President Donald Trump’s approval rating remains steady at 45% as he closes out the sixth month of his second term. 

Support for the president is split along party lines, as Republicans express strong approval and Democrats disapprove of his policies almost across the board, according to a new Marquette Law School Poll national survey, conducted July 7-16, 2025.

Independent voters remain substantially more negative than positive, disapproving at 62%, which is down seven points since May. Yet, Trump maintains a 55% disapproval rating among all voters. 

Trump’s overwhelming approval among Republicans, at 86%, and disapproval among Democrats, at 93%, have remained consistent since the start of his second term, according to the four Marquette Law School Poll national surveys conducted this year. 

The polling reflects an omnipresent partisan divide on Capitol Hill and across the country, as Republicans celebrate and Democrats protest Trump’s sweeping second-term agenda, including a robust crackdown on illegal immigration and his marquee legislation, the ‘one big, beautiful bill.’

Trump’s megabill includes tax cuts, funding for border security, Medicaid reform and an American energy overhaul, among other fulfillments of Trump’s 2024 campaign promises. A Republican-led Congress passed the bill through the reconciliation process, and Trump signed the bill by a self-imposed July 4 deadline. 

According to the poll, 59% of all adults disapprove of Trump’s ‘one big, beautiful bill.’ Democrats almost unanimously disapprove of the bill, at 94%, while 79% of Republicans said they support it. 

Some conservative fiscal hawks, including Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who voted against the bill, sounded the alarm on the megabill adding to the federal deficit. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) dynamic analysis found it would raise budget deficits by an estimated $2.4 trillion over a decade.

Sixty-eight percent of people think the federal deficit will increase, up 52% from the last survey in May. And that number nearly doubled among Republicans from 22% in May to 44% in July. 

Fifty-nine percent of Americans surveyed think Trump’s tariff plans will hurt the U.S. economy. Inflation is the top issue facing the country for 34% of Americans, followed by the economy at 16% in July. Meanwhile, just 28% of Americans think Trump’s policies will bring down inflation, and 60% say his policies will increase inflation. 

Those views on the economy are split along party lines, as a majority of Republicans believe Trump will decrease inflation and majorities of Independents and Democrats think his policies will increase inflation, per the survey. 

Among Trump’s leading issue of deporting illegal immigrants, 57% favor and 43% oppose his deportation rollout, which is lower than in May, when 66% were in favor and 34% were opposed. 

This polling follows a surge in violence against federal immigration authorities and protests rejecting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) erupting across the country, particularly in Los Angeles, where Trump authorized the National Guard to disrupt protests that delved into riots last month.

Republicans continue their overwhelming support for deportations, but a majority of Independents are now opposed, following a decline from May to July. Meanwhile, disapproval among Democrats rose 17 percentage points from May to July. 

According to the poll, 55% of Americans believe the United States is mostly deporting immigrants with no criminal record, with most Republicans agreeing, while majorities of Independents and Democrats think deportations mostly involve those without criminal records. 

Trump has aggressively asserted executive authority in his second term, overturning longstanding government policy and aiming to make major cuts to the federal workforce through an avalanche of sweeping and controversial executive orders and actions, with some aimed at addressing grievances he has held since his first term.

The president started his second administration with poll numbers in positive territory, but his poll numbers started to slide soon after his late-January inauguration. 

His approval ratings sank underwater by early March and have remained in negative territory ever since in most national surveys. The president’s approval ratings were underwater in 17 of the 21 national polls conducted so far in July.

Sunday marked six months since Trump started his second tour of duty in the White House.

Former President Joe Biden, whose single term in the White House is sandwiched by Trump’s two terms, enjoyed positive approval ratings in July 2021, six months into his tenure.

However, Biden’s numbers were sinking at the time, and dropped into negative territory in the late summer and autumn of 2021, after his much-criticized handling of the turbulent U.S. exit from Afghanistan and amid soaring inflation and a surge of migrants crossing into the U.S. along the nation’s southern border with Mexico.

Biden’s approval ratings remained underwater for the rest of his presidency.

Congressional Democrats are trying to get on the same page and display a unified front after threatening to derail the government funding process.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., met behind closed doors Tuesday night, along with the top Democrats in the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, to plot a course forward in the forthcoming government funding fight.

