On February 2026, the European Union, United States and Japan announced a trilateral framework on critical raw materials cooperation at the US-led Critical Minerals Ministerial in Washington, attended by 54 countries including 13 EU Member States. The initiative marks a significant shift in US policy — from coordination to active market engineering — deploying trade tools including price floors, tariffs and preferential access measures. The EU now faces a clear choice: co-shape the emerging rules, or accept a US-defined market architecture by default.
INTRAW, Latitude Five and Values Consulting have reviewed the framework and identified its potential and structural weaknesses. The initiative is organised around two tracks. The first commits the EU and US to conclude a bilateral Memorandum of Understanding within 30 days — a near-term delivery test whose value will depend entirely on whether it defines concrete project eligibility criteria, financing instruments and governance, or remains a political signal without investment impact. The second establishes trilateral Action Plans with Japan, explicitly trade-focused and potentially shaping pricing, market access and eligibility for preferential treatment — though with no timeframe for conclusion.
Three structural weaknesses put the EU’s position at risk. Responsibility for implementation remains fragmented across multiple Commission Directorates-General, the Council and the European Parliament, with no single owner — a pattern that has consistently diluted accountability on the minerals agenda. Meanwhile, Washington is moving fast: if the EU does not define its own position on trade instruments such as price floors and standards-based markets, US rules risk shaping EU supply chains by default. Finally, the framework risks repeating earlier cooperation cycles — trilateral engagement has existed since 2011, yet concentration and dependency risks remain largely unchanged due to weak enforcement and limited investment follow-through.
These findings reinforce concerns that INTRAW and Latitude Five have consistently raised, including at the Berlin parliamentary briefing in January 2026 and the EU Raw Materials Week roundtable in November 2025: without coherent institutional ownership, a dedicated financing mechanism and genuine industrial commitment, coordination frameworks do not translate into supply security.