Trump’s AI Pricing Strategy: A Long-Term Approach to Essential Minerals

Critical Minerals: A New Strategic Priority

The perception of critical minerals has undergone a fundamental transformation. Once considered simple raw materials for industry, these resources are now recognized as essential pillars for both economic stability and national defense. This shift has become the foundation for a sweeping, long-term policy agenda. The current U.S. administration is capitalizing on heightened supply chain risks and global tensions to reshape the mineral markets for years to come.

The legal and strategic context is well established. According to the Energy Act of 2020, U.S. law defines critical minerals as those vital to the economy or national security, especially where supply chains are at risk of disruption. The finalized 2025 list includes 60 minerals, covering everything from battery components to defense-related materials. The U.S. currently relies entirely on imports for 12 of these minerals—a vulnerability now officially recognized as a national security concern.

In response, the administration has elevated this issue to the highest policy level. On January 14, 2026, the President issued a proclamation identifying imports of processed critical minerals and their derivatives (PCMDPs) as a direct threat to U.S. national security. The justification is clear: these materials are indispensable across industries, from military technology to consumer electronics. This declaration paves the way for new trade measures and industrial strategies, reframing the issue as a matter of national interest.

Building Alliances and a New Trade Architecture

This initiative is not an isolated effort. The administration is actively forging a coalition of allied nations to counterbalance dominant global players. Central to this strategy is a new diplomatic framework. On February 4, the first Critical Minerals Ministerial brought together 55 international delegations to launch the Forum on Resource Geostrategic Engagement (FORGE), which succeeds the Minerals Security Partnership. The aim is to establish a preferential trade zone with harmonized tariffs and price floors, supported by a new U.S. stockpile and private investment. This is a long-term strategy, leveraging current geopolitical divides to construct an alternative supply chain over the next decade.

The Role of AI: Setting Strategic Reference Prices

A key component of this plan is the Pentagon’s Open Price Exploration for National Security (OPEN) program, launched by DARPA in 2023. This AI-powered system is designed to determine fair prices for strategic minerals by factoring in labor, processing, and logistics costs, while filtering out suspected market distortions. The objective is to move beyond short-term market volatility and establish a transparent, cost-based reference price.

The administration intends for OPEN’s price benchmarks to underpin a new trade system. The initial focus is on four strategically important metals: germanium, gallium, antimony, and tungsten. These minerals are critical for advanced manufacturing, semiconductors, and defense, but their markets are often dominated by a few suppliers, particularly China. U.S. officials argue that this concentration has suppressed prices and discouraged Western investment.

Absolute Momentum Long-Only Strategy: Backtest Summary

• Entry Criteria: Go long on SPY when the 252-day rate of change is positive and the price is above the 200-day simple moving average.
• Exit Criteria: Sell when the price falls below the 200-day SMA, after 20 trading days, or upon reaching a take-profit of +8% or a stop-loss of -4%.
• Backtest Period: Last 2 years

Performance Metrics

• Strategy Return: 5.87%
• Annualized Return: 3.12%
• Maximum Drawdown: 8.25%
• Profit-Loss Ratio: 0.74
• Total Trades: 12
• Winning Trades: 8
• Losing Trades: 4
• Win Rate: 66.67%
• Average Hold Days: 15
• Max Consecutive Losses: 2
• Average Win Return: 2.31%
• Average Loss Return: 3.06%
• Largest Single Gain: 3.91%
• Largest Single Loss: 5.65%

Tariffs as Enforcement, Not Subsidies

Rather than relying on direct subsidies, the administration proposes using tariffs to enforce the AI-generated reference prices. Imports priced below the AI benchmark could face duties, nudging global prices toward the target without imposing a rigid price floor. This approach is designed to offer greater predictability for investors and manufacturers within the U.S.-led alliance.

The broader vision is to anchor a new trade system to an AI-derived reference price, creating a collective supply chain alternative. This aligns with Vice President Vance’s earlier proposal for a preferential trade zone with harmonized price floors and tariffs, with the OPEN AI program providing the technical backbone for these policies.

However, the initiative carries risks. The OECD has already flagged the use of AI in this context as potentially hazardous, citing the untested nature of using algorithms to set global commodity prices. The effectiveness of the system in modeling complex, geopolitically sensitive markets remains uncertain. Ultimately, this is a long-term experiment in using advanced technology to reshape global commodity markets for strategic purposes.

Market Impact and Implementation Challenges

The AI pricing strategy could establish a powerful benchmark for critical minerals, supporting domestic producers and allied supply chains while challenging Chinese market dominance. By setting reference prices for germanium, gallium, antimony, and tungsten, the plan aims to reduce the uncertainty that has discouraged Western investment in these specialized markets. The ultimate goal is to create a preferential trade zone with coordinated tariffs, establishing a more stable pricing environment for critical minerals.

Yet, significant obstacles remain. The most immediate is the lack of a clear enforcement mechanism. While tariffs are intended to uphold the AI benchmark, the specifics—such as how to determine when a price falls below the reference or what tariff rates to apply—are still undefined. This ambiguity could undermine market confidence and deter investment in capital-intensive Western mining projects.

Another challenge is building a cohesive alliance. The February 4 ministerial’s gathering of 55 delegations demonstrated diplomatic interest, but achieving consistent application of reference prices and tariffs across diverse economies is a formidable task. There is also the risk of straining existing trade relationships, as the U.S. approach may alienate partners wary of new economic confrontations.

The OECD’s concerns about the initiative as an AI hazard highlight the experimental nature of using algorithms to set commodity benchmarks. The policy’s success will depend less on the AI’s calculations and more on the political will and diplomatic skill required to maintain a credible alliance. Without strong cooperation, the reference prices may remain largely symbolic in a market governed by real-world supply and demand.

Key Catalysts, Scenarios, and What to Monitor

The effectiveness of this long-term strategy will be tested by several upcoming events. The first major milestone is the official rollout of the AI pricing framework. The administration plans to use the Pentagon’s OPEN AI program to set reference prices for germanium, gallium, antimony, and tungsten. The timing and credibility of these benchmarks will be crucial for shaping future trade policy. Without a clear and transparent framework, the initiative lacks a solid foundation.

Another key test is the progress of the U.S.-led trading bloc. The February 4 ministerial’s launch of FORGE aims to create a preferential trade zone with coordinated price floors and tariffs. The main indicator to watch is how many countries formally adopt the reference prices and enforcement mechanisms. Initial agreements are a start, but building a robust alliance will require ongoing diplomacy and tangible incentives, such as private financing and emergency supply guarantees.

There are three primary risks that could derail the program. First, China may retaliate, viewing the initiative as a direct challenge to its market dominance, potentially responding with its own trade measures or by tightening control over supply chains. Second, the economic feasibility of U.S. and allied production is uncertain; if the AI benchmarks are set too high, Western producers may struggle to compete. Third, building trust among partners is essential. The OECD’s concerns about the AI hazard underscore the need for transparency and fairness if allies are to accept algorithm-driven trade rules. The administration’s assertive stance could complicate efforts to foster the trust needed for collective action.

In summary, the coming months will reveal whether this ambitious strategy can move from concept to reality. The launch of the OPEN AI model’s first reference prices and the formalization of the trading bloc will be critical tests. Success would demonstrate the administration’s ability to use technology and diplomacy to reshape a strategic market. Failure would highlight the formidable challenges of coordinating global supply chains and setting prices in a world still governed by economic fundamentals and geopolitical power.