Dana Mincey-Breaux On Building America’s Critical Minerals Future Through a Proven Industrial Model

Amid rapidly shifting global trade dynamics and rising strategic competition, the United States is intensifying efforts to secure and diversify critical mineral supply chains. While policy momentum and capital deployment have accelerated in recent years, Dana Mincey-Breaux, Managing Director of Fenix Capital, argues that the central challenge is not strategic intent. Having worked in the Critical Minerals Appeals within the private sector, Mincey-Breaux highlights that it is the absence of a structured, scalable execution model that has already demonstrated success in another domain.

“The biggest gap is in midstream processing. That is where China currently dominates, accounting for the vast majority of global processing capacity,” she explains. “While upstream mining activities attract attention and downstream applications drive demand, it is midstream processing that ultimately determines supply chain control and resilience. This segment is both capital-intensive and technically complex, yet many capable smaller operators remain excluded from meaningful participation due to limited access to financing.”

In many cases, she adds, the United States produces raw materials but lacks the domestic capacity to process them, reinforcing reliance on foreign refining.

According to Mincey-Breaux, current investment patterns have reinforced this imbalance. Capital has largely concentrated among a small number of established firms, leaving a fragmented and underdeveloped midstream ecosystem. For example, the MP deal ceased all their direct concentrate sales to China; according to Mincey-Breaux, it does not solve the bottlenecks in the middle of the supply chain.

“The United States currently has the most investment, but it remains concentrated at the top,” she says. “This concentration constrains the development of a diversified and resilient industrial base. A limited number of large entities cannot, in isolation, deliver the scale and redundancy required for long-term national security.”

For Mincey-Breaux, the path forward does not require a fundamentally new strategy. It requires disciplined application of an existing and highly effective framework. “We do not need to reinvent the wheel. We need to apply what has already worked,” she states.

She identifies the United States defense contracting ecosystem as the most relevant model. The Defense Industrial Base operates through multi-tiered supply chains anchored by prime contractors and supported by extensive subcontractor networks, with government contracting structures enabling participation across firms of varying sizes.

In contrast, she notes, the critical minerals sector lacks such an integrated framework. “In defense contracting, smaller firms have defined avenues to participate through vehicles led by prime contractors,” she explains. “In critical minerals, that structure does not yet exist, though it can be replicated.”

According to her, adapting this model would involve positioning large mining and processing companies as prime contractors within government-backed agreements. Smaller processors and refiners would engage through structured subcontracting arrangements aligned with these contracts. This approach, she adds, would enable rapid capacity expansion while distributing opportunity more broadly across the ecosystem and reducing systemic concentration risk.

Importantly, Mincey-Breaux emphasizes that funding alone will not deliver supply chain resilience. While mining and processing are inherently capital-intensive, financial investment must be complemented by physical presence and operational integration.

“The private sector may be overestimating its ability to manage supply chains remotely,” she notes. “You cannot effectively participate in critical mineral supply chains without being physically present where the resources are located.”

She believes that this observation highlights a significant gap in current industry practice. Critical minerals are concentrated in regions such as Africa and Latin America, while the United States remains heavily reliant on imports and continues to shape strategic responses to supply chain risks through domestic policy and international partnerships. This geographic disconnect, she adds, limits both visibility and influence.

“If you want to understand how to compete, you must engage directly,” she explains. “That means establishing operations, partnerships, and sustained engagement in the regions where these minerals are produced.”

She emphasizes that physical presence must be accompanied by deeper integration across the supply chain. At present, coordination between miners, processors, and end users is often mediated through intermediaries, creating inefficiencies and limiting transparency. “There is limited direct communication between midstream processors in the United States and mining operations in Africa and Latin America,” she says. “That distance reduces alignment and slows progress.”

Addressing this challenge requires both capital allocation and deliberate ecosystem design. Larger firms, she says, must play an active role in integrating smaller operators into their supply chains, supporting capability development, and ensuring alignment with broader industrial objectives.

“A truly prepared private sector partner has established relationships, a clear pipeline, and a defined plan for scaling,” Mincey-Breaux states. “They are focused on value creation and operate with agility. When given access to opportunity, they are positioned to deliver.”

For her, the strategic importance of critical minerals extends well beyond the sector itself. These resources underpin advanced manufacturing, energy systems, and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence. As global demand accelerates, she believes that the resilience of supply chains will become an increasingly decisive factor in economic and technological leadership.

Despite this, she notes that broader awareness of the sector’s significance remains limited. Mincey-Breaux advocates for more comprehensive education and engagement to ensure that stakeholders across industries understand the foundational role of critical minerals in enabling innovation and growth.

While the scale of the challenge is considerable, her outlook remains pragmatic and constructive. As she says, “The United States has already demonstrated its ability to build complex industrial ecosystems through coordinated action between government and private enterprise. The defense sector provides a clear and proven precedent.”

According to Mincey-Breaux, applying this model to critical minerals offers a credible pathway to scale capacity, diversify participation, and strengthen national resilience. It aligns incentives across stakeholders and creates a framework through which both large and small enterprises can contribute effectively.

“The opportunity already exists,” she says. “When it reaches smaller companies, capacity expands. The priority now is to build the system that allows that to happen at scale.”