The meeting came after Democrats in the upper chamber overwhelmingly supported the first government funding bill to hit the Senate floor, one that would fund military construction and Veterans Affairs. Ahead of the vote, Senate Democrats had signaled they may vote against the bill and further obstruct the appropriations process because of highly partisan legislation rammed through the upper chamber by Senate Republicans.

‘We all want to pursue a bipartisan, bicameral appropriations process,’ Schumer said. ‘That’s how it’s always been done, successfully, and we believe that, however, the Republicans are making it extremely difficult to do that.’

The meeting just off the Senate floor was meant to get congressional Democrats on board with a messaging plan over the next weeks and months ahead of the Sept. 30 deadline to fund the government.

It was also likely designed to prevent a repeat of the Democratic debacle in March, when Schumer broke with Jeffries and threatened to shutter the government before ultimately caving and providing Republicans the votes necessary to advance yet another government funding extension, known as a continuing resolution.

Republicans are quick to point out that when Schumer led the upper chamber, none of the House GOP’s spending bills made it to the floor — in Congress, the spending process begins in the lower chamber.

Since taking over earlier this year, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has committed to returning to regular order, or passing each of the dozen spending bills to fund the government, and trying to get the appropriations process back to normal.

However, it’s a feat that hasn’t been successfully done in Washington since the late 1990s. 

‘Frankly, I think a lot of us around here think [this] is long overdue,’ Thune said.  

However, Democrats contend that their trust in Republicans is wearing thin after two major partisan bills, one being President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ and the other the president’s $9 billion clawback package, were pushed through the chamber without any Democratic input.

Thune argued that Senate Democrats were using the rescissions package to shut down the appropriations process and effectively shut down the government.

In the Senate, most bills that come to the floor require at least 60 votes to smash through the filibuster, meaning that most legislation requires bipartisan support to some extent.

Earlier this year, the House GOP produced a partisan government funding extension that was a tough pill for Senate Democrats to swallow, but they still ultimately opted to vote for it. This time around, they’re demanding more involvement in the process.

Jeffries said that congressional Democrats would play ball if the process was ‘bipartisan and bicameral in nature’ and put the onus of a partial government shutdown at the feet of congressional Republicans.

‘House Republicans are, in fact, marching us toward a possible government shutdown that will hurt the American people,’ he said.

However, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., threw the responsibility on Democrats over whether the government would shutter or stay open come the end of September.

‘They’re gaming out how they can shut the government down,’ Johnson told Bloomberg Government. 

From drone swarms to gene-edited soldiers, the United States and China are racing to integrate artificial intelligence into nearly every facet of their war machines — and a potential conflict over Taiwan may be the world’s first real test of who holds the technological edge.

For millennia, victory in war was determined by manpower, firepower and the grit of battlefield commanders. However, in this ongoing technological revolution, algorithms and autonomy may matter more than conventional arms. 

‘War will come down to who has the best AI,’ said Arnie Bellini, a tech entrepreneur and defense investor, in an interview with Fox News Digital. 

U.S. planners now consider Taiwan the likely locus of a 21st-century great power conflict. Though America doesn’t formally ally with Taiwan, it has steadily armed the island and shifted its forces to focus on the Indo-Pacific. 

The Pentagon is responding with urgency, and nowhere is that transformation more visible than in the U.S. Army’s sweeping AI overhaul. 

The Army goes all-in: $36 billion AI investment

Under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s leadership, the Army has launched a $36 billion modernization initiative aimed directly at countering China in the Indo-Pacific.

By 2026, each of its 10 active combat divisions will be equipped with roughly 1,000 drones, dramatically shifting the battlefield from crewed helicopters to autonomous systems.

Army leaders highlight that legacy weapons and bureaucratic lag are incompatible with future warfare. The new push includes AI-assisted command-and-control, real-world testing under challenging conditions in places like the Philippines and a rapid feedback model to keep doctrine updated.

Stopping wars before they start: Cyber + AI fusion

Beyond hardware, AI may prove most powerful in prevention. Bellini believes U.S. cyber espionage, combined with AI, could strike preemptively. ‘The United States is the very best at cyber espionage and cyber warfare… once you combine [that] with AI, you can stop a war before it even happens.’

This could involve infiltrating Chinese naval systems via cyber-AI tools and neutralizing threats before ships ever set sail.

