-
Asteroid Mining: Who’s Trying, What They’d Mine, and Why the Economics Don’t Work Yet
In 2015, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson predicted that the world’s first trillionaire would be the person who exploits the natural resources on asteroids. In 2023, NASA’s OSIRIS-REx mission returned 122 grams of rock from the asteroid Bennu — about the weight of a deck of playing cards — after a seven-year round trip. Those 122 grams are the total quantity of asteroid material humanity has successfully retrieved from space and brought to Earth. The gap between the promise and the operational reality is the entire story of asteroid mining in 2026: the resources are real, the physics is plausible, the companies exist, and nobody has extracted a single commercially viable gram of anything from any asteroid, ever. Two of the three most prominent companies from the 2010s hype cycle are dead. The current generation is further along, more technically grounded, and still years away from proving the business case.
What’s actually up there
The resource thesis is not speculation. Metallic M-type asteroids are more than 90 percent iron by mass and contain concentrated deposits of platinum-group metals — platinum, palladium, rhodium, iridium, ruthenium, and osmium — at densities 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than terrestrial ore bodies. A single metallic asteroid a few hundred meters across could theoretically contain more platinum-group metals than have been mined in all of human history. The concentrations aren’t evenly distributed and haven’t been verified by direct assay on more than a handful of samples, but spectroscopic surveys of near-Earth asteroids and laboratory analysis of metallic meteorites consistently support the thesis.
The value density is staggering at current spot prices. Rhodium trades at approximately $334,000 per kilogram as of early 2026. Iridium is roughly $215,000 per kilogram. Platinum sits at about $67,000 per kilogram. Palladium is around $55,000 per kilogram. AstroForge — the most visible PGM-focused mining company — estimates that a successful mission returning 1,000 to 2,000 kilograms of refined PGM material would be worth $70 to $140 million. The margins on asteroid-sourced PGMs, the company claims, could reach 85 percent — compared to roughly 7 percent for terrestrial PGM mining. Those are projections built on assumptions that haven’t been tested in a single real extraction, but they explain why venture capital keeps writing checks.
The second resource thesis — and arguably the more economically near-term one — isn’t precious metals at all. It’s water. Water is worthless on Earth and enormously expensive to launch to orbit. Carbonaceous C-type asteroids contain significant water ice that can be extracted thermally, electrolyzed into hydrogen and oxygen, and used as rocket propellant. The value proposition isn’t selling water on Earth. It’s selling it in space, where every kilogram of propellant you don’t have to launch from the surface saves thousands of dollars in launch costs. This is the thesis that TransAstra and Karman+ are building toward — not Earth-return mining but in-space resource utilization that creates a supply chain for the growing orbital economy.
Who’s actually trying
The 2010s generation is gone. Planetary Resources, founded in 2010 with backing from Larry Page, Eric Schmidt, and James Cameron, was acquired by a blockchain company called ConsenSys in 2018 — a sentence that tells you everything you need to know about what happened. Deep Space Industries, founded in 2013, was acquired by Bradford Space in 2019 and pivoted entirely away from mining. Both companies burned through tens of millions of dollars without getting a spacecraft to an asteroid.
The current generation is leaner, cheaper, and further along — but not yet successful. AstroForge, founded in 2022 in Huntington Beach, California, is the highest-profile PGM-focused company. Its first mission in April 2023 launched a microwave-sized satellite carrying simulated asteroid material and an onboard refinery designed to demonstrate that metal processing could work in microgravity. The solar panels wouldn’t deploy initially, the satellite wobbled, communications were intermittent, and the simulated extraction was never completed. Its second mission, Odin, launched in February 2025 with the goal of flying to asteroid 2022 OB5 and capturing imagery for a future mining mission — the first commercial deep space mission to target an asteroid. AstroForge lost contact with the probe approximately 20 hours after deployment. The company titled its debrief “Odidn’t.” Its third mission, Vestri, is scheduled for 2026 and aims to land on the target asteroid and take measurements for future extraction. AstroForge’s plan is to vaporize asteroid ore and use magnets to separate the metal in space, then return refined PGMs to Earth with a heat shield and parachute — all for less than $10 million per mission.
TransAstra, founded by Joel Sercel, has the deepest research portfolio and the most NASA institutional backing. The company partnered with NASA in 2019 to build MiniBee, a prototype demonstrating “optical mining” — using concentrated sunlight inside a capture bag to heat and extract water and volatiles from carbonaceous asteroid material. TransAstra’s full architecture, called Apis, envisions harvesting up to 100 metric tons of water from a single near-Earth asteroid and delivering it to lunar orbit, all from a single Falcon 9 launch. The company is pursuing near-term revenue from space tug and debris capture contracts while developing the longer-term mining infrastructure. Sercel himself has cautioned that mining PGMs and returning them to Earth is “not a near-term prospect” — TransAstra is building the enabling infrastructure, not going straight for the ore.
