The US Buys uncommon Earths – Is Gold Or Silver Next?

Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

On Thursday, shares of MP Materials surged over 50% after news broke that the U.S. Department of Defense would become the company’s largest shareholder. Through a $400 million purchase of special stock, the Pentagon has taken a 15% stake in the rare earth miner, securing long-term access to critical materials used in everything from electric vehicles to fighter jets.

This deal also includes a ten-year commitment from the government to purchase all the magnets produced at MP’s upcoming “10X Facility,” along with a minimum price guarantee for key inputs.

Backed by an additional $1 billion in private financing from JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs, the partnership is a strong signal that America is looking to reduce its dependence on foreign-controlled supply chains—especially those dominated by China.

While this move currently applies only to rare earth elements, it opens the door to broader speculation about nationalizing critical elements, metals, chemicals and the likes—something I’ve discussed repeatedly over the years on Palisades Gold Radio.

If the U.S. government is willing to take ownership in MP to secure critical resources, it’s worth asking whether they might consider similar involvement in other sectors down the road, particularly in metals like gold, silver, platinum, and copper. These materials, while not as concentrated in foreign hands as rare earths, are nonetheless vital to the functioning of both our economic and military systems.

Gold, beyond its role as a monetary hedge, has geopolitical value as central banks around the world—especially in China and Russia—continue to accumulate it.

If the U.S. dollar were to face a serious challenge—whether from a competing global reserve currency, a loss of confidence due to excessive debt and deficits, or the rise of alternative settlement systems like BRICS-backed gold trade—the government might view control over domestic gold and silver production as a matter of national security.

Gold, in particular, remains a monetary metal held by central banks as a store of value and potential backstop to fiat currency systems. In a scenario where dollar credibility is questioned, the U.S. might move to secure internal gold and silver supply chains to prevent foreign accumulation, stabilize financial markets, and potentially reassert the dollar’s strength through hard-asset backing.

Nationalizing or heavily regulating the domestic mining of these metals could be seen as a strategic safeguard, especially if the metals become central to new monetary architecture or geopolitical power plays.

Silver is essential for solar panels, semiconductors, and medical applications, making it a core input for the green economy.

Copper, often called the “metal of electrification,” underpins nearly every energy transition technology. Platinum group metals play a vital role in emissions control systems and emerging hydrogen fuel technologies.

And last week, former President Trump announced a surprise 50% tariff on copper imports, set to take effect August 1 under national security grounds. The move, aimed at reducing U.S. reliance on foreign copper, caused copper prices to surge over 12% as buyers rushed to import before the deadline. Industry experts warned the tariff could backfire by increasing costs for U.S. manufacturers without meaningfully boosting domestic copper production. Major producers like Chile’s Codelco are awaiting details on which copper products will be affected. The decision has escalated trade tensions and raised concerns about inflation and supply chain stability.

However, it’s important to acknowledge that the comparison between rare earths and these other metals may not be entirely appropriate.

The rare earths situation is far more urgent. China controls nearly 90% of global rare earth processing and over 70% of the raw supply. Just last month, China cut its rare earth exports by 75%, weaponizing its near-monopoly and reminding the world how fragile that supply chain really is.

70% OFF: Today’s uncomfortable act of self-promotion. Take a run as a paid subscriber to Fringe Finance and I’ll give you 70% off an annual subscription — a discount that you can keep for as long as you wish to stay a subscriber: Get 70% off forever

The U.S. simply doesn’t face that level of dependency when it comes to gold, silver, or copper. Those markets are more diverse, with production spread across North and South America, Australia, and parts of Africa. As such, the strategic threat posed by supply disruptions in those metals is less acute—for now.

That doesn’t mean nationalization or government involvement is impossible; it just means the urgency and justification are different. Rare earths are a clear chokepoint in the current system. Gold and silver, by contrast, are more about long-term positioning and monetary policy than immediate national security.

Even so, the MP deal shows how quickly government attitudes can change in response to global risks. Everyone already knows I’m bullish on miners, but if the market even sniffs out the possibility of broader government partnerships or intervention, it could send valuations soaring.

MP’s massive move is a case study in what happens when strategic importance meets public capital. If that same sense of urgency or opportunity ever creeps into the copper or precious metals space—whether justified or not—the upside could be explosive.

That said, let me be absolutely clear: this is pure speculation. There is no current evidence that the U.S. government plans to nationalize or take equity stakes in gold, silver, platinum, or copper mining companies.

I bring this up not to suggest it’s happening, but to encourage people to consider the implications if it ever does. Please read my disclaimer carefully. I’m sharing an idea, not making a prediction.

But if the past few years have taught us anything, it’s that things once considered impossible can become policy almost overnight.

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.