Biotech on the battlefield: From medics to gene editing

AI isn’t just about machines — it’s changing biology too. The U.S. military is exploring AI-driven trauma care, synthetic blood and regenerative medicine to save lives.

However, China may be pushing the envelope further. ‘China has been one of the more forward-leaning countries in using biotech within its military,’ defense strategist Jack Burnham said. ‘In military hospitals, there is significant research on gene editing … some of this might be dual-use.’

Reports from intelligence chiefs and former DNI John Ratcliffe suggest China may be experimenting with gene-edited soldiers, raising alarms about the ethical gray zone of AI-biotech integration.

Will robots fight battles?

‘The future of warfare is not going to be with people,’ Bellini predicted. ‘It’s going to be robots. It’s going to be drones. And it’s the synchronization.’

Tesla is developing its ‘Optimus’ robot, he noted, complete with an AI-optimized ‘brain’ to complete chores that are ‘dangerous, repetitive and boring’ in warehouses, homes and even hazardous facilities like nuclear plants.

CEO Elon Musk has spoken out against using Optimus as a ‘killer robot,’ but still, foreign adversaries worry about the potential for dual use. 

China has imposed export restrictions on the rare-earth magnets needed for Optimus actuators, specifically requesting assurances that the units won’t be used for military purposes.

War-gaming for tomorrow’s conflict

U.S. forces are already simulating this future in AI-enhanced war games. Through these exercises, commanders learn to operate at AI pace — modeling logistics, battlefield flows, and adversaries at an unprecedented scale.

‘AI is really good at modeling logistics… visualizing and integrating vast quantities of data… [creating] a more immersive experience at a much larger scale,’ Burnham said.

‘These AI opponents are like intelligent enemies you’re playing against in a war game,’ explained Dr. Randall Hill, executive director of the University of Southern California’s Institute for Creative Technologies. ‘It’s important to train not just with AI but also about AI — so soldiers understand where to trust it and where its limits are.’

Hill’s team is developing tools like PAL3, a personalized AI teaching assistant for military trainees that adapts to individual learning speeds. ‘It’s about helping both humans and machines understand each other’s strengths and weaknesses,’ he said.

Ethical concerns: Who keeps a human in the loop?

The U.S. insists on a ‘human-in-the-loop’ for lethal AI decisions — but China may not, experts warn.

‘Here in the U.S., we are focused on ethical and legal decisions on the battlefield… our adversaries… might not be as worried about keeping a human in the loop,’ said RJ Blake, a former defense official.

Hill echoed this concern, emphasizing the need for AI systems to be interpretable and stress-tested rigorously.

‘We need protocols aligned with American values,’ he said. ‘The AI must be explainable and capable of justifying its conclusions — and humans must recognize when those systems are outside their trained boundaries.’

A new era of warfare

As AI redefines warfare — from cyber and command systems to autonomous weapons and biotech — it’s not just a war machine being built. It’s a system of systems, blending digital, physical and biological domains.

Should Beijing move against Taiwan, the battlefield may no longer be measured in tanks or missiles — but in algorithms, networks and gene sequences.

The intelligence community did not have any direct information that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to help elect Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election, but, at the ‘unusual’ direction of then-President Barack Obama, published ‘potentially biased’ or ‘implausible’ intelligence suggesting otherwise, the House Intelligence Committee found.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified a report prepared by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence back in 2020.

The report, which was based on an investigation launched by former House Intelligence Community Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was dated Sept. 18, 2020. At the time of the publication of the report, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was the chairman of the committee.

The report has never before been released to the public, and instead, has remained highly classified within the intelligence community.

Fox News Digital obtained the unredacted and fully-sourced limited-access investigation report that was drafted and stored in a limited-access vault at CIA Headquarters.

The committee focused on the creation of the Intelligence Community Assessment of 2017, in which then-CIA Director John Brennan pushed for the inclusion of the now-discredited anti-Trump dossier, despite knowing it was based largely on ‘internet rumor,’ as Fox News Digital previously reported.

According to the report, the ICA was a ‘high-profile product ordered by the President, directed by senior IC agency heads, and created by just five CIA analysts, using one principal drafter.’

‘Production of the ICA was subject to unusual directives from the President and senior political appointees, and particularly DCIA,’ the report states. ‘The draft was not properly coordinated within CIA or the IC, ensuring it would be published without significant challenges to its conclusions.’