Karman+, the newest of the three, plans to go directly to an asteroid in 2026 and test excavation equipment. The UK-based Asteroid Mining Corporation is taking a different approach entirely — focusing on terrestrial applications that generate immediate revenue to fund future space operations, explicitly avoiding the venture capital treadmill that killed the 2010s generation.
Why the economics don’t close yet
The physics of reaching an asteroid is not the hard part — some near-Earth asteroids are actually energetically closer to reach than the Moon. The hard parts are everything that happens after arrival. Anchoring to a body with negligible gravity. Extracting material in microgravity, vacuum, and temperature extremes ranging from -270°C in shadow to +120°C in direct sunlight. Processing raw material into something refined enough to be worth returning to Earth. Packaging it in a reentry vehicle that can survive atmospheric entry. Recovering it on the surface. Doing all of this robotically, with round-trip communication delays measured in minutes to hours, on a spacecraft that launched for less than $10 million.
No one has demonstrated any of these steps at commercial scale. OSIRIS-REx proved sample return is possible — at a mission cost of approximately $1 billion for 122 grams. AstroForge’s thesis is that commercially focused hardware, riding on cheap SpaceX launches, can do it for orders of magnitude less. That thesis hasn’t been tested. The company’s first two missions both failed to achieve primary objectives.
The market problem is equally real. Platinum-group metals are valuable precisely because they’re rare — global annual platinum production is roughly 190 metric tons. Introducing significant asteroid-sourced supply would depress prices, potentially destroying the economics that justified the mission. The rare earth elements market has this same structural vulnerability — the value exists because of scarcity, and the mining operation undermines the scarcity it’s exploiting. AstroForge’s planned 1,000-to-2,000-kilogram returns per mission would represent roughly 0.5 to 1 percent of annual platinum production, which is probably absorbable. But the pitch to investors involves scaling far beyond that, and the price impact of scaling has no historical precedent.
The water-in-space thesis avoids the price-depression problem because the market doesn’t exist yet — there’s no orbital propellant depot competing for customers. But it requires the orbital economy to develop enough that in-space refueling becomes a real market rather than a theoretical one. SpaceX’s Starship architecture could either create that market (by generating demand for in-orbit propellant transfer) or destroy it (by making Earth-to-orbit launch so cheap that space-sourced water has no cost advantage).
Where it sits
Asteroid mining is simultaneously the most over-hyped and most under-appreciated resource play in the Moonshot 2169 landscape. Over-hyped because no company has extracted anything from any asteroid commercially, two out of three 2010s pioneers are dead, and the current leader has failed two of its first two missions. Under-appreciated because the resource concentrations are real, launch costs have dropped 100x since the concept was first proposed, and the three surviving companies are technically more credible than anything that existed a decade ago. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 doesn’t explicitly prohibit commercial resource extraction — the 2015 U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act explicitly authorized it — but the legal framework for property rights, environmental liability, and international disputes in space mining remains essentially unwritten.
The constraint isn’t physics. It isn’t law. It isn’t even money. It’s the gap between “we know the resources exist” and “we’ve proven we can get them” — a gap that AstroForge’s Vestri mission in 2026 is designed to narrow. If Vestri successfully lands on an asteroid and takes measurements, it won’t prove asteroid mining works. It will prove that the next mission has a target worth mining. That’s not a commercial breakthrough. It’s the beginning of a beginning. We cover asteroid mining alongside fusion energy, solid-state batteries, space elevators, and 20 other unfinished machines across our Technology Moonshots course — where “done” means boring, measurable, and operable on a random Tuesday, and nothing about asteroid mining is done yet.
-
The Loitering Munition Revolution: Switchblade, Lancet, and the Weapons Redefining Infantry Combat
A Javelin missile costs $178,000. A Patriot interceptor costs $3 to $4 million. A Switchblade 300 costs roughly $6,000. A commercial FPV drone rigged with an RPG warhead costs a few hundred dollars. The arithmetic is not subtle. The most consequential shift in infantry combat since the machine gun is being driven not by a technological breakthrough but by a cost curve — weapons cheap enough to be expendable, precise enough to hit a specific vehicle from 40 kilometers away, and small enough to fit in a backpack. Loitering munitions — drone-missile hybrids that fly to a target area, orbit until they find something worth killing, and then dive into it — have gone from a niche procurement category to the defining weapon of the 2020s in the span of a single war.
What a loitering munition actually is
The distinction matters because not every kamikaze drone is a loitering munition and not every loitering munition is a drone. A loitering munition launches, flies to a designated area, orbits while its operator searches for targets via a live camera feed, and then — on command — dives into the target and detonates its warhead. The operator can abort at any moment, redirect to a different target, or in some systems, wave off entirely and recover the munition. A one-way attack drone like the Iranian Shahed-136 is different: it follows a pre-programmed GPS route to a fixed target, more like a slow cruise missile than an orbiting hunter. Both are expendable. Both are cheap. But loitering munitions emphasize on-station search and human-in-the-loop terminal control, while one-way attack drones behave more like programmable missiles with wings.
