去中国化黄了？美国放弃稀土托底，美驻华大使痛心：中国“违规”

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. government's recent abandonment of a price support plan for critical mineral projects highlights its ongoing struggle to reduce dependence on Chinese rare earths, while simultaneously blaming China for its own shortcomings in the sector [1][5][15]. Group 1: U.S. Rare Earth Strategy - The Trump administration's strategy aimed at reducing reliance on Chinese rare earths has faced significant setbacks, including the recent decision to abandon a price floor plan that was intended to support domestic rare earth companies [5][11]. - The U.S. has been heavily reliant on Chinese rare earths for its military and high-tech industries, which has led to fears of being "choked" by supply constraints [5][21]. - The U.S. government previously announced a $1.6 billion funding initiative to support domestic rare earth companies, but this funding is insufficient to meet the industry's needs [9][11]. Group 2: China's Dominance in Rare Earths - China holds 36.7% of global rare earth reserves, with over 60% of heavy rare earth reserves and 69% of global production, establishing itself as the dominant player in the industry [3][21]. - The complete supply chain from mining to processing is controlled by China, particularly in heavy rare earth separation technology, which is unmatched globally [3][21]. - Recent Chinese export controls on rare earths, particularly aimed at military applications, further solidify its position and complicate U.S. efforts to source these materials [13][19]. Group 3: U.S.-China Relations and Trade Dynamics - The U.S. has accused China of non-compliance with international norms regarding rare earth exports, despite China's measures being seen as legitimate actions to protect national interests [17][19]. - The U.S. has engaged in trade protectionism and technology restrictions against China, which has contributed to the instability of the global rare earth supply chain [19][21]. - The ongoing competition in the rare earth sector is not merely a pricing or policy issue but reflects deeper industrial capabilities and strategic thinking differences between the U.S. and China [21].