In July 2025, China instituted sweeping export controls on antimony and germanium, slashing shipments by approximately 88% and 95% respectively. The move targets anti-smuggling efforts but has had the added effect of tightening global supply for these lesser-known yet essential critical minerals. Since China dominates global output of both metals, the policy—marketed as safeguard measures—has thrown international manufacturers and technology firms into a scramble to secure alternative sources.
The export restrictions come amid Beijing’s broader strategy to safeguard its strategic mineral reserves and assert leverage in the global critical‑minerals market. With antimony crucial for flame retardants, lead‑acid batteries, and aerospace alloys, and germanium essential for fiber optics, infrared optics, and semiconductors, the disruption has already driven prices sharply higher. Policymakers in consuming countries are contemplating responses ranging from emergency stockpiling and demand-side controls to incentivizing domestic or allied mining projects, investment screening, and trade diversification strategies in line with their strategic security objectives.
From a policy standpoint, this development illustrates how producer‑state resource policies can have far‑reaching ripple effects on clean‑tech supply chains and national security. It also underscores the need for transparent frameworks and community engagement in supplier nations—an often overlooked dimension when ramping‑up antimony or germanium projects abroad. Any efforts to secure new production—whether through mining, recycling, or secondary extraction—must ensure strong environmental safeguards, inclusive stakeholder engagement, and benefit‑sharing. Without a solid social license to operate, even investments aligned with geopolitical strategy risk facing community opposition, permitting delays, or reputational setbacks.