The operational taxonomy breaks into three tiers. At the tactical level — the infantry squad and platoon — the AeroVironment Switchblade 300 is the benchmark. It weighs 2.7 kilograms including launcher and carrying case, fits in a rucksack, launches from a tube, pops spring-loaded wings, and flies up to 10 kilometers with approximately 15 minutes of loiter time. Its electric motor is nearly silent. Its warhead is equivalent to a 40mm grenade — enough to kill a crew-served weapon position or disable a light vehicle. AeroVironment has built over 3,000 Switchblade 600s (the larger anti-armor variant) and announced a new Switchblade 400 at AUSA 2025 to fill the gap between the 300 and 600. The U.S. Army’s fiscal year 2026 budget requests $68 million for 294 all-up rounds and 98 fire control units under the LASSO program, with the goal of equipping five brigade combat teams.
At the tactical-operational level, Russia’s ZALA Lancet-3 — developed by ZALA Aero Group, a Kalashnikov subsidiary — has arguably been the single most effective loitering munition of the war in Ukraine. The Lancet weighs 12 kilograms with a 3-kilogram warhead, offers 40 to 60 minutes of loiter time, and reaches terminal dive speeds exceeding 300 kilometers per hour. Open-source analysts have documented a hit rate estimated between 50 and 70 percent against high-value targets including M777 howitzers, CAESAR self-propelled guns, S-300 air defense systems, Buk missile launchers, and T-64 tanks. A single-person disposable launcher completed combat testing and entered serial production in January 2026. Russia authorized export of the Lancet in February 2026 — a signal that domestic production has finally exceeded domestic demand after years of being reserved exclusively for the Russian armed forces.
At the strategic end, Israel’s IAI Harop represents the original concept pushed to its limit — six hours of loiter endurance, an anti-radiation seeker that can autonomously detect and home on radar emissions, and a range that allows it to operate as a suppression-of-enemy-air-defense weapon without risking a pilot. The Harop’s predecessor, the Harpy, has been in service since the 1990s. Turkey’s STM Kargu — a quadcopter-format loitering munition — operates at the opposite end: short range, small warhead, but swarming capability that multiple nations are actively pursuing for urban and close-quarters scenarios.
What Ukraine proved
The war in Ukraine didn’t invent loitering munitions — the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan was the first large-scale demonstration, where Azerbaijani Harop and Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones systematically dismantled Armenian armor and air defenses. But Ukraine scaled the concept from demonstration to doctrine. Both sides now operate integrated kill chains where small ISR drones maintain continuous surveillance along axes of advance, feeding target data to FPV drones and Lancet-type munitions that close the engagement within minutes. The “find-fix-finish” loop that once required a forward observer, a fire direction center, and an artillery battery now requires a soldier with a tablet and a tube launcher.
The cost asymmetry is the strategic lesson. A Switchblade 300 fired at a $2 million howitzer produces a 300:1 cost-exchange ratio in the attacker’s favor. A Lancet hitting an S-300 air defense radar is even more lopsided. Defending against these weapons with conventional air defense creates its own asymmetry — using a $50,000 to $100,000 Iron Dome interceptor against a $20,000 drone is economically sustainable only if the defender has orders of magnitude more money than the attacker, which is rarely the case in a prolonged war. In saturation attacks, the cost-exchange ratio can exceed 100:1.
The countermeasure arms race is already underway. Ukrainian forces build chain-link cages around artillery pieces to disrupt Lancet terminal guidance. Inflatable decoys and wooden dummy vehicles draw strikes away from real equipment. Electronic warfare systems jam GPS and sever datalinks. Russian EW units knocked out 90 percent of Ukrainian drones in the war’s opening months, according to a Royal United Services Institute study. But the attackers adapt — flying higher, faster, in larger salvos mixed with decoys, using onboard AI for terminal guidance that doesn’t depend on a datalink. AeroVironment’s Switchblade 600 Block 2, delivering in early 2026, includes improved processors for automated target recognition — a step toward terminal autonomy that reduces the operator’s role to authorizing the strike rather than guiding it.
The proliferation problem
At least six nations — the United States, Russia, Israel, Turkey, China, and Iran — actively export loitering munitions. China’s CH-901 competes directly with the Switchblade 300 in export markets across Southeast Asia and the Middle East. Iran’s Shahed-type systems, while technically one-way attack drones rather than true loitering munitions, have proliferated to Russian forces, Houthi rebels in Yemen, and Hezbollah. North Korea tested AI-equipped reconnaissance and suicide drones in March 2025. The technology is not exotic — an FPV drone frame, a guidance module, a small explosive, and a camera feed constitute a functional loitering munition at the low end, which means non-state actors can build them from commercial components.
