A seismic shift in global trade is underway, driven by aggressive new US policies and China's strategic supply discipline. The US has enacted high tariffs, including a 160% rate on Chinese graphite, to protect its domestic critical minerals industry and force supply chain localization. This ends key EV tax credits, potentially stifling that sector while favoring grid-scale energy projects. Simultaneously, China's "anti-involution" policy is enforcing regulatory discipline on its mining sector, shutting down unprofitable operations to stabilize prices and ensure the long-term viability of its key players. Globally, nations are responding by weaponizing resources (like the DRC's cobalt export ban) or building strategic reserves (as Australia is considering), marking a fundamental move away from free-market principles toward secured, resilient supply chains.
A seismic shift in global trade policy is underway, with the United States implementing a series of aggressive measures that are fundamentally altering the economics of the battery materials supply chain. The centerpiece of this new policy is the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (OBBBA), signed on July 4, 2025, which repeals or modifies incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and introduces a host of new tariffs.
A major near-term deadline for the industry is the termination of several key electric vehicle and residential energy tax credits under the OBBBA. Specifically, the Clean Vehicle Credit (Section 30D) and the Credit for Qualified Commercial Clean Vehicles (Section 45W) are set to end on September 30, 2025. The abrupt removal of these incentives, which have been a significant driver of EV sales, is expected to create a headwind for the US EV sector, potentially stifling its growth. However, the OBBBA provides more favorable treatment for battery storage and geothermal projects, which are not set to phase out until after 2033.This divergence in policy suggests a strategic prioritization of grid-scale energy solutions over consumer-level EV adoption in the short to mid-term.
The new administration's trade strategy is characterized by a "wall of tariffs" on key commodities and trade partners, with the average US tariff now standing at 18.3%, the highest since 1934. A particularly impactful development for the battery sector is the imposition of a massive combined tariff rate of 160% on anode-grade graphite from China. This punitive tariff is comprised of a 93.5% anti-dumping duty, an 11.5% countervailing duty, a 30% blanket tariff, and a 25% Section 301 tariff. This is a monumental shift for a market where China controls over 97% of the world's anode material manufacturing capacity. The move is a deliberate attempt to protect the nascent North American graphite industry from what the US government describes as "malicious trade practices" and "illegal dumping". For US-based producers like NOVONIX and Syrah Technologies, the tariffs create a significant competitive advantage and make their domestic projects more economically viable. However, for US battery and EV manufacturers still reliant on Chinese graphite, the tariffs could dramatically increase input costs and present a major supply chain challenge.
The tariffs are not limited to China. The US has also imposed a 50% tariff on steel, aluminum, and semi-finished copper imports. Furthermore, non-USMCA-compliant goods from Canada now face a 35% duty, while imports from Brazil are subject to a 50% surcharge. This broad application of tariffs to close trading partners demonstrates that the new policy is a fundamental, sustained shift in trade dynamics, not merely a targeted action against a single adversary. Automakers and other manufacturers are responding by recalibrating their long-term strategies. Honda is ramping up production in the US to mitigate tariff impacts. Ford and GM are both taking significant tariff hits but are moving forward with plans to localize battery production and pivot to LFP technology in the US. This demonstrates that the new policy environment is forcing a structural realignment of global supply chains, pushing companies to prioritize localization and self-sufficiency over traditional global sourcing models. The objective is to secure a domestic supply chain for critical minerals, even if it comes with the short-term cost of potentially higher prices for consumers.
The Chinese government is taking an unprecedented step to address industrial overcapacity, a problem that has plagued the commodity markets for years. This new policy, termed "anti-involution," is a strategic move away from a volume-driven, growth-at-all-costs model towards a more rationalized, value-driven market. The recent suspension of operations at the Jianxiawo mine in Yichun, owned by battery giant CATL, is a prime example of this new approach. The suspension, which occurred on August 9, 2025, after the mine's permit expired, is part of a broader government crackdown on non-compliant mining operations in the region.
The immediate market impact of this single event was dramatic. Despite CATL's assurance that the closure would have a minimal impact on its overall operations, lithium futures on the Guangzhou Futures Exchange (GFEX) surged by 8% to their daily trading limit, reaching an eight-month high. This speculative rally was fueled by fears of a supply contraction, despite the fact that the lithium market remains fundamentally oversupplied. The Jianxiawo mine was, in fact, operating at a loss, with production costs of approximately RMB 100,000 per ton exceeding the market price of RMB 70,000 per ton. By enforcing regulatory discipline, the Chinese government is effectively removing unprofitable capacity, thereby providing a stabilizing floor for prices without direct intervention. This signals a fundamental shift in China's strategic philosophy, where it is now willing to sacrifice some production volume to protect the profitability and long-term viability of its most competitive players. This has broader implications for other commodity markets dominated by China, such as iron phosphate and graphite, where intense competition and overcapacity have also been a concern.
In response to the new geopolitical landscape, other nations and blocs are implementing their own policies to secure critical mineral supply chains. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which produces an estimated 72% of the world's cobalt, extended its export ban until at least September 2025.The ban, which has been in effect since February, aims to curb oversupply and boost government revenues from royalties and taxes. While initial global stockpiles have cushioned the immediate impact, the ban is expected to lead to raw material shortages for Chinese refiners in late Q3 or early Q4 if it remains in place. This policy highlights a global trend of governments weaponizing control over mineral resources to influence markets and assert strategic security.
The European Union has also had to adapt to this reality. The new EU Battery Regulation, while setting stringent requirements for sustainability and due diligence, has delayed the implementation of its due diligence obligations until August 18, 2027.The original deadline was August 18, 2025. This two-year delay provides a crucial window for the industry to prepare for the complex new rules, preventing a potential supply chain disruption that could have been caused by an unprepared industry.
Australia is also taking a proactive stance to secure its role in the global supply chain. The government is considering a strategic reserve for critical minerals like lithium and rare earths, complete with potential floor prices and national offtake agreements. This policy is a direct response to the strained supply chains and tariffs from the US, and it is intended to provide pricing certainty and fast-track the credibility of new price indices for rare earths.
These policy responses demonstrate a fundamental shift towards a world where access to critical minerals is no longer guaranteed by market forces alone. The DRC is leveraging its market dominance, China is using regulatory discipline, and countries like Australia are building strategic reserves. This environment forces market participants to move beyond a simplistic economic analysis of supply and demand and to build robust, diversified, and flexible supply chains that can withstand geopolitical shocks.