Superior, Arizona, Headframes on the site of Resolution Copper’s proposed underground copper mine. (Photo by: Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
The Trump administration has made clear that critical minerals are a national security priority. That makes its support for multinational mining giant Rio Tinto’s Resolution Copper project in Arizona therefore consequential.
The U.S. Forest Service recently completed a land exchange benefiting the copper mine, heralding the project as advancing President Trump’s goal of mineral independence and energy dominance by boosting domestic mineral production.
The administration’s backing is a huge benefit to Rio Tinto, and it raises questions about whether the company is in alignment with U.S. policy objectives?
Rio Tinto owns 55 percent of Resolution Copper and stands to benefit enormously from the long-stalled project, which could meet more than a quarter of U.S. copper demand. Rio Tinto has said it intends to keep that copper in the United States, making it a potential cornerstone of America’s industrial renewal.
Speaking at last month’s China Development Forum, CEO Simon Trott said China is central to Rio Tinto’s global business strategy. In 2025, China accounted for 57% of Rio Tinto’s $57.6 billion in sales, while procurement from China reached a record $4.3 billion. That makes China more than simply a customer.
Rio Tinto is testing battery swap technology on mining trucks with China’s State Power Investment Corporation unit Qiyuan at the Oyu Tolgoi copper mine in Mongolia. It’s partnering with Chinese state-backed firm Chinalco to acquire a controlling stake in a Brazilian aluminum producer. At Simandou in Guinea, Rio Tinto is working with a Chinese consortium and relying on Chinese contractors to build core infrastructure. That does not sound like a company reducing its exposure to China.
And then there’s Resolution Copper.
Rio Tinto has said it wants to keep production from Resolution Copper in the United States. But a senior executive recently told Reuters the company may need to export copper concentrate because U.S. smelting economics don’t work. The same executive has pushed U.S. policymakers for changes to tariffs and export rules.
So which is it?
Is Resolution Copper about American mineral independence? Or is it just a way for Rio Tinto to seek policy favors from the Trump administration while keeping its global options open?
The contradiction extends to trade.
After the Supreme Court limited the Trump administration’s tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Rio Tinto filed lawsuits against the Trump administration through six U.S. subsidiaries seeking refunds on tariff payments of nearly $10 million in 2025.
Rio Tinto is asking Washington to accelerate its Arizona project while also challenging the administration’s trade policy in court.
Even within the United States, Rio Tinto is out of step with the Trump administration. The company supports the Paris Agreement and states in its annual report that it will only support U.S. trade associations that “advance the Paris Agreement’s central aims.”
Taken together, a pattern emerges of a multinational company pursuing parallel and potentially conflicting strategies. Rio Tinto seeks fast-track approvals from Washington, deepens partnerships with China when advantageous and then sues the Trump administration when it benefits its bottom line.
That’s the behavior of a global actor hedging its bets, not a company aligned with an America First industrial strategy.
None of this means Resolution Copper should be rejected outright. But the administration’s surprising full-throated support should come with conditions.
Critical minerals policy is too important for uncertainties. If Washington is going to fast-track approvals and transfer public land, it should require enforceable commitments that the copper will be processed and used in the United States.
Rio Tinto appears to be presenting different messages to different audiences—emphasizing China’s centrality to its business abroad while positioning itself as aligned with U.S. priorities at home. That inconsistency warrants closer scrutiny from both the public and the Trump administration.