a single American asset.

A sustainable industrial bridge can be created between Kyrgyzstan and the United States through which capital, technology, specialists, and production assignments move in both directions.

The potential structure could include:

Kyrgyzstan: mineral resources, geological experience, regional relationships, and industrial specialists;
United States: technology, financing, the final market, management, and safety standards;
China and other Asian partners: competitively priced equipment, components, and production speed;
Combined result: a legally compliant and verified supply chain that does not depend excessively on one country.

However, a three-country supply chain should not automatically be considered secure.

If Chinese equipment, software, ownership relationships, or technical systems are introduced into a U.S. project involving strategic minerals or sensitive technology, U.S. national-security and export-control requirements must be reviewed in advance.

The most realistic initial direction for such an industrial bridge may not be a major mine. It may instead be mining-services or processing technology.

Examples include a small enterprise involving:

ore sorting;
laboratory analysis;
water recycling;
recovery of metals from waste;
equipment maintenance;
production-data management;
environmental monitoring.

Such an enterprise could begin with comparatively limited capital and later be applied in both countries.

13. Conclusion

The new U.S. presidential administration openly supports domestic manufacturing, the processing of strategic minerals, and the construction of new facilities with foreign capital.

The establishment of a federal office to coordinate major projects, efforts to accelerate mineral permitting, measures intended to reduce import dependence, and opportunities for accelerated depreciation of manufacturing property have strengthened the economic rationale for locating production in the United States.

At the same time, this policy does not provide foreign state-owned companies with unconditional privileges.

On the contrary, the following issues are subject to strict scrutiny:

national security;
ownership transparency;
source of funds;
environmental responsibility;
relationships with local communities;
access to sensitive technology;
governance and control.

A U.S. project will generally be expensive, legally complex, and demanding from a management perspective.

China is not simply the opposite side of this strategic choice.

China possesses major advantages in equipment, construction, processing, and integrated supply chains. However, the high concentration of strategic-mineral processing in one country, export restrictions, and continuing U.S.–China trade tensions create separate risks for Kyrgyz state-owned companies.

The most appropriate strategy is therefore not to abandon China, but to add the United States as a second strategic pillar.

Kyrgyz companies can work with China in the areas of equipment, processing capacity, and production speed, while working with the United States in the areas of market access, U.S.-dollar revenue, technology, governance, and jurisdictional diversification.

The legal and national-security requirements applicable to each supply chain must remain separate and must be observed independently.

The purpose of investment in the United States should not be merely to acquire a foreign asset.

The objective should be to build an industrial system that brings income, technology, specialists, and international management experience back to Kyrgyzstan.

Kyrgyzstan’s first step should not be the acquisition of a major mine.

The first step should consist of:

a clearly defined strategic mandate;
a professional investment committee;
comparative evaluation of potential assets;
preliminary national-security review;
a limited pilot project.

Only after results have been demonstrated should the company consider committing major capital, constructing a new industrial facility, or acquiring a controlling interest.

If this discipline is maintained, investment in the United States will not represent the departure of Kyrgyz capital from the country.

It will represent the entry of Kyrgyz capital into the global industrial system.

Disclaimer

This material is a general scientific and practical analysis. It does not constitute a direct recommendation to acquire any particular mine, company, security, or real-estate asset. Each transaction requires a separate technical, legal, tax, environmental, and national-security review.

References

The White House. (2025a). America First Trade Policy.

The White House. (2025b). Policy on Encouraging Foreign Investment and Protecting National Security.

The White House. (2025c). Executive Order Establishing the United States Investment Accelerator.

The White House. (2025d). Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production.

The White House. (2025e). Proclamation on Made in America Week.

The White House. (2026). Measures Concerning Imports of Processed Critical Minerals.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2026). New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, 2025.

U.S. Department of Commerce. (2026). Results of the 2026 U.S. Investment Summit.

Internal Revenue Service. (2026). One-Hundred-Percent Additional First-Year Depreciation for Qualifying Property.

U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2026). Information on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2026). Clean Water Act Section 404 Permitting Procedures.

U.S. Department of the Interior. (2025). Addition of Strategic Mineral Projects to the Expedited Permitting List.

Office of the United States Trade Representative. (2025). Presidential Tariff Actions.

International Energy Agency. (2025a). Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2025.

International Energy Agency. (2025b). Global Concentration in Critical-Mineral Processing.

International Energy Agency. (2026). Rare-Earth Elements and the Effects of Export Restrictions.

World Bank. (2025). China Economic Update: Manufacturing, Exports, and Trade Uncertainty.