‘Serious Problem’: America’s Cutting Edge Weaponry Is Dependent On Chinese Tech, Experts Warn

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

American defense startups are far too reliant on Chinese parts — and that poses a serious risk of exploitation by Beijing, experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Business is booming as hundreds of defense startups have joined the growing U.S. military-industrial complex since 2021, according to The Wall Street Journal. But defense contractors are heavily dependent on China for parts for weapons systems, including motors, chips and rare earth minerals, which poses potential avenues for Beijing to exploit or hamper American technologies, experts told the DCNF.

“This is a serious problem for two reasons,” John Lee, senior defense expert at the Hudson Institute, told the DCNF. “First, as we saw during the pandemic, over-reliance on Chinese supply chains for components and inputs leaves countries and economies vulnerable to politically or policy-motivated restrictions being imposed by Beijing.”

“Second, components can have elements inserted into them without the knowledge of the end user. This could be spying equipment, channels for China to disable or damage the component from a distance, or even materials that can weaponize the component,” Lee said.

New defense contractors particularly rely on these parts because they don’t enjoy the same cash reserve that the industry giants do, and China makes and sells the parts for a cheaper price.

But these startups don’t want to be so reliant on China, given that the country is actively trying to undermine the U.S. and would likely be an adversary in a global war scenario, industry executives told the WSJ.

Decoupling from China-based entities proves difficult and expensive, defense startups told the WSJ, though it’s the only option in the long term.

“There’s a lot of lip-flapping about national security resilience manufacturing. But there’s no money for us to do this,” Scott Cololismo, CEO of defense startup LAND Energy, told the WSJ. LAND has some funding grants from the Pentagon, but needs more support to thrive, Colosimo explained.

The rare-earth minerals that China provides U.S. defense contractors — including neodymium, yttrium and samarium — are of particular value, given that they are essential for most high-tech military equipment, including laser and missile systems, jet engines, communications devices and even nuclear propulsion systems.

“Critical minerals are the building blocks for many of the most sensitive products in our defense industry,” Adam Savit, director of the China Policy Initiative at the America First Policy Initiative, told the DCNF. “China can abuse its dominant position in other critical mineral supply chains at any time.”

“The only long-term solution to this is to enact comprehensive permitting reform to approve domestic mining projects, and work with allied nations to develop new production when the U.S. lacks the relevant natural resources,” Savit said.

Savit’s warning that China can upset the supply chain of rare earth minerals also invokes a broader problem — China can cut the supply line for any of the parts needed by U.S. defense contractors, for any time or reason it chooses.

“If your supply chain runs dry, you have nothing to sell,” Ryan Beall, founder of drone manufacturer TILT Autonomy, told the WSJ.

‘It’s Alarming’: US-Funded Research Led To Over 1,000 Patents For China-Based Entitieshttps://t.co/tpr0NSD79X

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) August 30, 2024

Lee warned that the problem exposes the U.S. and West’s gaps in domestic supply chain capabilities for their respective defense industrial bases, which creates a vacuum that other actors like China find ways to exploit.

China supplies over 90% of the magnets used in motors for ships, missiles, satellites and drones, according to the WSJ. Republican Reps. Elise Stefanik and Rob Wittman sent a letter to an Air Force official last week and called the reliance on China “a serious national security threat,” pointing to an example in a report last year that found the Air Force increased its dependence on China for parts by 69%.

The idea to stop relying on China for resources became more popular after the COVID-19 pandemic, which created massive supply chain shortages in various sectors, including healthcare products. But in the defense capacity, it will take years to produce parts domestically, according to the WSJ.

“There has been a hollowing out of manufacturing and industrial capabilities in the West which provides China with an enormous advantage,” Lee told the DCNF. “In the event of a crisis against a country such as China, this will become very dangerous for the U.S. and its allies.”

Unable to wait for domestic capabilities to improve and increasingly wary of buying from China, new defense contractors are turning to other alternatives for parts, according to the WSJ. Sourcing components from Mexico and Southeast Asia, utilizing 3-D printing and buying parts in bulk have been some of the creative ways contractors are solving the problem.

Industry experts also expect that the U.S. government is likely to restrict some Chinese parts used by contractors in a bid to move toward domestic capabilities, according to the WSJ. Some restrictions on items used to produce cameras and radios already exist.

“If the government wants a U.S. supply chain, that’s fine, but they need to be clear about their requirements, and they need to pay for it,” Beall told the WSJ.

Featured Image: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Aaron Lau

Related Topics:#DailyCaller #JakeSmith ChineseWeaponSystems USArmedForcesChineseEquipment

Up Next

Trump returns to Butler, scene of failed assassination

Don't Miss

Greece plans to spend 20 billion euros to halt ‘national threat’ of population decline

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

‘There Will Be Very Serious Retaliation’: Two American Servicemen, Interpreter Killed In Syrian Attack

Business / 1 hour ago

Fuelled by federalism—America’s economically freest states come out on top

Automotive / 2 hours ago

Politicians should be honest about environmental pros and cons of electric vehicles

Business

Fuelled by federalism—America’s economically freest states come out on top

Published on December 13, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew D. Mitchell

Do economic rivalries between Texas and California or New York and Florida feel like yet another sign that America has become hopelessly divided? There’s a bright side to their disagreements, and a new ranking of economic freedom across the states helps explain why.

As a popular bumper sticker among economists proclaims: “I heart federalism (for the natural experiments).” In a federal system, states have wide latitude to set priorities and to choose their own strategies to achieve them. It’s messy, but informative.

New York and California, along with other states like New Mexico, have long pursued a government-centric approach to economic policy. They tax a lot. They spend a lot. Their governments employ a large fraction of the workforce and set a high minimum wage.

