Auto companies 'in full panic' over rare-earths bottleneck
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
( Originally published on Jun 09, 2025 )
Frank Eckard, CEO of a German magnet maker, has been fielding a flood of calls in recent weeks. Exasperated automakers and parts suppliers have been desperate to find alternative sources of magnets, which are in short supply due to Chinese export curbs.Some told Eckard their factories could be idled by mid-July without backup magnet supplies. "The whole car industry is in full panic," said Eckard, CEO of Magnosphere, based in Troisdorf, Germany. "They are willing to pay any price."Car executives have once again been driven into their war rooms, concerned that China's tight export controls on rare-earth magnets - crucially needed to make cars - could cripple production. U.S. President Donald Trump said Friday that Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to let rare earths minerals and magnets flow to the United States. A U.S. trade team is scheduled to meet Chinese counterparts for talks in London on Monday.The industry worries that the rare-earths situation could cascade into the third massive supply chain shock in five years. A semiconductor shortage wiped away millions of cars from automakers' production plans, from roughly 2021 to 2023. Before that, the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 shut factories for weeks.Those crises prompted the industry to fortify supply chain strategies. Executives have prioritized backup supplies for key components and reexamined the use of just-in-time inventories, which save money but can leave them without stockpiles when a crisis unfurls.Judging from Eckard's inbound calls, though, "nobody has learned from the past," he said.This time, as the rare-earths bottleneck tightens, the industry has few good options, given the extent to which China dominates the market. The fate of automakers' assembly lines has been left to a small team of Chinese bureaucrats as it reviews hundreds of applications for export permits.Several European auto-supplier plants have already shut down, with more outages coming, said the region's auto supplier association, CLEPA."Sooner or later, this will confront everyone," said CLEPA Secretary-General Benjamin Krieger.Cars today use rare-earths-based motors in dozens of components - side mirrors, stereo speakers, oil pumps, windshield wipers, and sensors for fuel leakage and braking sensors.China controls up to 70% of global rare-earths mining, 85% of refining capacity and about 90% of rare-earths metal alloy and magnet production, consultancy AlixPartners said. The average electric vehicle uses about .5 kg (just over 1 pound) of rare earths elements, and a fossil-fuel car uses just half that, according to the International Energy Agency.China has clamped down before, including in a 2010 dispute with Japan, during which it curbed rare-earths exports. Japan had to find alternative suppliers, and by 2018, China accounted for only 58% of its rare earth imports. "China has had a rare-earth card to play whenever they wanted to," said Mark Smith, CEO of mining company NioCorp, which is developing a rare-earth project in Nebraska scheduled to start production within three years. Across the industry, automakers have been trying to wean off China for rare-earth magnets, or even develop magnets that do not need those elements. But most efforts are years away from the scale needed."It's really about identifying ... and finding alternative solutions" outside China, Joseph Palmieri, head of supply chain management at supplier Aptiv, said at a conference in Detroit last week.Automakers including General Motors and BMW and major suppliers such as ZF and BorgWarner are working on motors with low-to-zero rare-earth content, but few have managed to scale production enough to cut costs.The EU has launched initiatives including the Critical Raw Materials Act to boost European rare-earth sources. But it has not moved fast enough, said Noah Barkin, a senior advisor at Rhodium Group, a China-focused U.S. think tank.Even players that have developed marketable products struggle to compete with Chinese producers on price. David Bender, co-head of German metal specialist Heraeus' magnet recycling business, said it is only operating at 1% capacity and will have to close next year if sales do not increase.Minneapolis-based Niron has developed rare-earth free magnets and has raised more than $250 million from investors including GM, Stellantis and auto supplier Magna."We've seen a step change in interest from investors and customers" since China's export controls took effect, CEO Jonathan Rowntree said. It is planning a $1 billion plant scheduled to start production in 2029.England-based Warwick Acoustics has developed rare-earth-free speakers expected to appear in a luxury car later this year. CEO Mike Grant said the company has been in talks with another dozen automakers, although the speakers are not expected to be available in mainstream models for about five years.As auto companies scout longer-term solutions, they are left scrambling to avert imminent factory shutdowns. Automakers must figure out which of their suppliers - and smaller ones a few links up the supply chain - need export permits. Mercedes-Benz, for example, is talking to suppliers about building rare-earth stockpiles.Analysts said the constraints could force automakers to make cars without certain parts and park them until they become available, as GM and others did during the semiconductor crisis.Automakers' reliance on China does not end with rare earth elements. A 2024 European Commission report said China controls more than 50% of global supply of 19 key raw materials, including manganese, graphite and aluminum.Andy Leyland, co-founder of supply chain specialist SC Insights, said any of those elements could be used as leverage by China. "This just is a warning shot," he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