The autonomous weapons debate intersects here in uncomfortable ways. Most current loitering munitions operate with a human in the loop — an operator approves the final strike. But systems like the IAI Harpy can autonomously detect, classify, and engage radar emitters without human approval. AeroVironment’s automated target recognition is moving the Switchblade toward a model where the AI identifies and recommends targets and the human merely confirms. The gap between “human confirms AI recommendation” and “AI acts unless human overrides” is narrower than it sounds, and it’s closing with every software update.
What it means for infantry
The hypersonic weapons race gets the headlines because the platforms cost billions and the physics is dramatic. Loitering munitions are the opposite — cheap, unglamorous, and proliferating so fast that doctrine can’t keep pace. The U.S. Army is planning a new production facility in Salt Lake City to boost monthly Switchblade output from 500 units to several thousand. Russia’s Lancet has graduated from a niche weapon to a single-person-portable system in serial production with export authorization. The weapon that will define infantry combat for the next decade isn’t a platform any single country can control. It’s a category — and the category is expanding faster than any arms control framework can contain it.
We cover loitering munitions alongside directed energy weapons, electronic warfare, drone swarms, and the full spectrum of technologies reshaping conflict across our Battlefields of the Future course — where the question isn’t which weapon wins but what happens when every infantry squad on earth has precision strike in a backpack.
-
Pain Perception in Fish and Invertebrates: The Science That’s Rewriting Animal Welfare Law
In 2003, a researcher at the University of Liverpool named Lynne Sneddon published a paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society that did something nobody had done before: she identified nociceptors in the face and head of rainbow trout — sensory neurons that detect potentially damaging stimuli and fire in patterns strikingly similar to those found in mammalian pain pathways. The paper didn’t prove that fish feel pain. What it proved was that fish possess the biological hardware for detecting it, that the hardware is structurally analogous to the system that produces pain in mammals, and that when you stimulate it, the fish don’t just flinch — they change their behavior for hours. They stop eating. They rock back and forth. They rub the affected area against the tank walls. They lose interest in novel objects they’d normally investigate. And when you give them painkillers, the behaviors stop. That was 2003. Two decades of research later, the scientific debate has shifted from “can fish feel pain?” to “given the evidence, what are we legally and ethically obligated to do about it?”
The nociception problem
The core difficulty is that pain and nociception are not the same thing. Nociception is the detection of a noxious stimulus — it’s the nerve firing. Pain is the conscious experience of suffering that may or may not accompany that nerve firing. A human under general anesthesia still has functioning nociceptors. They detect tissue damage. But the person doesn’t feel pain because consciousness is suppressed. The International Association for the Study of Pain specifically notes that pain cannot be inferred solely from activity in sensory neurons. This distinction is the wedge that skeptics drive into the fish pain debate: yes, fish detect noxious stimuli. Yes, they respond behaviorally. But do they actually suffer, or are they executing sophisticated reflexes without any subjective experience?
The argument against fish pain historically rested on neuroanatomy. James Rose of the University of Wyoming argued in 2002 that fish cannot feel pain because they lack a neocortex — the brain structure assumed to generate conscious pain experience in mammals. The problem with that argument is that it also eliminates pain perception in most mammals, all birds, and all reptiles, none of which have a human-like neocortex but many of which are universally accepted as capable of suffering. The neocortex argument is like saying you can’t watch Netflix without a Samsung TV — it confuses a specific implementation with the general function.
A second anatomical argument focuses on nerve fiber distribution. In humans, approximately 83 percent of cutaneous nerve fibers are unmyelinated C-type fibers — the slow-conducting fibers responsible for the sustained, burning pain that follows an initial sharp sensation. In rainbow trout and carp, C-type fibers constitute only 4 to 5 percent of trigeminal nerve fibers. In sharks and rays, they appear to be absent entirely. Rose argued that this low percentage makes sustained pain perception unlikely in bony fish and impossible in cartilaginous fish. The counterargument, advanced by Donald Broom at Cambridge and others, is that the near-total absence of C-fibers in elasmobranchs would mean an entire taxonomic group had lost nociceptive capacity — something that would require an extraordinarily compelling evolutionary explanation for why losing the ability to detect tissue damage would be adaptive, and no such explanation exists.
What the behavioral evidence shows
Since Sneddon’s 2003 discovery, the behavioral evidence has accumulated across species and experimental paradigms. Rainbow trout injected with acetic acid in the lip show increased ventilation rate, reduced feeding, rocking behavior, and lip rubbing — responses that persist for up to six hours, far beyond the duration of any reflexive withdrawal. Common carp and zebrafish show analogous responses to noxious stimulation. Five-day-old zebrafish larvae show concentration-dependent increases in locomotor activity when exposed to dilute acetic acid, accompanied by elevated cox-2 mRNA expression — confirming that nociceptive molecular pathways are activated, not just motor reflexes. Atlantic cod injected with acetic acid, capsaicin, or pierced with a commercial fishing hook show different behavioral responses to each type of noxious stimulus, indicating the response is flexible and stimulus-specific rather than a fixed reflex.