The committee found that the five CIA analysts and drafter ‘rushed’ the ICA’s production ‘in order to publish two weeks before President-elect Trump was sworn-in.’

‘Hurried coordination and limited access to the draft reduced opportunities for the IC to discover misquoting of sources and other tradecraft concerns,’ the report states.

The report states that Brennan ‘ordered the post-election publication of 15 reports containing previously collected but unpublished intelligence, three of which were substandard—containing information that was unclear, of uncertain origin, potentially biased, or implausible—and those became foundational sources for the ICA judgements that Putin preferred Trump over Clinton.’

‘The ICA misrepresented these reports as reliable, without mentioning their significant underlying flaws,’ the committee found.

‘One scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of the substandard reports constitutes the only classified information cited to suggest Putin ‘aspired’ to help Trump win,’ the report states, adding that the ICA ‘ignored or selectively quoted reliable intelligence reports that challenged-and in some cases undermined—judgments that Putin sought to elect Trump.’

The report also states that the ICA ‘failed to consider plausible alternative explanations of Putin’s intentions indicated by reliable intelligence and observed Russian actions.’

The committee also found that two senior CIA officers warned Brennan that ‘we don’t have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected.’

Despite those warnings, the Obama administration moved to publish the ICA.

The ICA ‘did not cite any report where Putin directly indicated helping Trump win was the objective.’

The ICA, according to the report, excluded ‘significant intelligence’ and ‘ignored or selectively quoted’ reliable intelligence in an effort to push the Russia narrative.

The report also includes intelligence from a longtime Putin confidant who explained to investigators that ‘Putin told him he did not care who won the election,’ and that Putin ‘had often outlined the weaknesses of both major candidates.’

The report also states that the ICA committed context showing that the claim that Putin preferred Trump was ‘implausible—if not ridiculous.’

The committee also found that the ICA suppressed intelligence that showed that Russia was actually planning for a Hillary Clinton victory because ‘they knew where [she] stood’ and believed Russia ‘could work with her.’

The committee also noted that the ICA ‘did not address why Putin chose not to leak more discrediting material on Clinton,’ even as polls tightened in the final weeks of the election.’

The committee also found that the ICA suppressed intelligence showing that Putin was ‘not only demonstrating a clear lack of concern for Trump’s election fate,’ but also indicated ‘that he preferred to see Secretary Clinton elected, knowing she would be a more vulnerable President.’

The declassification of the report comes just days after Gabbard declassified and released documents that included ‘overwhelming evidence’ that demonstrated how, after President Donald Trump won the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton, then-President Barack Obama and his national security team laid the groundwork for what would be the yearslong Trump–Russia collusion probe.

Meanwhile, Fox News Digital, in 2020, exclusively obtained the declassified transcripts from Obama-era national security officials’ closed-door testimonies before the House Intelligence Committee, in which those officials testified that they had no ’empirical evidence’ of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election, but continued to publicly push the ‘narrative’ of collusion.

The House Intelligence Committee, in 2017, conducted depositions of top Obama intelligence officials, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Advisor Susan Rice and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, among others.

The officials’ responses in the transcripts of those interviews align with the results of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation – which found no evidence of criminal coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016, while not reaching a determination on obstruction of justice.

The transcripts, from 2017 and 2018, revealed top Obama officials were questioned by House Intelligence Committee lawmakers and investigators about whether they had or had seen evidence of such collusion, coordination or conspiracy – the issue that drove the FBI’s initial case and later the special counsel probe.

‘I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election,’ Clapper testified in 2017. ‘That’s not to say that there weren’t concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence…. But I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence.’

Lynch also said she did ‘not recall that being briefed up to me.’

‘I can’t say that it existed or not,’ Lynch said, referring to evidence of collusion, conspiracy or coordination.

But Clapper and Lynch, and Vice President Joe Biden, were present in the Oval Office on July 28, 2016, when Brennan briefed Obama and Comey on intelligence he’d received from one of Hillary Clinton’s campaign foreign policy advisors ‘to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.’ 

‘We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from (REDACTED),’ Brennan’s handwritten notes, exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital in October 2020, read. ‘CITE (summarizing) alleged approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.’

