五矿证券近日发布有色金属报告正文：关键矿产清单"扩容"与重心下沉，关键矿产重视程度再抬升。 2025年11月，美国地质调查局将关键矿产清单从50种扩充至60种，铜、硅、冶金煤、银等基础大宗商品 首次入选。2025版关键矿产清单元素扩容，标志着博弈已从尖端技术相关品种延伸至基础原材料。 以下为研究报告摘要： 事件描述 2026年1月14日，特朗普签署《调整加工关键矿物及其衍生产品进口的公告》，报告强调美国尚未建立 起足够安全、可靠的关键矿产加工产品供应链，对此美国计划与贸易伙伴国推进达成协议快速保障美国 关键矿物的充足供应，否则将面临新的贸易壁垒，包括高关税和配额限制。期限设定为180天，从公告 发布日起计算，到2026年7月13日结束，该事件标志着美国进一步加速建设与完善关键矿产供应链。 事件点评 关键矿产清单"扩容"与重心下沉，关键矿产重视程度再抬升。2025年11月，美国地质调查局将关键矿产 清单从50种扩充至60种，铜、硅、冶金煤、银等基础大宗商品首次入选。2025版关键矿产清单元素扩 容，标志着博弈已从尖端技术相关品种延伸至基础原材料。 回顾：从投资品种与支持方式两个角度看美国关键矿产核心元素。美国政 ...

关键矿产清单"扩容"与重心下沉，关键矿产重视程度再抬升。2025 年 11 月，美国地质调查局将关键矿产清单从 50 种扩充至 60 种，铜、硅、冶金煤、 银等基础大宗商品首次入选。2025 版关键矿产清单元素扩容，标志着博弈已 从尖端技术相关品种延伸至基础原材料。 /证券研究报告 | 行业点评 清单品种扩容与国际合作加速——美 国关键矿产发展跟踪 事件描述 2026 年 1 月 14 日，特朗普签署《调整加工关键矿物及其衍生产品进口的公 告》，报告强调美国尚未建立起足够安全、可靠的关键矿产加工产品供应链， 对此美国计划与贸易伙伴国推进达成协议快速保障美国关键矿物的充足供 应，否则将面临新的贸易壁垒，包括高关税和配额限制。期限设定为 180 天， 从公告发布日起计算，到 2026 年 7 月 13 日结束，该事件标志着美国进一步 加速建设与完善关键矿产供应链。 事件点评 回顾：从投资品种与支持方式两个角度看美国关键矿产核心元素。美国政府 以战争部为牵头，进出口银行和产业资本为支撑，建设多层级的战略金属投 资、扶持体系：1）从投资金额看稀土、锂、锑、钪和钴已成为美国目前的扶 持重点；2）而从扶持手段与工具来看， ...

国信证券近日发布关键矿产研究专题："关键矿产"是指对国家经济和安全不可或缺的、供应链容易受破 坏的非燃料矿物或矿物材料。中国官方多用"战略性矿产"，指的是对保障国家经济安全、国防安全和战 略性新兴产业持续健康发展具有重要作用的矿产资源。2025年11月，由美国地质调查局所编制的关键矿 产清单公布，在2022年版本基础上增加了10个矿种，总数达到60种。 关键矿产基本面梳理：基于当前的国际政治环境，我们认为加大对关键矿产的研究是非常有必要的。我 们选取了16个品种，对其产业链和基本面做了系统的梳理。对于大部分品种而言，供给都有其脆弱性， 核心供给大多掌握在少数国家手中，容易受地缘政治风险影响，在供需紧平衡的背景下，一旦供给出现 问题，商品价格很容易快速反应。 风险提示：供给超预期释放；需求表现不及预期；地缘政治风险缓和。 投资建议：关键矿产目前已成为众多国家重点关注的领域，主要源于对供应链安全的担忧。在这样的背 景之下，我们认为，关键矿产的资源属性会愈发凸显，价格易涨难跌。对于掌握关键矿产的企业，可以 重点配置。(国信证券刘孟峦,杨林,杨耀洪,薛聪,焦方冉,王新航,马可远,谷瑜) 核心观点 关键矿产的定义："关 ...

智通财经APP获悉，国信证券发布研报称，关键矿产目前已成为众多国家重点关注的领域，主要源于对 供应链安全的担忧。在这样的背景之下，关键矿产的资源属性会愈发凸显，价格易涨难跌。对于掌握关 键矿产的企业，可以重点配置。 关键矿产基本面梳理 "关键矿产"是指对国家经济和安全不可或缺的、供应链容易受破坏的非燃料矿物或矿物材料。中国官方 多用"战略性矿产"，指的是对保障国家经济安全、国防安全和战略性新兴产业持续健康发展具有重要作 用的矿产资源。2025年11月，由美国地质调查局所编制的关键矿产清单公布，在2022年版本基础上增加 了10个矿种，总数达到60种。 关键矿产研究至关重要 1）中国可以通过战略矿产的出口限制政策来反制西方国家。中国有丰富的矿产资源储量，尤其是在多 种稀有金属领域有绝对明显优势，比如钨(全球占比82.7%)和稀土(全球占比69.2%)，中国还掌握着这些 关键矿产大部分的冶炼产能，比如中国的稀土冶炼全球占比达到约90%。中国目前对多种关键矿产实施 严格的出口管制。2）美国拟通过高关税保护来创造市场条件，构建矿产资源安全。美国地质调查局数 据显示，美国12种关键矿产完全依赖进口，29种关键矿产进口依 ...