The painkiller studies are the hardest evidence for the skeptics to dismiss. When fish are given morphine or lidocaine after a noxious stimulus, the abnormal behaviors disappear. The fish resume feeding. They re-engage with novel objects. Their ventilation rates normalize. If the behavioral changes were reflexes rather than pain responses, analgesics shouldn’t affect them — reflexes don’t require conscious experience and aren’t modulated by painkillers in the way pain perception is. Multiple fMRI studies have shown that noxious stimulation activates the forebrain — the telencephalon — in several fish species, producing patterns of neural activity that researchers describe as reminiscent of those observed in mammals during pain processing.
Perhaps the most compelling line of evidence involves competing motivations. Sneddon’s research demonstrated that when fish are simultaneously exposed to a noxious stimulus and a fear-inducing stimulus (a predator cue), the pain response dominates — the fish prioritize attending to the painful stimulus over the survival-critical task of predator avoidance. In mammalian pain research, this kind of motivational trade-off — where pain overrides other drives — is considered strong evidence that the experience is aversive and attention-demanding, not merely reflexive.
The invertebrate frontier
The fish debate, while not fully resolved, has at least produced a working scientific consensus among researchers in the field: bony fish almost certainly experience something functionally analogous to pain. The invertebrate question is further from consensus and considerably weirder.
Crustaceans are the most studied group. Robert Elwood at Queen’s University Belfast has spent years documenting responses in shore crabs, hermit crabs, and prawns that go beyond simple nociception. Hermit crabs exposed to small electric shocks inside their shells will evacuate the shell — but only if an alternative shell is available, suggesting they’re weighing the cost of the shock against the cost of being without shelter. That’s not a reflex. That’s a decision. Prawns who have acetic acid applied to their antennae groom the affected area for extended periods and show reduced responses when given local anesthetic.
Octopuses present the strongest invertebrate case. They have the largest nervous systems of any invertebrate — approximately 500 million neurons, with most distributed across complex ganglia in their eight arms rather than concentrated in a central brain. They demonstrate wound-guarding behavior, learn to avoid locations associated with noxious stimuli, and show behavioral flexibility that multiple research groups interpret as consistent with pain processing. The fact that most of an octopus’s neural processing happens peripherally rather than centrally challenges the assumption that pain requires a centralized brain structure — which is, incidentally, the same assumption the neocortex argument uses to deny pain in fish.
What the law is doing
The legislative response has been faster than the scientific consensus, which is unusual and tells you something about which direction policymakers think the evidence is heading. The United Kingdom’s Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 extended legal recognition of sentience to all vertebrates — including fish — and to decapod crustaceans and cephalopod mollusks (octopuses, squid, cuttlefish). The inclusion of invertebrates was based on a commissioned review by the London School of Economics that evaluated over 300 scientific studies and concluded there was strong evidence of sentience in decapods and cephalopods. Switzerland, Norway, and several EU member states have enacted or proposed welfare protections for fish in aquaculture. Scotland’s Animal Welfare Commission published a 2025 review specifically examining the policy implications of fish sentience for recreational angling.
A 2025 study by Schuck-Paim, Sneddon, and colleagues quantified the welfare impact of air asphyxiation — the standard slaughter method for rainbow trout in commercial aquaculture — and concluded that the practice causes prolonged suffering based on behavioral and neurological indicators. The study was explicitly designed to inform policy, providing the kind of quantified welfare metrics that regulators require to justify changes to slaughter protocols. The research is no longer asking whether fish feel pain. It’s measuring how much pain specific industrial practices cause and delivering that data to the people who write the rules.
What it means
The fish pain debate is the mirror neuron problem and the dolphin signature whistle problem and the corvid intelligence problem compressed into one question: how do you determine what another organism experiences when you can’t ask it? The answer, across every branch of neurozoology, is the same — you build the case indirectly, through anatomy, behavior, pharmacology, neurobiology, and evolutionary logic, and you accept that certainty is impossible but that the evidence accumulates in one direction. In the case of fish, that direction now includes nociceptors, forebrain activation, behavioral flexibility, painkiller responsiveness, motivational trade-offs, and two decades of peer-reviewed work from multiple independent labs. The skeptics aren’t wrong to demand rigor. But the precautionary principle increasingly asks a different question: given what we know, what’s the cost of assuming they feel nothing?
We cover pain perception alongside electroreception, magnetoreception, unihemispheric sleep, and 20 other investigations into how animal nervous systems process the world across our Neurozoology course — where the question isn’t whether animals have inner lives but what the neuroscience actually tells us about what those lives contain.
