By: Abigail Hunter, Executive Director of the Center for Critical Minerals Strategy, SAFE, Erasto Almeida, MINVEST Manager, Center for Critical Minerals Strategy, SAFE, and Ayelet Zamek, MINVEST Delegation Coordinator for the Center for Critical Minerals Strategy, SAFE

Last week, the U.S. Department of State hosted the inaugural Critical Minerals Ministerial, gathering delegations from 54 countries. The Trump administration made major announcements regarding the creation of a trade zone with price floors for critical minerals and provided clarity on its approach to international collaboration with the launch of the new Forum on Resource Geostrategic Engagement (FORGE), as well as the signing of new bilateral Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and action plans. Looking forward, negotiating and implementing this new framework will be a complex undertaking that will require much effort and close coordination domestically throughout the interagency, and with allies and partners to be effective. This article focuses on what made this Ministerial unique, the crowded multilateral minerals landscape, and trends in the bilateral deals signed. (For more on pricing mechanisms, see SAFE’s issue brief.)

A Milestone Ministerial

The Critical Minerals Ministerial marked a milestone in the Trump administration’s minerals policy for three reasons. First, it clarified the administration’s approach to international cooperation on critical minerals as a complement to domestic efforts. Second, the breadth of cabinet-level participation underscored both the seniority of attention and the need for coordinated interagency action. Third, the scale and diversity of country participation signaled an effort to align much of the world—representing roughly two-thirds of global GDP—around shared supply chain and market objectives.

As Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized, their critical minerals approach only works if broadly adopted across multiple countries, an evolution from the Administration’s early America First focus on domestic production and bilateral deals. The previous bilateral deals now serve as practical building blocks for broader coordination. Taken together, the Ministerial and the bilateral MOUs reflect growing recognition that insulating supply chains from future mineral shocks requires coordinated action across a widening set of partners—making “America First not American alone” a necessity.

The Ministerial convened six U.S. cabinet members, marking the largest cabinet-level presence for a critical minerals event. This level of participation reinforces Vice President J.D. Vance’s framing of the effort as aligning trade, finance, and diplomacy, and heightens the need for clear roles and coordination in decision-making. That clarity is beginning to take shape in the Ministerial Factsheet, joint statements, and Action Plans:

• FORGE: The Forum on Resource Geostrategic Engagement (FORGE) was created by Secretary Rubio but will be chaired by the Republic of Korea (ROK) until June, following the previous governance structure of the Minerals Security Partnership (MSP), which it replaced. Details of this new framework, which may include a new declaration of principles and working groups, have not yet been made public. Details will help clarify if FORGE will have an expanded role compared to the MSP. For example, in areas such as regulatory harmonization and policy coordination.
• MOUs & Action Plans: The U.S.-EU-Japan joint press statement calls for the U.S. Department of State to lead engagement on the MOU between the United States and the European Union, while the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is expected to lead engagement on a future trilateral Critical Minerals Action Plan, similar to what was signed between the United States and Mexico.
• Price Floors & 232 Tariffs: The Department of Commerce (DOC), the USTR, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) all have roles to play in the 232 tariffs which are very likely the enforcing tool for the price floors. DOC is set to run a monitoring system and keep tabs on imports. USTR is leading negotiations with trading partners. The Customs and Border Protection agency housed under DHS will oversee implementation of future tariffs resulting from failed negotiations or agreed as part of trade-zone agreements.
• Investment/Financing: The Ministerial Factsheet named the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the Pentagon as deployable financing and support tools. While the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) and the Millenium Challenge Corporation (MCC) were not mentioned in the Factsheet, they can also be used to support earlier stage critical minerals projects in countries with nascent production or need for exploration.
• Stockpiling: EXIM also houses the new Project Vault initiative, which will serve as a commercial stockpile to insulate manufacturers from supply shocks (SAFE’s Center for Critical Minerals Strategy will cover Project Vault in a separate piece). The Pentagon is home to the National Defense Stockpile (NDS), which stores materials strategic and critical to defense and civilian needs in times of a national emergency. The NDS cannot be used for supply disruptions that do not rise to the level of a national defense emergency.
• Rapid Response: Previous bilateral agreements with Australia and Japan included a “rapid response” mechanism led by DOE. Coordinated rapid response is mentioned again in the U.S.-Mexico Action Plan, without naming DOE.

Lastly, assembling 54 countries is not symbolic—it is structural. Together, these economies span the full supply chain, giving the group the scale required to shape markets rather than respond to them. But scale cuts both ways. A broader coalition introduces more interests, policy frameworks, and decision points, and not all countries will move at the same speed. That raises the bar for governance and discipline. Sustained coordination, not just participation, will be critical to successful implementation.

