critical

The European Union and the United States are nearing a strategic agreement to coordinate the production and supply of critical minerals, according to reports.

The move reflects growing concern in Western capitals over the dominance of China in global supply chains for key resources such as rare earth elements, which are essential for modern technologies including electric vehicles, semiconductors, and defence systems.

What the Deal Involves

The proposed agreement is expected to take the form of a non binding memorandum of understanding, covering the entire lifecycle of critical minerals

Exploration and extraction
Processing and refining
Recycling and recovery

It also includes potential financial mechanisms such as minimum price guarantees designed to support non Chinese suppliers and reduce market volatility.

Beyond production, the deal emphasises coordination on standards, investment strategies, and joint projects, signalling a comprehensive approach rather than a narrow trade arrangement.

Strategic Motivation

At the heart of the initiative is a shared objective to reduce reliance on China’s mineral supply chains.

China currently dominates several stages of the critical minerals ecosystem, particularly processing and refining. This has given Beijing significant leverage over industries that underpin the global energy transition and advanced manufacturing.

For both the EU and the US, securing alternative sources is increasingly seen as a matter of economic security as well as geopolitical strategy.

Supply Chain Vulnerability

Recent global disruptions have exposed the fragility of supply chains, especially for materials concentrated in a small number of countries.

Critical minerals are particularly sensitive because their production is capital intensive, geographically concentrated, and difficult to scale quickly.

By coordinating efforts, the EU and US aim to build resilience against potential supply shocks, including those that could arise from geopolitical tensions or export restrictions.

Economic and Industrial Implications

The deal could reshape global competition in several ways

It may accelerate investment in mining and processing projects outside China
It could create new incentives for private sector participation through price stabilisation mechanisms
It may encourage the development of recycling industries to reduce dependence on raw extraction

At the same time, such measures could alter market dynamics, potentially leading to higher costs in the short term as new supply chains are developed.

Diplomatic and Trade Dimensions

The agreement also reflects a broader trend of economic alignment between the EU and the US on strategic industries.

Discussions between EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer have signalled a willingness to deepen cooperation not only on minerals but also on tariffs and trade standards.

This coordination could strengthen transatlantic ties while also reshaping global trade patterns, particularly in sectors tied to clean energy and high technology.

Implications

The emerging deal highlights several key shifts

A move toward resource security as a central pillar of economic policy
Increasing alignment between Western economies in response to strategic competition
Growing importance of supply chain resilience in global trade

It also underscores how access to raw materials is becoming as geopolitically significant as access to markets.

Analysis

The EU US critical minerals initiative reflects a structural shift in global economic strategy, where control over supply chains is increasingly viewed through the lens of national security.

Rather than relying on open global markets, major economies are moving toward coordinated frameworks that prioritise trusted partners and reduce exposure to geopolitical rivals.

China’s dominance in critical minerals has effectively transformed these resources into strategic assets, prompting a response that blends industrial policy with geopolitical alignment. The inclusion of mechanisms such as price guarantees suggests a willingness to intervene directly in markets to achieve strategic goals.

At the same time, the non binding nature of the agreement indicates a cautious approach, balancing ambition with flexibility. This allows both sides to advance cooperation without committing to rigid structures that could face political or economic resistance.

The broader implication is the gradual fragmentation of global supply chains into competing blocs. As countries prioritise security and resilience over efficiency, the global economy may become less integrated but more strategically segmented, with critical minerals at the centre of this transformation.

With information from Reuters.

WASHINGTON — U.S. intelligence agencies are “urgently warning” private sector companies throughout the nation that Iranian actors “are conducting exploitation activity” that has resulted in “disruptions across several U.S. critical infrastructure,” according to a government notice reviewed by The Times.

The Iranian cyberactivity comes as President Trump is threatening to target Iran’s critical infrastructure in the coming hours, particularly its bridges and power plants.

Iran’s attack targeted products by Rockwell Automation’s Allen-Bradley, one of the most widely used industrial automation brands, according to the notice, which said that cyber actors affiliated with Iran were exploiting “programmable logic controllers across U.S. critical infrastructure.”

Tehran’s targeting campaigns against U.S. organizations “have recently escalated, likely in response to hostilities between Iran,” the notice warned.

“Iran-affiliated advanced persistent threat (APT) actors are conducting exploitation activity targeting internet-facing operational technology (OT) devices, including programmable logic controllers (PLCs) manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley,” the notice reads.

“U.S. organizations should urgently review the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) and indicators of compromise (IOCs) in this advisory for indications of current or historical activity on their networks,” it continues.

The advisory was issued Tuesday jointly by the FBI, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the National Security Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and Cyber Command.

Top executives from companies at the core of the nation’s ability to function — those leading America’s largest energy, water, transportation, and communications corporations — had already been taking it upon themselves to increase their vigilence over potential attacks, concerned that Trump’s willingness to target Iran’s critical infrastructure inadvertently put a mark on their backs.