43 minutes ago
- India Today
'There is a lot of distrust on both sides': Einar Tangen breaks down India's balancing act with China
In a rapidly shifting global order, India finds itself at the center of competing geopolitical currents. On the one hand, tensions with China remain unresolved—from border disputes to Beijing's close ties with Pakistan. On the other, New Delhi is grappling with Washington's unpredictable trade measures and growing unease over America's unilateralist approach under Donald Trump. Against this backdrop, India is being asked to make difficult choices- between aligning with U.S. interests, managing its troubled yet vital relationship with China, and asserting leadership within the Global South through platforms like Adding to this complex landscape, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's recent meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi ahead of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Tianjin signaled at least a tentative willingness to re-engage, even as mistrust lingers after Galwan. To unpack these complexities, India Today's Geeta Mohan spoke to Einar Tangen, Senior Fellow at the Taihe Institute in Beijing and Chairman of Asia Narratives on Substack. Known for his candid assessments of global power politics, Tangen examines the fraught triangular dynamic between India, China, and the United States, while situating it within the larger multipolar shift the persistence of mistrust after Galwan, to Washington's fear of a stronger BRICS, to questions about whether New Delhi engaged too deeply with America at the cost of balancing China, Tangen offers sharp insights into how India's choices today could define not just its own trajectory, but the future of the world order.Q1. We're seeing serious engagements between India and China at the highest leadership levels, even as both countries navigate a crisis over trade and tariffs with the United States. How are these dynamics playing out? From New Delhi's perspective, from Beijing's perspective- what does this moment really signify? And while special representative talks on the boundary question remain part of the ongoing process, with no major announcements and the status quo largely unchanged, how should we interpret the significance of these engagements right now? A: Well, not quite. China has indicated that they're going to release model boring machines, also rare earths, and some fertilizer things like this. I think these were aimed at making sure that this was going to be a friendly visit. Obviously, they're meeting to set the agenda for Modi and Xi, assuming that they have a meeting on the sidelines of the SCO at the end of this month. But more importantly, these are two neighbours. They have issues. Areas of influence. Border trade. These have to be worked out, which they this process started, you can easily trace it back to last October. This is before Donald Trump's tariffs. But Donald Trump's tariffs have moved things up. I think it's very clear that everyone in India is kind of scratching their head- what did India do to the U.S. to deserve this treatment? advertisementPublic humiliation. Interference in the general elections. This kind of colour revolution in Bangladesh. Signing development agreements with Pakistan. Claiming credit for ending a war he didn't. These just doesn't make any sense. And then all of a sudden, 50% (tariffs).The only way it makes sense is if you look back at Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric, which shifted from just solely about China to the BRICS. Why would you talk about the BRICS? He has done so because if there's anything that keeps people in Washington up late or sleepless at night, it is the idea that 40% of the world's GDP, the majority of people, markets, resources, and four times the amount of manufacturing of the world would get together- 10 countries with many more wanting to join- and go to the United States and say the days of this unilateral hegemony is over. You have to join the multipolar world. And if you want to fight all of us, feel free. We'll crush you. That's the simple reality. advertisementI mean, Donald Trump is known for taco. That's his nickname. Trump always chickens out. He only does so when he's forced to, when everything is against him. So if India can be a leader in this movement to set the world free from this kind of tyranny, it's going to be a big, big win for India. Q2. That's an important perspective on BRICS. But when I say status quo, I'm referring specifically to the boundary talks led by the special representatives. They continue to discuss de-escalation, but so far there's been no concrete announcement on when or how that process might actually begin?A: There's 60,000 troops from both sides that are massed along the borders. They've been pulling back gradually. It is a process. There is a lot of distrust on both sides in terms of from the Galwan incident. They're testing each other to make sure that this is real. China has been throwing a goodwill gesture out there saying that we're going to do some things economically. But they're concerned. Is this just a stalking horse? Is Delhi looking to get leverage with the United States by going to Beijing? Or is this legitimately a falling attempt? advertisementNow, the border issue will last beyond Trump. But trust is something that has to be built up over time. It can be lost in an instant. And at this point, both sides have to slowly move at this in a very crab-like way in order to be assured that the other one is not acting in bad faith. Q3. But when we talk about distrust, I know the biggest problem and concern for India is the fact that there is serious hyphenation that we're looking at on China's part when it comes to India and Pakistan. Not just the fact that it's an ironclad friendship between Beijing and Islamabad, but the fact that Wang Yi is going to travel from India to