-
Critical Minerals and the CHIPS Act: How the US Is Trying to Build a Domestic Supply Chain
The CHIPS and Science Act was signed into law in August 2022 to rebuild American semiconductor manufacturing. By 2025, the Trump administration had redirected at least $2 billion of its funding toward something the original legislation barely mentioned: critical minerals. The pivot tells you everything you need to know about where the actual bottleneck sits. You can build a semiconductor fab in Arizona — and the U.S. is building several — but if the neodymium magnets in the fab’s equipment, the gallium in the compound semiconductors, the germanium in the fiber optics, the cobalt in the tooling alloys, and the rare earth elements in the electric motors all come from China, then you’ve built a factory that runs on your adversary’s supply chain. The CHIPS Act started as a semiconductor bill. It’s becoming a critical minerals bill because the people implementing it realized the two problems are the same problem.
The scale of the dependency
China controls approximately 90 percent of global rare earth processing, 80 percent of gallium production, 98 percent of gallium metal output, 60 percent of germanium, and dominant shares of graphite, manganese, and cobalt refining. The United States has exactly one operational rare earth mine — MP Materials’ Mountain Pass facility in California — and until recently had zero domestic capacity to separate rare earth oxides into individual elements, zero capacity to produce rare earth metals from those oxides, and zero capacity to manufacture the neodymium-iron-boron permanent magnets that go into everything from F-35 fighter jets to MRI machines to wind turbine generators to EV motors. The U.S. mined the ore and shipped it to China for processing. That’s like growing wheat and sending it abroad to be turned into bread.
When China imposed export controls on gallium and germanium in July 2023, exports dropped 97 percent in three months. European prices doubled. The demonstration was unambiguous: China could turn the valve on materials that the defense industrial base requires and the U.S. has no domestic alternative for. The semiconductor supply chain runs through a handful of chokepoints. The critical minerals supply chain runs through fewer. And unlike chips, where TSMC’s advantage is technological, China’s advantage in minerals processing is infrastructural — built over three decades of sustained investment that the U.S. chose not to match.
What the government is actually doing
The response since 2025 has been the most aggressive federal intervention in mining and materials processing since the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was established. The Department of Defense’s Office of Strategic Capital deployed over $4.5 billion in capital commitments by January 2026, closing six major critical mineral deals in a single year. The scale and structure of individual deals illustrate how far the government is willing to go.
MP Materials — the Mountain Pass operator and sole U.S. rare earth miner — received a $400 million equity investment from the Pentagon plus a $150 million loan to build heavy rare earth separation capacity in California. The Pentagon also established a price floor of $110 per kilogram for neodymium-praseodymium oxide — effectively guaranteeing MP Materials a minimum revenue regardless of market fluctuations. That’s the government acting as both investor and customer, de-risking a market that private capital alone won’t enter because Chinese producers can dump prices below any Western competitor’s cost of production.
Vulcan Elements and ReElement Technologies secured a $1.4 billion public-private partnership — $620 million in Pentagon loans, $50 million from the Department of Commerce under the CHIPS Act (with the government receiving an equivalent equity stake), and $550 million in private capital — to manufacture up to 10,000 metric tons of NdFeB magnet material domestically. USA Rare Earth announced a $1.6 billion debt and equity package with the government taking a 10 percent ownership stake. In Alaska, the Pentagon invested $35.6 million for a 10 percent stake in Trilogy Metals’ Upper Kobuk project. In Louisiana, Ucore Rare Metals received $18.4 million from the Army for a commercial-scale rare earth separation facility.
The National Defense Stockpile, a strategic reserve created in 1939 and largely neglected for decades, received $2 billion in new funding through the One Big Beautiful Act. The Pentagon announced intent to procure up to $1 billion in stockpile materials, issuing requests for information on scandium, tungsten, graphite, samarium, dysprosium, and terbium — minerals for which the U.S. has known deposits but essentially zero commercial production capacity.
The permitting acceleration is the other half. A March 2025 executive order expanded Defense Production Act authorities, reduced approval requirements, and directed streamlined permitting for mineral projects. The Department of the Interior published a new Critical Minerals List in November 2025, expanded from 50 to include additional materials based on updated methodology. In January 2026, Section 232 tariff actions targeted processed critical minerals alongside semiconductors — not yet imposing duties on minerals, but establishing monitoring frameworks and requiring Commerce to report on whether future restrictions are warranted.
Why it might not work fast enough
The money is real. The policy intent is clear. The problem is time. The average timeline from mineral discovery to production in the United States is 17 to 29 years. Environmental review, permitting, judicial challenge, construction, commissioning, and ramp-up each take years. China didn’t build its mineral processing dominance through a single piece of legislation. It built it through three decades of sustained investment, deliberately subsidized production, environmental shortcuts that no Western democracy would permit, and strategic acquisition of mining assets worldwide — an estimated $57 billion invested in copper, cobalt, nickel, lithium, and rare earth mines and processing facilities from 2000 to 2021.
