There is a growing disconnect between the “inevitable” EV future many assume and the hard-nosed maneuvers currently playing out in Washington. While the public debate (and even outrage) continues to center on actions the Trump Administration has taken to roll back Biden-era policies that would have effectively mandated EVs, and the “pro-EV” and “anti-EV” rhetoric persists, a deeper strategic play is underway. I think that play is about attempting to dismantle a future that, as of today, utterly and overwhelmingly belongs to China. The Administration basically is weaponizing time – and our attention.
The Structural Reality
The numbers are sobering. China is projected to control roughly 60% of the global refined critical mineral supply by 2030, shown in the figure below.
The manufacturing gap is even wider: China accounts for about 71% of global battery investment through 2026, compared to just 10% for the U.S. China currently holds more than 80% of solid-state battery capacity and an estimated 96% of sodium-ion manufacturing capacity. This is a massive structural dominance.
Against that backdrop, the question facing the Trump Administration is whether accelerating a transition built on Chinese-controlled supply chains is strategically wise, be it for EVs, battery manufacturing, critical mineral development and especially, AI. That answer seems to be a resounding “no.”
Controlling the Tempo
Transport energy is one of the few domains where the U.S. can still influence global demand at scale as the second largest vehicle market. Because EV adoption is highly sensitive to policies, the U.S. essentially holds a “volume knob” for global critical minerals and battery demand.
With EV-related policies relaxed (as in the case of vehicle GHG standards), restructured (as in the case of impending fuel economy standards) or even cancelled (fiscal incentives), the growth for batteries and critical minerals slows at the margin in the U.S. That seems to be the Administration’s intent. By attempting to slow the tempo of EV market growth, the U.S. reduces pressure on supply chains it doesn’t control, preserves optionality, and buys time for domestic alternatives to mature.
A Tale of Two Hemispheres
While slowing China’s roll, the U.S. is reinforcing leverage where it still holds the advantage: The Oil System.
The Present (Venezuela): Oil remains the lifeblood of global transport; a system China does not control and where it remains a price taker. As the world’s largest oil producer (20 million barrels per day), the U.S. is using its operations in Venezuela (home to 300 billion barrels in reserves, the largest in the world) to ensure the Western Hemisphere remains the anchor of global energy and maintains maximum leverage.
The Future (Greenland): U.S. interest in Greenland is the forward-looking half of this pincer move. By attempting to secure upstream access to rare earths and strategic materials, it appears the U.S. aims to dilute China’s ability to weaponize its supply chains. I guess, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander?
Put simply: Venezuela reinforces U.S. leverage in the present; Greenland targets China’s leverage in the future.
The Multi-Path Strategy
Viewed holistically, all these moves suggest a more coherent strategy than we all might think: Fragment the future and slow China down. By encouraging multiple transport pathways for EVs, hybrids and internal combustion engines, the U.S. dents the “payoff” from China’s massive investments in a battery-only world. This approach also protects energy security at home, ensuring that a grid already under pressure from AI and data centers isn’t pushed to the breaking point by an effective EV mandate. And it provides relief to OEMs.
The Bottom Line
Slowing the transition does not mean stopping it. I think increased EV sales are inevitable, but they will not represent 100% of the U.S. vehicle sales market for a long time, if ever. EVs’ inevitability is not the real question, though.
If China has built its industrial strategy on the goal of rapid global electrification, then slowing that transition weakens the payoff to its investments. Fragmenting the future into multiple pathways pushes China out of the driver’s seat and buys the U.S. time to try and reshape who controls it. Will the Administration’s gambit pay off?