An Overlapping Multilateral Landscape

The new FORGE initiative enters an overlapping landscape of existing U.S.-led and international critical minerals partnerships. The crowded arena includes new groupings like Pax Silica, FORGE predecessor MSP and the MSP Forum, the first Trump Administration’s Energy Resource Governance Initiative (ERGI), and the Production Alliance which was launched under Canada’s 2025 G7 leadership.

Within this landscape, the G7 has emerged as a central platform for international coordination on critical minerals, particularly around standards, traceability, and policy alignment. Under Canada’s 2025 presidency, the G7 advanced its Critical Minerals Action Plan and launched the Production Alliance, a G7-body represented by national envoys and focused on accelerating projects by leveraging sovereign tools and partnerships. Many of the Production Alliance priorities mirror those addressed through the Ministerial, bilateral agreements, and even elements of the MSP. With France assuming the G7 presidency in 2026 and Japan set to host the next expert-level G7+ Conference on Critical Minerals & Materials (CCMM), the G7 critical minerals agenda will remain active. Beyond the Production Alliance, the G7’s Roadmap to Promote Standards-Based Markets underscores a shared focus on traceability and transparency—foundations needed for a trading block grounded in fair competition and potential pricing mechanisms.

Statements and accompanying materials around the Ministerial also reference Pax Silica, which was introduced by the U.S. Department of State in December 2025 as a complementary initiative aimed at securing supply chains for AI and other advanced technologies. While it includes common U.S. allies from advanced consuming economies such as Japan, the ROK, and the United Kingdom, its AI and digital infrastructure focus has drawn in additional partners, including Taiwan and the Netherlands for semiconductor manufacturing and Qatar and the United Arab Emirates for AI-related investment. If successfully linked, FORGE and Pax Silica could translate demand from technology manufacturers to reinforce fair pricing dynamics while justifying new, secure mineral production developed through bilateral agreements, particularly among mineral-rich partners outside the Pax Silica membership.

This growing multilateral architecture is developing alongside parallel efforts by China. In November 2025, Beijing announced the International Economic and Trade Cooperation Initiative on Green Mining and Minerals on the margins of the G20 in South Africa, reportedly attracting more than 20 participating countries.

Against this backdrop, FORGE appears designed to elevate and centralize U.S. international engagement on critical minerals. As the initiative takes shape, several structural questions remain, including clarity on final membership and governance—particularly who will assume the chair following the ROK—as well as whether participation is contingent on a commitment to a shared trading bloc and associated price floor mechanisms. One thing is known for sure though: the timing of this new multilateral outreach could not be more critical, as China’s expanding engagement underscores the need for the United States and its partners to reaffirm global partnerships.

Bilateral MOUs, Action Plans, and Related Agreements

The Ministerial also was filled with new bilateral announcements that are increasingly connected with the broader goals of establishing a new trade zone. The United States signed 11 more MOUs with partner countries, including Argentina, the Cook Islands, Ecuador, Guinea, Morocco, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and Uzbekistan, featuring language about pricing mechanisms, investment, and policy coordination.

The  U.S.-Mexico Action Plan on Critical Minerals calls for both countries to take steps over the next 60 days to align on coordinated trade policies and mechanisms, including price floors and identifying specific projects. The United States, European Commission, and Japan similarly announced trilateral cooperation on critical minerals supply chain resilience, including coordinated trade policies and mechanisms such as border-adjusted price floors, and set a 30-day deadline for the United States and European Commission to sign an MOU.

Lastly, Argentina and the United States signed an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade and Investment that included provisions on minerals recovery, facilitating U.S. investment in projects, and addressing unfair trade practices of companies owned or controlled by third countries operating in Argentina’s jurisdiction. The agreement also commits Argentina to adopting similar measures to the U.S. if it is “relevant to protecting the economic or national security of the United States” when appropriate. This complementary action could relate to price floor coordination.

The MOUs, Action Plans, and new reciprocal trade agreements built on similar bilateral deals struck over the last several months.

Summary of Bilateral Critical Minerals Deals (2025-2026)

To view the full size, downloadable chart, click here.

What Comes Next?

The Trump Administration’s evolving approach to international collaboration provides additional space for U.S. leadership in shaping the global critical minerals agenda. New initiatives, such as FORGE and Pax Silica, alongside bilateral agreements and engagement through established platforms like the G7 and G7+, provide Washington with multiple entry points to advance strategic priorities and influence policy. The central challenge is not a lack of partnerships or initiatives, but ensuring that these efforts are well-utilized and aligned so that they deliver tangible outcomes rather than further fragmenting an already crowded international landscape.