They aren’t socialist by any means; most property is still in private hands. Consumers, workers and businesses still make most of their own decisions. But these states control more resources than other states do through taxes and regulation, so their governments play a larger role in economic life.

At the other end of the spectrum, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Florida and South Dakota allow citizens to make more of their own economic choices, keep more of their own money, and set more of their own terms of trade and work.

They aren’t free-market utopias; they impose plenty of regulatory burdens. But they are economically freer than other states.

These two groups have, in other words, been experimenting with different approaches to economic policy. Does one approach lead to higher incomes or faster growth? Greater economic equality or more upward mobility? What about other aspects of a good society like tolerance, generosity, or life satisfaction?

For two decades now, we’ve had a handy tool to assess these questions: The Fraser Institute’s annual “Economic Freedom of North America” index uses 10 variables in three broad areas—government spending, taxation, and labor regulation—to assess the degree of economic freedom in each of the 50 states and the territory of Puerto Rico, as well as in Canadian provinces and Mexican states.

It’s an objective measurement that allows economists to take stock of federalism’s natural experiments. Independent scholars have done just that, having now conducted over 250 studies using the index. With careful statistical analyses that control for the important differences among states—possibly confounding factors such as geography, climate, and historical development—the vast majority of these studies associate greater economic freedom with greater prosperity.

In fact, freedom’s payoffs are astounding.

States with high and increasing levels of economic freedom tend to see higher incomes, more entrepreneurial activity and more net in-migration. Their people tend to experience greater income mobility, and more income growth at both the top and bottom of the income distribution. They have less poverty, less homelessness and lower levels of food insecurity. People there even seem to be more philanthropic, more tolerant and more satisfied with their lives.

New Hampshire, Tennessee, and South Dakota topped the latest edition of the report while Puerto Rico, New Mexico, and New York rounded out the bottom. New Mexico displaced New York as the least economically free state in the union for the first time in 20 years, but it had always been near the bottom.

The bigger stories are the major movers. The last 10 years’ worth of available data show South Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin, Idaho, Iowa and Utah moving up at least 10 places. Arizona, Virginia, Nebraska, and Maryland have all slid down 10 spots.

Over that same decade, those states that were among the freest 25 per cent on average saw their populations grow nearly 18 times faster than those in the bottom 25 per cent. Statewide personal income grew nine times as fast.

Economic freedom isn’t a panacea. Nor is it the only thing that matters. Geography, culture, and even luck can influence a state’s prosperity. But while policymakers can’t move mountains or rewrite cultures, they can look at the data, heed the lessons of our federalist experiment, and permit their citizens more economic freedom.

Automotive

Politicians should be honest about environmental pros and cons of electric vehicles

Published on December 13, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

According to Steven Guilbeault, former environment minister under Justin Trudeau and former member of Prime Minister Carney’s cabinet, “Switching to an electric vehicle is one of the most impactful things Canadians can do to help fight climate change.”

And the Carney government has only paused Trudeau’s electric vehicle (EV) sales mandate to conduct a “review” of the policy, despite industry pressure to scrap the policy altogether.

So clearly, according to policymakers in Ottawa, EVs are essentially “zero emission” and thus good for environment.

But is that true?

Clearly, EVs have some environmental advantages over traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. Unlike cars with engines that directly burn fossil fuels, EVs do not produce tailpipe emissions of pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, and do not release greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide. These benefits are real. But when you consider the entire lifecycle of an EV, the picture becomes much more complicated.

Unlike traditional gasoline-powered vehicles, battery-powered EVs and plug-in hybrids generate most of their GHG emissions before the vehicles roll off the assembly line. Compared with conventional gas-powered cars, EVs typically require more fossil fuel energy to manufacture, largely because to produce EVs batteries, producers require a variety of mined materials including cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese and nickel, which all take lots of energy to extract and process. Once these raw materials are mined, processed and transported across often vast distances to manufacturing sites, they must be assembled into battery packs. Consequently, the manufacturing process of an EV—from the initial mining of materials to final assembly—produces twice the quantity of GHGs (on average) as the manufacturing process for a comparable gas-powered car.

Once an EV is on the road, its carbon footprint depends on how the electricity used to charge its battery is generated. According to a report from the Canada Energy Regulator (the federal agency responsible for overseeing oil, gas and electric utilities), in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario, electricity is largely produced from low- or even zero-carbon sources such as hydro, so EVs in these provinces have a low level of “indirect” emissions.

However, in other provinces—particularly Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia—electricity generation is more heavily reliant on fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, so EVs produce much higher indirect emissions. And according to research from the University of Toronto, in coal-dependent U.S. states such as West Virginia, an EV can emit about 6 per cent more GHG emissions over its entire lifetime—from initial mining, manufacturing and charging to eventual disposal—than a gas-powered vehicle of the same size. This means that in regions with especially coal-dependent energy grids, EVs could impose more climate costs than benefits. Put simply, for an EV to help meaningfully reduce emissions while on the road, its electricity must come from low-carbon electricity sources—something that does not happen in certain areas of Canada and the United States.

Finally, even after an EV is off the road, it continues to produce emissions, mainly because of the battery. EV batteries contain components that are energy-intensive to extract but also notoriously challenging to recycle. While EV battery recycling technologies are still emerging, approximately 5 per cent of lithium-ion batteries, which are commonly used in EVs, are actually recycled worldwide. This means that most new EVs feature batteries with no recycled components—further weakening the environmental benefit of EVs.

So what’s the final analysis? The technology continues to evolve and therefore the calculations will continue to change. But right now, while electric vehicles clearly help reduce tailpipe emissions, they’re not necessarily “zero emission” vehicles. And after you consider the full lifecycle—manufacturing, charging, scrapping—a more accurate picture of their environmental impact comes into view.