编辑：G 美国最高法院的裁决书像一记闷棍，直接砸在了特朗普的关税战略上——"对等关税"政策违法，1750亿美元已征税款必须退还。这笔钱的主要去向，是中 国。 侧门突围 最高法院的判决就像一扇正门，当着全世界的面"砰"的一声关死了。可白宫显然没打算就这么散场，判决落地还没捂热，他们就开始满院子找侧门了。最先 冲出来喊话的是贸易代表格里尔，他对着媒体撂下一句话："我们手里的办法和杠杆还多得很。" 122条款现在就成了新的法律灰色地带，这地方以前没怎么被人拿放大镜研究过，哪怕回头有人要起诉、要挑战，走完整个诉讼周期，拖上几个月甚至几年 都很正常。到那时候，150天的期限早就过了，该收的税一分不少已经进了国库。这种钻空子的手法，手法本身倒是挺熟练的。 可问题是，这种"打一枪换一个法条"的玩法，表面上看着是在挣扎着往前冲，实际上暴露的恰恰是政策逻辑已经彻底破产了。刚被最高法院指着鼻子骂违 法，转头就换了个马甲继续收税，这不是什么坚持原则，这是被逼到墙角之后的困兽之斗。 格里尔嘴里说的"很多办法"，翻译成大白话就是：正路子走死了，只能从墙缝里往外爬。白宫还顺手列了一长串豁免清单，什么关键矿产、药品、汽车零 件、电子产品， ...

智通财经APP获悉，国泰海通发布研报称，近日美国最高法院裁定特朗普政府依据IEEPA加征的对等关 税违法，随后特朗普宣布将依据《1974年贸易法》第122条临时加征10%的全球进口关税。该行认为再 通胀的风险依然较高，新税率和退税纷争使得政策不确定性有所抬升。市场预期美元和美债波动率暂时 走高但幅度有限，并且关注怎么打补丁。 国泰海通主要观点如下： 1、对等关税被推翻，补丁怎么打? 2月20日，美国最高法院裁定特朗普政府依据IEEPA加征的对等关税违法，随后特朗普在新闻发布会上 称，将依据《1974年贸易法》第122条临时加征10%的全球进口关税。 短期补丁：122临时关税。对等关税被裁定违法后，现行有效关税仅剩232和301关税，平均税率从 17.6%降至9%，短期内(150天)可靠122条款维持税率基本不变。中长期来看，232行业关税和301国别关 税将成为主要补丁。 中长期补丁：232和301关税。2025年232关税已经应用于汽车、钢铁、铝、铜、家具、卡车，年初添加 了半导体(但多数已豁免)。2025年已启动并正在调查的还有制药、飞机、关键矿产、无人机、风力涡轮 机、机器人和工业机械、多晶硅，多数可于 ...

Core Viewpoint - The meeting in Washington aimed to reshape global supply chains by focusing on critical minerals, with a clear objective to reduce dependency on single sources and establish a new framework for trade agreements [1][10]. Group 1: Meeting Objectives and Framework - The concept of a critical minerals trade zone was introduced, emphasizing price coordination, tariff adjustments, and procurement mechanisms rather than traditional free trade agreements [1]. - Participating countries are required to finalize specific agreements with the U.S. by mid-year, or they may face trade restrictions, indicating a sense of urgency from the U.S. [1][22]. - The U.S. Geological Survey highlighted the country's heavy reliance on imports for strategic resources like rare earths, while the International Energy Agency noted China's dominant position in global critical mineral production and processing [1][10]. Group 2: International Collaboration and Challenges - The U.S. is rapidly advancing its agenda by convening ministerial meetings, signing bilateral cooperation documents, and initiating reserve plans to support overseas mineral extraction and investment [1]. - Countries like Argentina, Ecuador, and others are included in the cooperation list, covering key resource areas in South America, Africa, and Central Asia [1]. - However, there are internal divisions among alliance members, with some countries expressing concerns about the political implications of the agreements and the potential for hidden barriers [2][4][13]. Group 3: Diverse National Responses - Argentina's stance is particularly noteworthy, as its foreign minister stated that the agreement with the U.S. would not restrict Chinese investment, reflecting a desire to balance relations with both the U.S. and China [5]. - This dual-track strategy is indicative of many resource-rich countries that seek external capital and technology while avoiding alignment with a single major power [5][28]. - The cautious approach of many participating nations suggests a preference for parallel cooperation frameworks rather than a complete shift to the U.S.-led system [9][10]. Group 4: Economic and Political Implications - The strategic value of critical minerals extends beyond traditional industries, impacting sectors like electric vehicles, semiconductors, and defense equipment, which all require stable raw material supplies [10]. - The U.S. aims to establish a reliable supply chain that is not influenced by geopolitical tensions, but the definition of "uninterrupted" supply chains is politically charged and lacks objective standards [14][15]. - Concerns about potential cost increases due to new agreements and the desire for flexibility in negotiations highlight the complexities of balancing economic interests with political intentions [18][19]. Group 5: Future Outlook and Dynamics - The outcomes of the meeting were presented as a cooperation framework rather than legally binding treaties, indicating that deeper integration is still in the exploratory phase [20][21]. - The U.S. has set a mid-year deadline for agreements, but actual implementation may be delayed due to legislative processes and local opposition [22][23]. - The evolving dynamics of the critical minerals market suggest that the direction of mineral flows will be determined by economic rationality, technical feasibility, and political trust, rather than unilateral decisions [29][32].

