US takes FORGE chair as minerals coalition publishes its guiding principles
· TexaHub · Geopolitics & Tech, Risks & Opportunities
The successor to the Minerals Security Partnership now has written principles, two working groups and a US chair, but its commitments remain non-binding.
What changed
On 10 July the United States took over as chair of the Forum on Resource Geostrategic Engagement (FORGE), succeeding the Republic of Korea [2]. The State Department describes FORGE as a coalition of like-minded nations working to establish secure, diversified and resilient critical minerals supply chains [2]. Secretary of State Marco Rubio launched it at the Critical Minerals Ministerial in Washington on 4 February as the successor to the Minerals Security Partnership (MSP), with Korea named as chair through June [3].
The same day the partners published guiding principles [1]. They commit to cooperate on a consensus basis and to hold regular meetings, and state explicitly that the principles are not legally binding [1]. Partners intend to discuss policy measures to counter "non-market practices and market distortions" and may engage development finance institutions, export credit agencies, multilateral development banks, offtakers, banks and private equity firms [1].
The machinery
The principles set up two working groups [1]. A Projects Investment Working Group is expected to keep a shared registry of high-priority projects in extraction, processing and recycling to support joint investment and co-financing, and to match those projects with downstream demand [1]. A Policy Coordination Working Group is meant to share information on supply disruptions and align policy tools and messaging [1]. The chair announcement adds that FORGE will build on the MSP Finance Network and use the MINVEST public-private partnership [2].
The text is more cautious than the rhetoric around the February launch, when the State Department said the United States and partners had set out to reshape the global market for critical minerals and rare earths [3]. Analysts at Columbia's Center on Global Energy Policy read the February package as a move toward direct government shaping of the market through tariffs, subsidies and guaranteed demand [4]. The guiding principles do not mention price floors or tariffs. Price support mechanisms, including price floors, appear instead in a January executive order on processed critical minerals that directs negotiation of bilateral agreements [5].
Why it matters
FORGE's value will depend on whether the project registry turns into financed capacity. Partners are moving on their own tracks in parallel: on 7 July Canada announced the first agreement under its Critical Minerals Accelerator, an equity-like investment of up to $400 million by the Canada Growth Fund in Teck's Trail smelting and refining complex in British Columbia, which produces germanium, antimony and gallium [6]. Ottawa said the expansion could double Trail's existing production capacity for germanium and antimony [6].
Deals of that kind, rather than the principles themselves, are the measure to watch. The first test of the US chairmanship will be whether the investment working group publishes a registry or names co-financed projects; the principles set no timetable for either.
Sources
[1] Forum on Resource Geostrategic Engagement Guiding Principles — US Department of State, 10 Jul 2026
[2] The United States Assumes the Chairmanship of the FORGE — US Department of State, 10 Jul 2026
[3] 2026 Critical Minerals Ministerial — US Department of State, 4 Feb 2026
[4] The US Is Internationalizing Its Critical Minerals Industrial Policy — Center on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University, 13 Feb 2026
[5] New Executive Order Ties U.S. Critical Minerals Security to Global Partnerships — CSIS, 15 Jan 2026
[6] Canada announces first agreement under new Canada Critical Minerals Accelerator — Natural Resources Canada, 7 Jul 2026