The CHIPS Act-funded investments will take years to produce operational output. Vulcan Elements’ 10,000-ton magnet facility hasn’t been built yet. MP Materials’ heavy rare earth separation capacity is under development. The Thacker Pass lithium project in Nevada — the largest lithium deposit in the U.S. — had its Department of Energy loan restructured in October 2025 to include debt service deferrals, which tells you the economics remain fragile. The Pentagon’s price floor mechanism for rare earths is an admission that the market alone won’t sustain domestic production against Chinese competitors who operate at lower cost, lower environmental standards, and with direct state subsidy.
There’s also a geographic diversification play that acknowledges the U.S. can’t do everything domestically. MP Materials announced a joint venture with the Pentagon and Saudi Arabia’s Ma’aden to build a rare earth refinery in Saudi Arabia — expanding non-Chinese separation capacity outside U.S. borders but within allied supply chains. The Export-Import Bank’s Supply Chain Resiliency Initiative finances upstream projects in allied countries where U.S. manufacturers have signed offtake agreements. The strategy is “friend-shoring” — building mineral processing capacity in countries that won’t weaponize it against the U.S. — because building it all domestically would take longer than the threat allows.
The honest assessment
The U.S. went from zero critical mineral strategy to $4.5 billion in deployed capital in roughly 18 months. That’s fast by government standards. It’s not fast by supply chain standards. China’s rare earth monopoly wasn’t built in 18 months, and it won’t be unwound in 18 months. The investments are necessary. They are not sufficient. And the fundamental constraint — that opening a mine in the U.S. takes longer than a presidential term — means the strategy requires continuity across administrations, which is the one thing American mineral policy has never had.
The CHIPS Act’s evolution from semiconductor legislation to critical mineral funding vehicle is the clearest illustration of a lesson the copper shortage, the helium crisis, and the gallium export controls all teach independently: the energy transition, the AI buildout, and the defense industrial base all depend on the same materials, sourced from the same places, processed through the same chokepoints. We cover the full critical minerals landscape — from neodymium magnet manufacturing to China’s processing monopoly to the CHIPS Act response — across our Rare Earth Elements course, where the question isn’t whether the U.S. has the money to build a domestic supply chain but whether it has the time.
-
Wagner Group Explained: Russia’s Private Army and the Business Model Behind It
Private military companies are technically illegal in Russia. This did not prevent a catering magnate from St. Petersburg from building one that deployed 5,000 operatives across at least six African countries, fought in Syria and Ukraine, ran a troll farm that interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, seized gold and diamond mines on three continents, marched a column of armed men toward Moscow in a mutiny against the Russian Ministry of Defense, and then — after the catering magnate died in a plane crash two months later — got absorbed into the Russian state as if the whole thing had been the plan all along. The Wagner Group is the most consequential private military company in modern history, and the story of how it worked is also the story of what happens when a government outsources violence to someone it can’t fully control.
The Prigozhin model
Yevgeny Prigozhin started as a hot dog vendor in 1990s St. Petersburg, built a catering empire, and earned the nickname “Putin’s chef” by winning contracts to feed the Russian military and the Kremlin. The nickname was affectionate in the way that mob nicknames are affectionate — it identified the relationship while understating its nature. By the mid-2010s, Prigozhin’s business interests had expanded from food service into three interlocking operations: mercenary warfare (Wagner Group), computational propaganda (the Internet Research Agency, which he later admitted founding, creating, and managing), and resource extraction (a network of mining companies operating in conflict zones). The three operations were not separate businesses. They were one integrated model.
The model worked like this. A government in a fragile state — Central African Republic, Mali, Sudan, Libya, Mozambique, Burkina Faso, Niger — faced an insurgency it couldn’t suppress with its own military. Wagner offered security services: combat troops, training, close protection for the head of state. The price wasn’t cash. It was resource access — mining concessions for gold, diamonds, timber, uranium. Wagner-linked companies like Midas Resources, M Invest, and M-Finance LLC would then operate the mines, generating revenue that flowed back through Prigozhin’s corporate network. Simultaneously, the Internet Research Agency and its successors would flood the country’s social media with pro-Russian, anti-French, anti-Western propaganda, building popular support for the junta that had invited Wagner in and for Russia’s broader geopolitical positioning on the continent. Military force, economic extraction, and information warfare, operated as a single integrated business by a single individual who reported — loosely, deniably, but consistently — to the Kremlin.
The deniability was the product’s most important feature. Because Wagner was a “private” company, Russia could project military force in Syria, Libya, CAR, Mali, and Ukraine while officially having no troops there. When Wagner fighters died — and they did, in significant numbers — the Russian government bore no political cost. When Wagner committed atrocities — and according to the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, Wagner has been implicated in over 1,800 civilian deaths across Africa since 2017 — Moscow could disclaim responsibility. When Wagner seized mining assets, the transactions were commercial, not governmental. The entire architecture was designed so that every action could be attributed to a private company rather than to the Russian state, even though the company was funded by state contracts, transported by Russian military aircraft, and its operations aligned precisely with Kremlin foreign policy objectives.
