As critical mineral deadline looms, Army expects to feel ‘some impact’

WASHINGTON — As the deadline approaches for defense industry to ween themselves off critical minerals from adversary nations, the Army is expecting to see “some impact” on companies that are still struggling to comply, an Army official said.

Executive order (EO) 14415, which was released in July, gives a January 2027 deadline for US companies to stop using critical materials and minerals from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Companies will be able to get a waiver only if the government approves their mitigation plan, which spells out concrete steps that the firm is taking to find new suppliers in the United States or partner nations.

Liz Miranda, Army Materiel Command’s executive deputy to the commanding general, said Wednesday the EO’s requirements for companies to map their supply chain down to the raw material level “is no easy task.”

“We’re working towards that. Are we there yet? No. So we are going to see some impact come January,” she told an audience at the Association for the US Army conference.

Asked by Breaking Defense what impacts the Army foresees, Miranda said that she doesn’t anticipate any “off the cliff” outcomes that would be catastrophic for the service.  

Rather, she said, “I see a gradual holding all of us accountable to mitigating those areas where we know we we have risk because we’re dependent on foreign adversaries.”

Critical minerals covered by the EO include substances like tungsten alloys, which is used in engine components and hypersonics, and germanium, which is used in thermal imaging systems. China is the dominant producer of both materials, according to a September report by the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA).

Miranda pointed to the Army’s announcement earlier this week that it will conduct a “manufacturing rodeo,” which is meant to expose supply chain and manufacturing risks that the service may not be aware of.

“Unfortunately, we cannot insource all of the parts that are required — specifically for drone dominance,” she said. “So with this rodeo, what we intend to do is really look internal to the US domestic capabilities and see what gaps exist, and then working with industry to invest in building that domestic capability or partnering with other allies to identify resources there that we can leverage to scale what we need.”

In a July interview, Michael Cadenazzi, the assistant secretary of defense for industrial base policy, told Breaking Defense that the Pentagon would be willing to work with companies who need waivers, provided they are making a good faith effort to find new sources of supply.

“What we need to do is commit to companies to say, ‘Look, how are you going to go ahead and resolve this problem through friendshoring, through domestic shoring, through changes in suppliers?” he said. “And if there’s a gap, a legitimate gap, [and] you have a plan and you need a window to see you through [to] bridge that gap, that’s what we want to know.”

However, defense trade groups have raised concerns about the EO’s quick timeline. AIA has argued that waivers will still be necessary for years after the January 2027 deadline, as the current domestic supply of critical minerals is not sufficient to meet companies’ needs.

In the September report, AIA found, “Significant domestic processing, refining, and magnet production capacity for aerospace-grade materials is not expected to be available until 2028 or later,” with additional certification and qualification activities potentially pushing that date even further down the road.

The EO makes those challenges “more acute” because waivers will be restricted to companies who get a mitigation plan approved, with little feedback from the government on what constitutes an acceptable plan, said Dak Hardwick, AIA Vice President of International Affairs.

“Industry is still looking for clarity around the mitigation-plan standard and processing timelines,” he said Tuesday. “AIA is urging industry, government, Congress, and minerals producers to work together on a practical path forward that meets the unique needs of our industry, preserves waivers where qualified supply does not yet exist, and avoids disruptions to defense production.”