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the weakening of the post-World War II rules-based international order, with countries prioritizing strategic autonomy and security, leading to increased resilience investments in energy, food, and critical minerals [2][36]. Group 1: Strategic Autonomy and Security - Countries are increasingly focusing on strategic autonomy and security in response to the risks exposed by extreme globalization, as highlighted by Canadian Prime Minister Carney [2][37]. - The need for strategic reserves at both national and industry levels is clear, aiming to secure the foundations of modern industry and defense [3][37]. Group 2: Historical Insights from the Cold War - Historical analysis shows that national security strategies can drive demand for strategic metals, leading to significant price increases beyond typical industry cycles [5][40]. - The geopolitical tensions of the 1970s, particularly the U.S.-Soviet rivalry, created a context where strategic metals experienced dramatic price surges due to increased demand for national defense [8][40]. Group 3: Geopolitical Supply Risks - The U.S. and Soviet Union's competition led to the weaponization of supply chains, with both sides imposing export bans on critical minerals, creating supply shortages and price volatility [9][44]. - The price of strategic metals saw exponential increases during the late 1970s to early 1980s, driven by geopolitical risks and national security concerns [10][45]. Group 4: Current Geopolitical Landscape - Major economies are now issuing "critical mineral lists" to address supply chain vulnerabilities, with the U.S. expanding its list to 60 minerals by 2025 [11][46]. - The concentration of mineral production in a few countries, such as China and Russia, heightens supply chain risks, as these nations dominate the production of many critical minerals [13][48]. Group 5: Demand for Critical Minerals - Key minerals like aluminum, graphite, cobalt, tungsten, and titanium are essential for national defense industries, with specific applications in military equipment and technology [21][56]. - The strategic importance of these minerals is underscored by their critical roles in various defense applications, from ammunition to aerospace components [22][57]. Group 6: Implications for Commodity Pricing - The current geopolitical climate is leading to a rise in "security premiums" for commodities, as countries prioritize securing their supply chains for energy, food, and critical minerals [29][64]. - The historical volatility of strategic metal prices during the Cold War serves as a reminder that national security-driven demand can significantly influence commodity markets [29][64].

Core Points - The United States, in collaboration with the EU, Japan, and Mexico, is implementing a critical minerals strategy essential for defense and high-tech industries [1][2] - A joint action plan will be developed to enhance the resilience of critical mineral supply chains, including trade policies and mechanisms such as country-specific minimum prices [1][2] - A multilateral agreement on critical mineral trade is anticipated to be established among like-minded partners within 30 days [2][3] Group 1 - The U.S. and Mexico have reached a partnership agreement to address vulnerabilities in critical mineral supply chains, with a 60-day action plan focusing on trade policies [3] - The action plan will include negotiations on minimum prices within binding multilateral agreements [3] - The collaboration between the U.S. and Mexico highlights their commitment to addressing global market distortions that threaten North American supply chains [3] Group 2 - The international critical mineral market is currently unstable, with unpredictable price fluctuations and challenges in sustaining investment [2][3] - A proposal was made to establish a "preferential trade center" to mitigate external disruptions and reach consensus on minimum prices [4]

Group 1 - The core focus of the ministerial meeting held in Washington was to coordinate policies among countries to create a diversified, resilient, and secure supply chain for critical minerals [1] - A significant concept introduced at the meeting was the establishment of a price floor for minerals, aimed at preventing low-price dumping by non-market economies, indicating increasing survival pressure on U.S. mining companies [3][5] - The U.S. aims to protect its mining companies by encouraging allied nations to procure resources from a prioritized trade group, which may lead to increased raw material costs for downstream manufacturers like Boeing, GM, and Tesla [5] Group 2 - The meeting featured representatives from over 50 countries, including the EU, Japan, South Korea, and resource-rich nations like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, highlighting a broad international interest in critical minerals [7] - Despite the impressive turnout, there are notable divisions among participants, particularly between the EU and the U.S. regarding trade barriers, which could affect the unity of the proposed trade group [7] - The concept of "decoupling from China" emerged as a central theme, as China dominates the global rare earth market, controlling approximately 60% of mining and over 90% of processing capabilities, posing a significant challenge for the U.S. to establish a competitive supply chain [9]