Meanwhile, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, according to the transcript of her interview to the House Intelligence Committee, was asked whether she had or saw any evidence of collusion or conspiracy.

Power replied: ‘I am not in possession of anything – I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community.’

When asked again, she said: ‘I am not.’

Rice was asked the same question.

‘To the best of my recollection, there wasn’t anything smoking, but there were some things that gave me pause,’ she said, according to her transcribed interview, in response to whether she had any evidence of conspiracy. ‘I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw… conspiracy prior to my departure.’

When asked whether she had any evidence of ‘coordination,’ Rice replied: ‘I don’t recall any intelligence or evidence to that effect.’

When asked about collusion, Rice replied: ‘Same answer.’

Former Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes was asked the same question during his House Intelligence interview.

‘I wouldn’t have received any information on any criminal or counterintelligence investigations into what the Trump campaign was doing, so I would not have seen that information,’ Rhodes said.

When pressed again, he said: ‘I saw indications of potential coordination, but I did not see, you know, the specific evidence of the actions of the Trump campaign.’

Meanwhile, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was not asked that specific question but rather questions about the accuracy and legitimacy of the unverified anti-Trump dossier compiled by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.

McCabe was asked during his interview in 2017 what was the most ‘damning or important piece of evidence in the dossier that’ he ‘now knows is true.’

McCabe replied: ‘We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information.’

‘You don’t know if it’s true or not?’ a House investigator asked, to which McCabe replied: ‘That’s correct.’

After Trump’s 2016 victory and during the presidential transition period, Comey briefed Trump on the now-infamous anti-Trump dossier, containing salacious allegations of purported coordination between Trump and the Russian government. Brennan was present for that briefing, which took place at Trump Tower in New York City in January 2017.

The dossier was authored by Steele. It was funded by Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee through the law firm Perkins Coie.

But Brennan and Comey knew of intelligence suggesting Clinton, during the campaign, was stirring up a plan to tie Trump to Russia, documents claim. It is unclear whether the intelligence community, at the time, knew that the dossier was paid for by Clinton and the DNC.

Brennan and Comey are now under FBI criminal investigation related to their activities connected to the Russia probe, after a criminal referral was sent by CIA Director John Ratcliffe to FBI Director Kash Patel.

Gabbard also sent the DOJ criminal referrals for those involved in the effort to create ‘manufactured’ and ‘politicized’ intelligence that led to the spreading of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

The Obama-era officials have been mum on the new revelations, but a spokesman for Obama on Tuesday made a rare public statement.

‘Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,’ Obama spokesman Patrick Rodenbush said in a statement. ‘But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one.’ 

‘These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction,’ Obama’s spokesman continued. ‘Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.’

He added: ‘These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio.’ 

The Senate narrowly voted to move forward with considering the nomination of former Trump lawyer Emil Bove to a federal court of appeals on Tuesday.

The 50-48 vote saw one Republican break ranks and vote against his nomination, while Democrats have done everything in their power to slow down the nomination. Bove, who currently works at the Justice Department, is nominated to serve on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Democrats have argued that Bove, a former defense attorney for President Donald Trump, is unfit for the role, pointing to allegations that he proposed behind closed doors that the Trump administration could simply ignore judicial orders. Bove denies those allegations.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, voted with Republicans to move forward but said in a statement that she will oppose Bove’s confirmation on a final vote. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski was the lone Republican to vote against moving forward with Bove’s nomination.

‘We have to have judges who will adhere to the rule of law and the Constitution and do so regardless of what their personal views may be,’ Collins said in a statement. ‘Mr. Bove’s political profile and some of the actions he has taken in his leadership roles at the Department of Justice cause me to conclude he would not serve as an impartial jurist.’

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee stormed out of the meeting where the committee approved Bove last week.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., attempted to push for more debate time, but Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, pushed forward with the vote.

‘What are you afraid of?’ Booker erupted, after Grassley tried to speak over him and hold the vote. ‘Debating this [nomination], putting things on the record — Dear God,’ he said, ‘that’s what we are here for.’

 ‘What are they saying to you,’ he said, referring to the Trump administration, ‘that is making you do something to violate the decorum, the decency and the respect of this committee to at least hear each other out?’

Booker ended the sharp exchange with Grassley by saying simply, ‘This is wrong, sir, and I join with my colleagues in leaving,’ before streaming out of the committee room.