Some fear Iran’s ability to conduct cyber operations that could take down transformers or power inverters, if not a wide-scale power system. Others are concerned by threats to brick and mortar sites from proxies of Tehran — physical attacks against facilities such as nuclear plants, or power management systems, the crown jewels of the sector.

Larger, even more capable actors, particularly Russia and China, may also take advantage of the fog of war to launch strikes themselves.

“There remains concern about Iranian cyber capabilities and retaliation if the U.S. carries through on threats to attack their infrastructure,” said Ernest Moniz, former U.S. secretary of energy under President Obama who helped negotiate the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. “There may already be backdoors, Trojan horses and malware hidden in our infrastructure.”

“I have to believe that the government cyber experts — or what’s left of them — are working closely and indeed overtime with the power companies and other infrastructure operators on cyber defense and intrusion detection and warning,” Moniz added.

Iran has demonstrated an ability to penetrate networks tied to critical U.S. infrastructure before.

In 2015, Iran-backed hackers accessed data associated with Calpine Corp., one of California’s largest power producers, obtaining detailed engineering diagrams and credentials related to power plant systems. Some were labeled “mission critical.” U.S. officials feared at the time that the breach would allow Tehran to initiate blackouts nationwide.

Since that time, companies at the center of the U.S. energy and telecommunications sectors have markedly improved their defenses. But Iran’s offensive capabilities have improved, as well.

Large players in the energy sector are operating with “a watchful eye and an elevated posture right now,” said Pedro J. Pizarro, president and chief executive officer of Edison International, the parent company of Southern California Edison, one of the nation’s largest electric utilities.

Companies like Edison have been operating under persistent threat for over a decade. In 2024, a pair of devastating cyberespionage attacks targeting U.S. critical infrastructure attributed to Chinese hackers, Volt Typhoon and Salt Typhoon, were discovered after avoiding detection for at least three years.

The threat of a similarly latent attack — where malware lies dormant in critical infrastructure systems, waiting for a signal to activate — is a real cause for concern in the sector, despite its best efforts and technological advances, experts and insiders said.

“The threat of cyber and physical attacks targeting critical infrastructure is not new,” said Jennifer DeCesaro, senior vice president of industry operations at the Edison Electric Institute, “which is why we partner with the government through the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council to share actionable intelligence and prepare to respond to incidents that could affect our ability to provide electricity safely and reliably.”

The ESCC works closely with the National Security Council and its intelligence arms, particularly the intelligence agencies and CISA, to coordinate regular briefings on safety standards, best practices and intelligence tips.

The CIA declined to comment. A spokesperson with CISA, listed as out of office due to the ongoing federal funding hiatus for the Department of Homeland Security, could not be reached for comment.

Last summer, announcing a 40% cut to the workforce of her office, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard eliminated the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center, previously seen as a critical fusion hub of information by private sector partners.

Asked to respond to the potential of retaliatory attacks against U.S. infrastructure, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, repeated the president’s threats.

“The Iranian regime has until 8PM Eastern Time to meet the moment and make a deal with the United States,” she said. “Only the president knows where things stand and what he will do.”

Trump has threatened to destroy every bridge and power plant in Tehran if they fail to come to an agreement that ends its control over the Strait of Hormuz.

Ultimately, corporate executives shoulder much of the burden as the first line of defense for the country’s critical infrastructure, roughly 85% of which is owned by private sector companies.

Tom Fanning, former CEO of Southern Co. and now executive committee chairman at the Alliance for Critical Infrastructure, said the threat from Iran is “credible.”

“I have not seen what I would describe as the existential threat, to take down a wide-ranging power system,” Fanning said. “Could those things be turned on? Sure. Is the United States critical infrastructure prepared to act? I think so.”

Last month, early on in the war, the Los Angeles Metro transit system was forced to shut down a portion of its network due to a hack. Authorities say it is still unclear who was behind the breach, but a source told The Times that Iran-backed hackers are being investigated as the potential culprit.

The transportation agency said its security team had “discovered unauthorized activity,” and were making sure its roughly 1,400 servers were secure before bringing them back online. The agency has emphasized the hack did not impact passengers’ commute time.

The FBI said it was aware of the hack. DHS is working with local partners “to address cyber threats to critical infrastructure,” an official said.

“The reality is that the threats are here and now,” Fanning added. “The truth is, the bad guys are already here.”

Times staff writers Kevin Rector, Richard Winton and Rebecca Ellis, in Los Angeles, contributed to this report.

A Russian tanker has delivered enough fuel to meet Cuba’s energy needs for up to 10 days, following a three-month blockade.

A Russia-flagged tanker carrying 730,000 barrels of oil has docked in Cuba, marking the first time in three months that an oil tanker has reached the island nation.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump allowed the Anatoly Kolodkin to proceed despite an ongoing US energy blockade. The Aframax tanker entered the Bay of Matanzas – the country’s largest supertanker and fuel storage port – on Tuesday at daybreak.

The vessel, under US sanctions, entered Cuban territorial waters late on Sunday, not far from the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay. The United States said it was allowing the tanker to deliver fuel for humanitarian reasons.

