New Delhi (ABC Live): In October 2025, Pakistan shipped its first consignment of rare earth and critical minerals to the United States. At the time, official messaging was clear. Leaders spoke of diversification. Statements stressed resilience. As a result, the optics were strong.

However, supply chains do not run on optics. Instead, they rely on verified reserves, clear pricing, enforceable contracts, and processing capacity. On each of these fronts, the US–Pakistan framework raises serious questions.

Why This Deal Matters Beyond Mining

This agreement is not only about minerals. Rather, it sits at the crossroads of geopolitics, financial stress, and great-power competition.

For Washington, rare earths support defence systems, electronics, electric vehicles, and clean-energy tools. Because of this, dependence on China has become a strategic risk.

For Islamabad, the timing also matters. Pakistan faces recurring balance-of-payments stress and shrinking global relevance. Therefore, any dollar-linked framework carries value well beyond its stated trade purpose.

The Central Question

The question is not whether Pakistan has minerals. It does.
Instead, the real issue is this:

Is the US–Pakistan rare-earth deal built to deliver reliable supply, or does it mainly act as a stabilisation tool dressed as trade?

1. The Shipment That Carried More Signal Than Substance

The October 2025 shipment arrived at a politically useful moment. On one hand, Washington needed to show progress away from China-centric supply chains. On the other, Islamabad needed dollars and relevance.

Yet, one shipment alone does not prove:

• scalable supply,

• stable pricing, or

• long-term delivery capacity.

In practice, it shows intent, not ability.

2. Mineral Wealth Claims vs Economic Reality

Pakistan often cites mineral reserves worth $6 trillion, spread across vast land areas. However, mining contributes only about 3.2% of GDP and roughly 0.1% of global mineral exports.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has suggested mineral wealth could replace reliance on the IMF. Even so, that vision assumes fast and smooth monetisation.

In reality, Pakistan has published no JORC or NI 43-101 compliant reserve data, nor any similar national code aligned with global standards. As a result, headline valuations remain political estimates, not usable assets.

📦 ABC Live Explainer Box

What “No JORC / NI 43-101 Data” Means — and Why It Matters Here

JORC and NI 43-101 are global standards for reporting mineral resources. They require independent audits, certified experts, and economic studies.

Without these standards:

• Ore quality remains unclear

• Recovery rates stay unknown

• Pricing becomes guesswork

Therefore, rare-earth shipments risk being priced on narrative rather than value. This creates a mispricing risk, even without bad intent.

3. Why China Never Fully Exploited Pakistan’s Rare Earths

China controls most global rare-earth refining and a majority of production. Even so, it has not aggressively developed Pakistan’s rare-earth sector.

This restraint is not accidental. Instead, it reflects several limits:

• deposits are scattered,

• security costs are high,

• water is scarce, and

• provinces hold veto power.

In short, China prefers control over refining chokepoints, not exposure to unstable mining zones.

4. Balochistan, Security, and Constitutional Constraints

Nearly 80% of Pakistan’s mineral resources lie in Balochistan, its most unstable province. Militancy, attacks on workers, and project delays remain common.

The Reko Diq project illustrates this clearly. It has slipped to 2028. Security funding remains uncertain. Consequently, investor confidence has weakened.

At the same time, Pakistan’s 18th Constitutional Amendment gives provinces control over minerals. Therefore, the federal government cannot guarantee long-term access, regardless of promises.

5. Comparative Reality Check

Taken together, Pakistan remains a high-risk, long-term option.

6. Why the US Is Still Willing to Commit Funds

If fundamentals are weak, why proceed?

Strategic Stabilisation Without Calling It Aid

Direct aid to Pakistan is politically costly in Washington. Therefore, a minerals framework allows money to move without bailout labels.

Legal and Budget Convenience

US supply-chain funds cannot act as budget support. However, they can flow through commercial partnerships.

Buying Time Against China

Washington does not need fast success. Instead, it needs plausible alternatives while real capacity grows elsewhere.

Influence Maintenance

Finally, US influence in Pakistan has declined. As a result, a minerals deal restores engagement without military optics.

7. When Trade Starts to Resemble Financial Support

Therefore, while no illegality is shown, the structure allows trade to act like stabilisation support.

8. Context: The Limits of Trump’s Pakistan Pivot

This deal also fits a wider pattern. As ABC Live explained earlier, US engagement with Pakistan often rises during stress and fades later.
(Internal link: https://abclive.in/2025/10/19/explained-why-trumps-sudden-love-for-pakistan-wont-last-long/)

Because of this, mineral frameworks may prioritise short-term leverage over lasting delivery.

ABC Live Conclusion

The US–Pakistan rare-earth deal is not irrational. Rather, it is strategic.

Washington gains time, leverage, and optics. Pakistan gains dollars and relevance. Yet, supply certainty remains unproven.

Until Pakistan delivers verified reserves, clear pricing, enforceable volumes, and a refining path, the deal will remain strategic theatre, not supply security.

One-line Takeaway

When direct aid is costly, strategy chooses a trade label.

How We Verify Facts and Data (ABC Live Methodology)

ABC Live follows a multi-layered verification protocol designed to distinguish political claims from economically verifiable facts, especially in sensitive areas such as geopolitics, minerals, and international finance.

1. Primary Source Verification

We relied on official, on-record statements by Pakistan and the United States, constitutional texts (including Pakistan’s 18th Amendment), and public policy documents. Government claims are identified as such.

2. International Standards Cross-Check

Mineral claims were tested against globally accepted frameworks:

• JORC (Australasian Code): https://www.jorc.org/

• NI 43-101 (Canada): https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2001-272/

• CRIRSCO (global umbrella body): https://www.crirsco.com/

The absence of Pakistan’s compliance with any CRIRSCO-aligned code was confirmed through public records.

3. Comparative Benchmarking

Pakistan was benchmarked against Australia, Chile, and Vietnam on reserve transparency, refining capacity, political risk, and scale timelines.

4. Supply-Chain Reality Checks

We assessed refining capacity, infrastructure readiness, water constraints, and security conditions—especially in Balochistan—to test end-to-end feasibility.

5. Financial Context Review

Pakistan’s macro stress and lender engagement were reviewed using publicly available materials from the International Monetary Fund: https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/PAK

6. Editorial Safeguards

No allegation of illegality is made without proof. Language focuses on risk, incentives, structure, and deliverability.

Verification principle: Claims are not treated as facts unless independently checkable. Uncertainty is stated clearly.