How it actually operated
Wagner emerged publicly during Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, with Dmitry Utkin — a former GRU military intelligence officer — as field commander. The group’s first significant deployment was Syria, where Wagner fighters supported the Assad regime and suffered catastrophic losses in a 2018 engagement with U.S. forces near Deir ez-Zor. The U.S. strikes killed an estimated 200 to 300 Wagner fighters. Russia denied any connection. Prigozhin denied any involvement. The dead mercenaries’ families received no official acknowledgment.
Africa became Wagner’s primary theater from 2017 onward. In the Central African Republic, Wagner provided personal protection to President Touadéra, fought rebel factions, and seized control of diamond and gold mines — including the Ndassima gold mine, operated by Midas Resources. In Mali, Wagner aided the military junta’s counterinsurgency from 2021 to 2025, reportedly in exchange for access to some of Mali’s largest gold mines. In Madagascar, Wagner combatants protected campaign consultants whom Prigozhin had hired to aid a sitting president’s reelection campaign — and when the president lost anyway, he handed Madagascar’s state-owned chromite production to a Russian firm before leaving office. In Libya, Wagner deployed fighters in support of Khalifa Haftar. In Sudan, Wagner-linked personnel trained military forces and were later accused of providing surface-to-air missiles to one faction during the 2023 civil war.
The personnel pipeline drew from Russian military veterans, convicts recruited from Russian prisons (a practice Prigozhin personally conducted, visiting penal colonies to offer pardons in exchange for six-month combat tours in Ukraine), and — according to Ukrainian intelligence — even recruited former Ukrainian citizens from occupied Crimea. The fighters were transported on Russian military aircraft. The 223rd Flight Unit of the Russian Air Force made at least nine flights carrying Wagner contractors to Sudan between April 2018 and February 2019. The legal fiction of private military company, the state logistics of military deployment.
The mutiny and after
In June 2023, Prigozhin — increasingly hostile toward Russian military leadership over Wagner’s treatment in the Ukraine war — launched a mutiny. A column of Wagner fighters seized the Russian military headquarters in Rostov-on-Don and advanced toward Moscow. The column was called off after negotiations brokered by Belarusian president Lukashenko. Two months later, on August 23, 2023, Prigozhin’s plane crashed northwest of Moscow. He was dead, along with Utkin and several other senior Wagner figures. No investigation has attributed the crash to an accident.
The Kremlin moved immediately to absorb what Prigozhin had built. The Africa Corps — a new paramilitary formation under direct Ministry of Defense control — took over Wagner’s African operations. Pavel Prigozhin, Yevgeny’s 25-year-old son, reportedly collaborated with the defense ministry and Rosgvardiya (Russia’s National Guard) to centralize Wagner’s domestic operations and rebrand them. A February 2026 investigation by Forbidden Stories, the Dossier Center, and other outlets revealed that Russia’s foreign intelligence service, the SVR, had seized control of Wagner’s influence and propaganda network — the division known internally as “Africa Politology” or simply “The Company” — deploying approximately 100 consultants across Angola, Argentina, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Chad, Ghana, Libya, Mali, Niger, Sudan, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Egypt, Cameroon, Benin, and Namibia between 2024 and 2025.
The transition reveals the structural logic. Wagner was never truly private and never truly independent — it was a deniable extension of Russian state power that grew powerful enough to threaten the state that created it. When the threat materialized, the state killed the founder, absorbed the assets, and continued the operations under a new name with tighter institutional control. The Central African Republic, as of 2026, remains the sole country where the Wagner brand still operates; everywhere else, it’s Africa Corps, same personnel, same model, different letterhead. A bronze statue of Prigozhin and Utkin was inaugurated in Bangui, CAR, in December 2024 — a monument to a mercenary operation that the government it served simultaneously honors and replaces.
What it tells you
Wagner was not an aberration. It was the logical conclusion of a model that BCCI pioneered in finance and that Crypto AG pioneered in signals intelligence: a nominally private entity performing state functions with built-in deniability, operating across jurisdictions that individually lack the authority to see the full picture. The difference is that Prigozhin added violence and propaganda to the toolkit and fused them into a single business model — something no previous operator in the Shadowcraft universe had done at this scale. The shell company architectures that hide ownership, the sanctions evasion networks that move money and oil through shadow fleets, the influence operations that manufacture political consent — Wagner combined all of them into one org chart under one man, and when that man died, the state simply peeled the org chart off his corpse and kept running it. We cover the full Prigozhin story — from Glavset to the Internet Research Agency to Wagner to the mutiny to Africa Corps — across our Shadowcraft course, where every lecture asks the same question: what happens when the machinery of covert power outlives the person who built it?