Pakistan next. A: I don't think that China can interfere in what India does or where its diplomats go. There's a longstanding friendship between China and Pakistan. There are major projects there. The hope China had when it supported bringing both India and Pakistan into the SCO was that long-standing issues could be resolved through dialogue—by sitting at the table and negotiating—rather than through skirmishes, wars, or violence. advertisementI think China is still dedicated to that idea. That's why it talks to India. That's why in 2013, Xi Jinping said future of Asia, and perhaps the world, is going to be decided by the relationship between India and China. I still feel that's true, but it doesn't mean to the exclusion of all other countries. It's a global multipolar world where all countries have to be given a chance. Pakistan is a mess. Everybody knows that. Last thing China wants is Pakistan to dissolve. I don't think India wants that also. You do not want unknown people in charge of nuclear weapons. Q4. Can BRICS, as a multilateral grouping, become an alternative to what America is? Could BRICS really play a role in the process of the idea of de-dollarization? Could it be an alternative to the United States and its bullying across the world? A: There are already alternatives to the U.S. dollar. India employs them in terms of direct currency transactions, especially with Russia, but with all other countries. It's also trying to expand that. China does that as well. It has over 140 countries where it's the primary trade partner for that country. It makes more sense rather than risking buying dollars, which since Donald Trump, has gone into the office, have deteriorated by 10 percent. Obviously, countries are perturbed. SWIFT was weaponized. Russia, Venezuela, Iran, their monies overseas were taken. This makes a lot of countries very nervous. Of course, they're doing what they have to. Many of them have the lowest level of investment in U.S. treasuries and they're looking for alternatives. This is not just about India and China. Look at the Middle East. They feel the same way. Africa, South America. It's all the countries that do not want to be dictated to by the United States. So, yes, the U.S. is concerned about this. Donald Trump said he put 100 percent tariffs on any BRICS country. They even discussed creating an alternative to the dollar- and that reveals his fear. On one hand, he dismisses BRICS as insignificant, yet at the same time he imposes a 10 percent tariff on every BRICS country, and threatens 100 percent if they challenge the dollar. That tells you a lot right there. That's really what the issue here is. It's not that the dollarization is not about getting rid of the dollar. It is creating alternatives for countries that want to trade securely without being dictated to. Q5. Another piece of news coming in is about the U.S. On the one hand, Washington is engaging Beijing in serious trade talks with both India and China. Yet, at the same time, the Trump administration has cracked down on what it calls Chinese imports linked to forced labor. The Department of Homeland Security has now added steel, copper, and lithium to its high-priority enforcement list- pointing directly to the issue of slave labor. How do you view this dual approach: engaging Beijing diplomatically while simultaneously punishing it with sanctions? A: Well, this is Donald Trump's madman theory of how you conduct diplomacy. He has said- I don't want anyone to know what I'm thinking or what I'm going to do. I want them guessing. Well, that might work in real estate. But the fact is in diplomacy and in business, people want predictability. I'm not going to invest if I don't know if I'm going to get my money back. So Donald Trump is literally hurting his own cause. In China, many people that I have run into have said that the best gift that America has given to China in recent times has been Donald Trump. He has single handedly driven away his allies, including India, his neighbours, including Mexico and Canada, his traditional allies in Europe. He's castigated and minimised countries in South America, Africa. I don't know how else you can put it. He's really helping China with its very, very different approach, which says that it's a community of shared values and we're going to sink or swim together, literally, when it comes to climate change. Q6. In terms of Russia, India, and China, do you think there is a possibility of reviving the RIC? Especially with what's happening across the world, particularly not just when it comes to tariff war with America, but also conflicts. These three countries have been on the same page, interestingly, on every aspect and every conflict in most parts of the world? A: Yeah, because they share a Global South view. They're not in favour of the kind of hegemonic warmongering that has been going on and coming from the United States, supported often by Europe. Those days are over. But this idea that it has to be Russia, China, India is nonsense. India is part of BRICS. I have not heard one Indian commentator, and I've done nine shows in the last two days, mention Brazil. They have 50 percent tariffs on them as well. Why? Because he wants Bolsonaro, who attempted to overthrow his own government and keep himself in power out of jail. Doesn't that bother you? South Africa too with thirty percent tariffs. Donald Trump is going after BRICS. That is why. What did India do to the United States to deserve what it's it's gotten in the last few months. You have to ask yourself that so it cannot be about what India did, it's about what India represents. A member of BRICS, most populous nation on earth, one that is growing, one that has young people- that is what keeps Washington up at night. you know look India should be leading this. India was the developer of the non-aligned movement. What did that stand for? It still stands for the same thing and india should be at