Pax Silica reflects Washington’s approach to critical minerals and advanced technology, but success will depend on speed, institutionalization, and disciplined expansion.

In early December, the Trump administration announced the formation of a new “silicon supply chain.” This initiative, given the moniker Pax Silica, will seek to coordinate silicon protection across nine countries: the United States, Australia, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the United Kingdom (UK). As part of the initiative, the nine will focus on procuring critical minerals, investment opportunities, working on critical infrastructure, and creating “trusted technology ecosystems.”

Pax Silica Is a Strategic Expression of the 2025 National Security Strategy 

This initiative, spearheaded by Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Jacob Helberg, is a phenomenal start and should be lauded for several reasons.

For starters, it is a direct example of how the administration is already seeking to carry out its vision for the world as laid out in the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS). That document implicitly recognized that the world was multipolar, and that there would need to be a “rebalancing” against China. It also called for “securing access to critical supply chains and materials.”

The dispersed group of participants is perfectly in line with these goals. Five—the United States, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore—are all Pacific states or powers and ring around China (Taiwan being left off is regrettable, but, due to geopolitical concerns among some members, was likely necessary). Australia, also home to a plethora of rare earths, was key for inclusion. Not only will it help the United States to develop those further (some deals have already been agreed to), but closer relations will also help to decrease the concerningly high Chinese influence in Canberra.

Due to the uncertainty of multipolarity, the remaining four represent key spots around the globe.

The Netherlands is the only European Union member, and for good reason: they have worked with the Trump administration to counter Chinese influence in chip-making, with Amsterdam agreeing to wrest control of a crucial chip-maker away from those Washington was concerned were too loyal to China. The United Kingdom, as an advanced economy and close ally of the United States, is likewise a natural choice.

The addition of the UAE and Israel further the administration’s goal of peace in the region and also includes two technologically advanced countries. Plus, the UAE is seeking to build itself up as a major AI power (as was also highlighted in the NSS). As they do so, it behooves the United States to keep them inside the tent rather than outside.

From Bipolar Alliances to Multipolar Coalitions 

This broad coalition also demonstrates that the administration is already thinking about how to navigate multipolarity in real time, particularly as it relates to technological advancement. In the bipolar Cold War, all technological advancement was restricted to one’s ideological side. The Soviets were not going to build advanced computers with the West, nor vice versa. But now that a national interest-based multipolar struggle has replaced an ideological bipolarity, the United States is no longer hemmed in, forced to work purely with sometimes sluggish European economies.

It also lays down a clear marker that America does not plan to make the same mistakes it made regarding China over the past 30 years, when the People’s Republic dramatically rose without obstacles to become a burgeoning economy and technological hub. Containment is not just a military strategy; it is just as much an economic strategy. Pax Silica is therefore a recognition that keeping China contained is not just a matter of island chains: it also requires economic chains.

With all this said, however, the administration must now put action behind the talk. For now, the administration has announced that “diplomats in Washington and overseas” will “operationalize this summit’s discussions through identification of infrastructure projects and the coordination of economic security practices.”

 Pax Silica Should Be Elevated to a Higher-Level Summit

This is a good start, but without any firm timeline for identifying said infrastructure projects, it can easily get lost. This is a step that should be a matter of months, not years. To help move it along, steps should be taken for a higher-level summit, be it between foreign ministers or heads of government, in order to give the effort more attention and spur action. 

Steps should also be taken to ensure that, with the passage of time, it does not become a historical footnote. History is replete with summits that ceased to be once a president’s term in office expired (see former President Joe Biden’s “Summit for Democracy,” which was last held in 2024, was not held this year, and will not be held again). To that end, the administration should seek congressional action to inscribe the Pax Silica initiative into law (while also unlocking more funding for it). The administration could also consider formalizing it with a treaty.

While the current nature of the arrangement allows for the inclusion of more members, care should be taken over who may get an invitation. The usefulness of this arrangement is the nature of its participants: all are or seek to be cutting-edge economies, and all can pull their own weight. Any hangers-on should be limited to those of absolute geopolitical necessity. If the organization becomes too big, then it becomes pointless.

It should also exclude countries that are explicitly aligned with American adversaries, such as China. This is not to say that all must be Western or definitively aligned with the United States. But if it expands to include countries aligned with another pole, its usefulness will evaporate.

Pax Silica Must Become an Enduring Framework, not a One-Off Event 

In short, the administration has done an admirable job with Pax Silica. Securing supply chains and guaranteeing that the United States has access to the latest technology—and the materials to create it—in the rapidly changing multipolar world will be a major struggle, and summits such as this will be very helpful in pursuing it. But to be truly successful, Pax Silica must not be only a successful summit, but instead the first step in a long journey.

About the Author: Anthony J. Constantini

Anthony J. Constantini is a policy analyst at the Bull Moose Project and the Foreign Affairs editor at Upward News. His work has appeared in a variety of domestic and international publications.

Image: Pla2na/shutterstock

The post Pax Silica Is a Strong Step for Securing Critical Minerals, but It Needs Follow-Through appeared first on The National Interest.