It comes as Trump administration officials have taken aim at ‘activist’ judges they argue are blocking the president’s agenda and preventing him from enacting his sweeping policy goals, including the administration’s crackdown on border security and immigration.

Fox News’ Breanne Deppisch and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

In a damning new report, researchers reveal how China came to control over 80% of the critical raw battery materials needed for defense technology — posing an urgent national security threat.

Through lax permitting processes, weak environmental standards, and aggressive state-led interventions, China has come to dominate global supplies of graphite, cobalt, manganese, and the battery anode and cathode materials that power advanced defense systems.

‘Batteries will be one of the bullets of future wars,’ the report’s authors warn, citing their essential role in drones, handheld radios, autonomous submersibles, and emerging capabilities like lasers and directed energy weapons.

According to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has weaponized global battery infrastructure through a combination of state subsidies, forced intellectual property transfers, and predatory pricing practices.

China didn’t just rely on low-cost tactics — it also used its financial muscle abroad. Over the past two decades, at least 26 state-backed banks have pumped roughly $57 billion into mining and processing projects in Africa, Latin America, and beyond. These investments, often structured through joint ventures and special-purpose vehicles, gave Chinese firms controlling stakes in mineral mining, the report said. 

Through its Belt and Road Initiative, China has leveraged influence in resource-rich developing nations, securing control over massive critical mineral deposits. Today, it processes approximately 65% of the world’s lithium, 85% of graphite, 70% of cathodes, 85% of anodes, and a staggering 97% of anode active materials.

Beyond powering drones, handheld radios, and electric vehicles, lithium is critical in strategic military systems: lithium-ion batteries are used in grid support for bases and emerging directed-energy weapons.

Moreover, Beijing has begun weaponizing export controls: since 2023, it has tightened restrictions on processed graphite, gallium, and germanium — later adding antimony, tungsten, and rare earths to the roster. These measures curb exports via a licensing regime and broad bans on exports to the U.S., signaling a clear geopolitical leverage too, according to the report. 

Both lithium and graphite are essential for modern nuclear weapons. Cobalt alloys are used in jet engines, naval turbines, electronics connectors, and sensors capable of withstanding extreme temperatures, vibration, and radiation-making. 

While American and allied reserves of lithium — both brine and hard rock — are being tapped, with new projects in North and South Carolina targeting domestic spodumene processing, the report claims U.S. mineral mining and refining are not advancing quickly enough to meet national security demands.

Permitting obstacles account for roughly 40% of all delays in mining projects, the report notes, with processing operations facing similarly cumbersome constraints.

Chinese subsidies ‘dwarf’ those available to U.S. firms, and include tax exemptions, direct manufacturing grants, and ultra-low-interest loans, the report said. 

U.S. firms are now accelerating investment in domestic alternatives to China’s lithium. With new Trump administration initiatives aimed at incentivizing critical mineral development—and forecasts projecting the U.S. lithium market to grow by roughly 500% over the next five years — American companies are beginning to build out processing capacity on home soil. 

Piedmont Lithium is developing a lithium hydroxide facility in North Carolina to process spodumene concentrate from its U.S. deposits, while Albemarle recently announced plans for a new lithium processing plant in Chester County, South Carolina. Both projects are designed to feed a fast-growing domestic battery ecosystem and reduce dependence on Chinese supply chains.

But to become globally competitive, the report argues, the U.S. must take a far more proactive approach, including incentivizing private-sector investment, streamlining federal permitting, establishing a national critical minerals stockpile, building technical talent pipelines, creating special economic zones, and developing robust domestic processing infrastructure.

The authors also stress the importance of ally-shoring, recommending diplomatic coordination with trusted partners — similar to prior U.S. efforts involving Ukraine, Greenland, and the DRC in rare-earth sourcing — to construct resilient supply chains beyond China’s reach.

‘Despite China’s control of the battery supply chain, this is a time of great vulnerability for Beijing, while the United States and its core allies remain strong,’ the report concludes. 

‘It is time for new guardrails, muscular statecraft, and a unified international response to non-market manipulation. Building critical supply chains that are independent of China’s coercive economic practices can help unleash a wave of cooperation among free-market nations that will lift up both established allies and emerging market partners and turn the tide against China’s parasitic economic model.’