the forefront of that it should be protecting the global south and Central Asia from this pirate-like atmosphere that Donald Trump has been putting around. Can you imagine 180 tariffs, including against some very confused penguins? I mean it doesn't even make sense. I mean America has trumpeted for tens of years that India was a valuable ally and was going to be a counterweight to Chinese expansion. Where is all that? How can that possibly dissolve in six months?Q7. Do you think India made a mistake by engaging so aggressively, in the last two terms of the Modi administration as it did (with America)? Should it have looked at China as well? A: India was addressing rational concerns. It has long-standing issues with China, particularly along the border and in areas tied to its security and sphere of influence. When India signed agreements, the goal was essentially to seek stability, not confrontation. The logic was to balance its relationships while safeguarding its interests. No one from Beijing has given a clear signal of change, and India now finds itself pushed too far. Just look at the interference in your elections, the Bangladesh angle, the new agreement with Pakistan, or tariffs piled on top of tariffs. It only makes sense if you view it through a larger lens: Washington fears India could lead the global shift. India is the pivot. If India switches over and says it is time to put an end to this nonsense, it is time for the rest of the world to stand together and say we do not submit any longer we are no longer colonial vestiges to order around- Washington knows it's all over. Q8. Is this engagement that we're seeing a reset or forward movement and can India really trust china when china continues to engage Pakistan, protect Pakistan, even block terrorists from designation for Pakistan?A: I could ask the same in reverse: can Beijing trust Delhi when Delhi is aligned with alliances aimed at countering China while also deepening ties with the United States? Both countries have lost trust- Galwan was a turning point. But they are neighbors, ancient civilisations, and neither is going anywhere. That means resolution is essential, and trust has to be rebuilt gradually- through actions, not words. Of course, suspicions remain, but the real question is about the future. Do you want a future dictated by Washington, where any resistance draws you into asymmetrical conflict, or do you want a multipolar world shaped by cooperation and consensus?Look at U.S. freedom of navigation patrols near Taiwan and the fact that Washington is already asking Japan and Australia, 'What will you do if we go to war?' These are the pressures shaping Beijing's perspective. Mature nations with strong leaders don't solve issues instantly; they build trust step by step. From that view, what we are seeing now is forward movement. There was already a strong indication when Modi and Xi met in October and said, 'It's time to figure things out.' What's happening now is a continuation of that. Ironically, Trump's erratic and unreliable actions have only accelerated the process.- Ends
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Trump thinks owning piece of Intel would be good deal for US: Here's what to know
AP President Donald Trump wants the US government to own a piece of Intel, less than two weeks after demanding the Silicon Valley pioneer dump the CEO that was hired to turn around the slumping chipmaker. If the goal is realised, the investment would deepen the Trump administration's involvement in the computer industry as the president ramps up the pressure for more US companies to manufacture products domestically instead of relying on overseas suppliers. What's happening? The Trump administration is in talks to secure a 10 per cent stake in Intel in exchange for converting government grants that were pledged to Intel under President Joe Biden. If the deal is completed, the US government would become one of Intel's largest shareholders and blur the traditional lines separating the public sector and private sector in a country that remains the world's largest economy. Why would Trump do this? In his second term, Trump has been leveraging his power to reprogramme the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are helping to power the craze around artificial intelligence, to pay a 15 per cent commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses. Trump's interest in Intel is also being driven by his desire to boost chip production in the US, which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world. By lessening the country's dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the US will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence. Didn't Trump want Intel's CEO to quit? That's what the president said August 7 in an unequivocal post calling for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign less than five months after the Santa Clara, California, company hired him. The demand was triggered by reports raising national security concerns about Tan's past investments in Chinese tech companies while he was a venture capitalist. But Trump backed off after Tan professed his allegiance to the US in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, who applauded the Intel CEO for having an "amazing story." Why would Intel do a deal? The company isn't commenting about the possibility of the US government becoming a major shareholder, but Intel may have little choice because it is currently dealing from a position of weakness. After enjoying decades of growth while its processors powered the personal computer boom, the company fell into a slump after missing the shift to the mobile computing era unleashed by the iPhone's 2007 debut. Intel has fallen even farther behind in recent years during an artificial intelligence craze that has been a boon for Nvidia and AMD. The company lost nearly USD 19 billion last year and another $3.7 billion in the first six