The Anatoly Kolodkin entered the Bay of Matanzas under clear skies and light winds at sunrise. Much of the nearby city – and the majority of Cuba – was without power when the tanker arrived at the port area.

Cuba has not received an oil tanker in three months, according to President Miguel Diaz-Canel, exacerbating an energy crisis that has led to seemingly endless blackouts across the country of 10 million people and brought hospitals, public transportation, and farm production to the brink of collapse.

Cubans, including Energy and Mines Minister Vicente de la O Levy, cheered the ship’s arrival. A shortage of petroleum has exacerbated a deep economic crisis, leaving the population mired in long blackouts and facing severe shortages of food and medicine.

“Our gratitude to the Government and People of Russia for all the support we are receiving. A valuable shipment that arrives amidst the complex energy situation we are facing,” de la O Levy wrote on X.

The fuel, if delivered, would give Cuba’s communist-run government breathing room amid growing pressure from the Trump administration, which has promised change in Cuba.

It will take days before the crude on board the Anatoly Kolodkin can be processed domestically and turned into motor fuel and refined products, such as diesel and fuel oil for power generation.

The ship is carrying Russian Urals, a medium sour crude, which is a good fit for Cuba’s ageing refineries.

Cuba produces barely 40 percent of its required fuel and relies on imports to sustain its energy grid. Experts say the anticipated shipment could produce about 180,000 barrels of diesel, enough to feed Cuba’s daily demand for nine or 10 days.

Cuba used to receive most of its oil from Venezuela, but those shipments have been halted ever since the US attacked the South American country and abducted its leader, Nicolas Maduro, in early January.

The administration of President Donald Trump has warned that news outlets could have their broadcasting licences revoked over critical reporting on the war against Iran, accusing the media of “distortions”.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr said in a social media post on Saturday that broadcasters must “operate in the public interest”, or else lose their licences.

“Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions — also known as the fake news — have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up,” Carr wrote.

The warning was the latest apparent threat from Carr, who has repeatedly attracted scrutiny for statements that appear to pressure broadcasters to conform with Trump priorities.

Last year, for instance, Carr called on the channel ABC and its distributors to “find ways to change conduct, to take action” on comedian Jimmy Kimmel, whose late-night show had been critical of the president.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said of Kimmel on a podcast. ABC temporarily suspended Kimmel’s show in the aftermath of those comments.

Carr’s latest statement prompted swift condemnation from politicians and free-speech advocates, who likened his remarks to censorship.

“This is a clear directive to provide positive war coverage or else licenses may not be renewed,” Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii wrote.

“This is worse than the comedian stuff, and by a lot. The stakes here are much higher. He’s not talking about late night shows, he’s talking about how a war is covered.”

Aaron Terr, the director of public advocacy at the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), likewise denounced Carr for seeking to silence negative war coverage.

“The First Amendment doesn’t allow the government to censor information about the war it’s waging,” Terr said.

Trump denounces war coverage

Carr’s latest statement came in response to a social media post from Trump, accusing the “fake news media” of reporting that US refuelling planes had been struck in an Iranian attack in Saudi Arabia.

“The base was hit a few days ago, but the planes were not ‘struck’ or ‘destroyed’,” Trump said in a Truth Social post. “Four of the five had virtually no damage, and are already back in service.”

He added that reporting to the contrary was intentionally misleading. “Lowlife ‘Papers’ and Media actually want us to lose the War,” he wrote.

The president and his allies have faced accusations that they use the power of the state to penalise dissent and critical news coverage, raising concerns about press freedom.

Polling shows that the war, launched by the US and Israel on February 28, is largely unpopular in the US.

A recent Quinnipiac poll found that 53 percent of voters oppose the military action against Iran, including 89 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of independent voters.

The war has also been condemned by legal experts as a clear violation of international law, which prohibits unprovoked attacks.

Trump, however, has offered shifting rationales as to why he believes Iran posed an imminent threat to US security.

He has also asserted that the war is proceeding successfully, despite ongoing Iranian attacks on US forces across the region and the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, a key trade artery.

“We’ve won. Let me tell you, we’ve won,” he told a rally this week in Kentucky. “In the first hour, it was over.”

His administration, meanwhile, has blamed the news media for turning public opinion against the war.

“Yet some in this crew, in the press, just can’t stop,” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said during a briefing on Friday.

A former Fox News host, Hegseth called for “patriotic” reporters to write more optimistic headlines instead. He denounced TV banners that read, for example, “Mideast war intensifies.”

“What should the banner read instead? How about ‘Iran increasingly desperate’? Because they are. They know it, and so do you, if it can be admitted,” Hegseth said.

He criticised the news outlet CNN, in particular, for a report asserting that the Trump administration had underestimated the chances of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz.

Hegseth quipped that he hoped a prospective deal would soon place CNN under the control of David Ellison, son of close Trump ally and tech executive Larry Ellison.

“The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better,” he added.