months of this year, prompting Tan to undertake a cost-cutting spree. By the end of this year, Tan expects Intel to have about 75,000 workers, a 25% reduction from the end of last year. Would this deal be unusual? Although rare, it's not unprecedented for the US government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60% stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy. The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM. Would the government run Intel? US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC during a Tuesday interview that the government has no intention of meddling in Intel's business, and will have its hands tied by holding non-voting shares in the company. But some analysts wonder if the Trump administration's financial ties to Intel might prod more companies looking to curry favour with the president to increase their orders for the company's chips. What government grants does Intel receive? Intel was among the biggest beneficiaries of the Biden administration's CHIPS and Science Act, but it hasn't been able to revive its fortunes while falling behind on construction projects spawned by the programme. The company has received about $2.2 billion of the $7.8 billion pledged under the incentives programme - money that Lutnick derided as a "giveaway" that would better serve US taxpayers if it's turned into Intel stock. "We think America should get the benefit of the bargain," Lutnick told CNBC. "It's obvious that it's the right move to make." Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Swiggy, Tencent backer Prosus gets Rajinikanth fan to script India AI play India's F&O boom puts spotlight on retail protection through education Can new shipping laws bury the ghost of British legacy? As big fat Indian wedding slims to budget, Manyavar loses lustre Stock Radar: Bajaj Auto showing signs of reversal after falling over 30% from highs; medium term should 'buy the dip' F&O Radar | Deploy Bull Call Ladder in JSW Steel stock to benefit from bullish outlook Time for risk-takers to come out of hibernation? 5 mid-cap stocks from different sectors with an upside potential of up to 27% Buy, Sell or Hold: Motilal Oswal initiates coverage on JSW Cement; Emkay Global sees over 30% upside in Gravita India
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
US-China tariff status quo working well ahead of November, says Bessent
Bessent's remarks indicate that an easing of tensions between the two sides remains in place, potentially creating an opening for President Donald Trump to meet Chinese leader Xi Jinping Bloomberg Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent indicated the US is satisfied with the current tariff set up with China, a signal the Trump administration is looking to maintain calm with its economic rival before a trade truce expires in November. When asked in a Fox News interview when progress in negotiations would be seen and if the US needed a trade agreement because of how tariffs were going, Bessent said that 'we're very happy' with the situation with China. 'I think right now the status quo is working pretty well,' he said. 'China is the biggest revenue line in the tariff income — so if it's not broke, don't fix it,' he said in the interview on Tuesday. 'We have had very good talks with China. I imagine we'll be seeing them again before November.' Bessent's remarks indicate that an easing of tensions between the two sides remains in place, potentially creating an opening for President Donald Trump to meet Chinese leader Xi Jinping. The Trump administration has generally dialed down its confrontational tone with Beijing recently to get a summit with Xi and a trade deal. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said a meeting between the two leaders is likely, though no date has been set. Last week, Trump extended a pause on higher tariffs on Chinese goods for another 90 days into early November, a move that stabilized trade ties between the world's two largest economies. That was possible because the US and China agreed to reduce tit-for-tat tariff hikes and ease export restrictions on rare earth magnets and certain technologies. S&P Global Ratings has said revenues from Trump's tariffs would help soften the blow to the US's fiscal health from the president's tax cuts, enabling it to maintain its current credit grade. Still, the trade dispute with China is causing some pain for the US Caleb Ragland, president of the American Soybean Association, said in a letter to Trump dated Tuesday that American soybean farmers are near a 'trade and financial precipice' and cannot survive a prolonged dispute. Trump said last week that he hoped China would massively step up its purchases of American soybeans. China hasn't bought a single cargo of soybeans from the next harvest, which starts in September. And in a move that's likely to irk Beijing, the Trump administration is set to step up scrutiny of imports of steel, copper, lithium and other materials from the world's No. 2 economy to enforce a US ban on goods allegedly made with forced labor in the country's Xinjiang region. The plan dovetails with Trump's broader trade goals, given he wants to lower the US trade deficit with China and put pressure on Beijing to curb shipments of fentanyl and precursor chemicals. Earlier this month Trump doubled tariffs on Indian goods to 50 per cent, saying the hike was punishment for India's purchases of discounted oil from Russia, which he argues helps fund President Vladimir Putin's war against Ukraine. There's been concern that the US may also target other nations — China is the largest overall buyer of Moscow's crude — but so far India has been the only major economy to be hit with such 'secondary tariffs.' Bessent defended the administration's lack of secondary tariffs on China in an interview with CNBC, saying India only ramped up its purchases after the Kremlin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
