Ministerial briefings reveal how a proposed arrangement with the United States on critical minerals came about, what a draft version included, and its potential risks. But within documents obtained by the Herald was also information that wasn’t meant to be released. Jamie Ensor reports.
New Zealand’s largest ministry admits
inadvertently releasing to the Herald sensitive information found within ministerial briefings on the development of a partnership with the United States relating to critical minerals.
Among the information the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) told the Herald should be “destroyed” is advice that, if released, officials claim could prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand, or its international relations.
The briefings were provided in an Official Information Act (OIA) response relating to the Government’s engagement with the US on a non-binding framework on critical minerals.
The Herald is unable to publish the specific sensitive information for legal reasons, but it includes commentary on recent critical mineral agreements the US has signed with other nations, and advice on an area of potential co-operation between the two countries.
Several days after MBIE sent through the documents, a ministry staff member contacted the Herald to say it had since determined some of the information should have been withheld. Under the OIA, agencies can withhold information for a variety of reasons.
“I kindly request that the documents you received on 23 March 2026 be destroyed.”
Susan Hall, MBIE’s acting general manager resource markets, told the Herald last week that the information was provided by “human error” and the ministry took its responsibilities “seriously”.
“Errors of this nature are uncommon. As standard practice, we have reviewed the handling of this response and reiterated existing quality‑assurance processes to staff.”
Information that can be reported shows how US President Donald Trump’s Administration first signalled interest in working with New Zealand during a meeting in Auckland last October.
But potential risks were identified for New Zealand, including concern over “social licence”.
While New Zealand’s minerals strategy focused on the use of critical minerals for a clean energy transition, the international focus was turning towards their use in defence technologies, ministers were told.
When Kiwi officials got their hands on a draft framework from the US, they found it included a goal of supplying “raw and processed critical minerals needed by the commercial and defence industries of both countries”.
Documents also show officials aimed for the framework to be signed by February 4, when US Secretary of State Marco Rubio was to host countries at a critical minerals summit in Washington DC.
But, about a week out from that event, ministers were warned there was still “uncertainty” about the framework and that signing it then made it difficult to fully consider its risks.
The Cabinet ultimately decided to seek more advice. That decision came after the Herald and others reported discussions between the two countries were underway and, the same day, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon faced media questioning about the proposal.
Despite officials having spent months in discussions and negotiations with the US, Luxon said talks were at a “preliminary” phase. He would later say “we’re not anywhere near” a deal.
Work continues on a framework, which was raised during a meeting last week in Washington between Rubio and Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters.
A potential deal worries some people, such as Green MP Steve Abel. He told the Herald the “frequent narrative” of the Government that critical minerals were essential for transitioning to clean energy “masks a more sinister purpose”.
He is worried that what he calls “war minerals” could be used “to build weapons in the US war machine”.
“New Zealanders don’t want to see our irreplaceable nature destroyed by mining, and they also don’t want to be part of Trump’s insane warmongering.”
But Resources Minister Shane Jones has said the minerals “could support a strong, sustainable economic recovery and position the country at the forefront of high‑value industries”.
“By supporting the development of critical minerals opportunities in New Zealand, we create jobs, build self-sufficiency, improve national resilience, and benefit from the new infrastructure, technology and skills that come with development,” he said in February.
The global backdrop
Demand for critical minerals has grown in recent years. They are vital building blocks of modern technologies, from electric vehicles to mobile phones, artificial intelligence and defence equipment.
This has made access to the minerals increasingly important geopolitically, with countries seeking to secure access for their strategic industries.
China is the dominant player, with the International Energy Agency last year reporting it as the leading refiner for 19 out of 20 important strategic minerals, with a market share of 70%.
The US has been attempting to address this imbalance. In January, it said the lack of a reliable supply chain was a “significant national security vulnerability” and has inked deals with other countries to secure access.
Against this global backdrop, New Zealand is attempting to double the value of its mineral exports to $3 billion by 2035.
Last year, the Government released a minerals strategy and critical minerals list, identifying 37 minerals “vital to the economy and susceptible to supply chain risks”.
These include gold (which can be used for jewellery and electronics), vanadium (steel and titanium alloys, magnets, batteries and energy storage), and caesium (electronics, aerospace applications).
One paper to ministers said New Zealand needed investment in “early-stage prospecting and exploration and scaling up our innovative mineral technology firms”.
The country’s projects were “at an early stage of development”, and there was “under-explored potential for critical minerals along the West Coasts of the North and South Islands”. This would require “long-term investment in prospecting and exploration in order to be realised”.
In September, Jones was told by MBIE officials that other governments had begun showing an interest “in partnering with New Zealand” on critical minerals supply.
Officials were forming a plan for how to engage internationally. Among their objectives was to attract investment for New Zealand’s production chain, while also supporting efforts to “diversify and secure” global supply chains.
New Zealand could “capitalise” on growing demand, they said, with the country having “untapped potential to extract and produce a range of in-demand critical minerals in a responsible way”.
As there are international concerns about human rights violations and environmental impacts associated with mining projects, New Zealand could offer a “point of difference” because of its high standards and technological expertise.
Officials suggested New Zealand join the Minerals Security Partnership – a grouping of countries interested in developing the global supply chain – and engage one-on-one with countries.
A visit from the Americans
In the ensuing months, officials from MBIE and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) said there had been “growing interest” from foreign partners, including from the European Union and “visiting, high-ranking US officials”.
The documents obtained by the Herald show the Trump Administration first signalled interest in New Zealand during October’s meeting.
Two deputy assistant secretaries from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the US Department of Commerce were in Auckland “en route” from the Cook Islands.
While the briefings don’t mention the purpose of the Americans’ trip to the Pacific, the US and the Cook Islands agreed last year to co-operate on the research and exploration of seabed mineral resources.
The officials met New Zealand representatives in Auckland. A November briefing to Peters and Jones said this was the “first (and so far only) interest the current US Administration has signalled in New Zealand”.
“Officials need to analyse recent US deals and further gauge the extent of US interest,” the paper said.
A list of risks was outlined (though some are redacted in the document seen by the Herald), with one relating to how the focus internationally was changing from critical minerals needed for the energy transition to “those needed for defence technology supply chains”.
Another briefing also discussed this. It said critical minerals had become a “key sovereign security consideration” and, with regard to a US deal, highlighted potential “concerns with social licence”.
Officials said New Zealand’s minerals strategy justified increased mining as necessary for the energy transition but, globally, “wider economic security considerations, including defence, are increasing in prominence”.
This risk could be mitigated if the focus of any investment were on “innovative extraction and recycling/reuse technology, rather than expansion of traditional extraction”.
Officials recommended in November that New Zealand indicate interest to the US in negotiations, subject to conditions such as confirming the nature of the US interest and understanding what it “might seek in return”.
Looking at previous deals the US had struck, officials said “it appears they are primarily interested in ready extraction and processing projects”.
The type of investment New Zealand needed – in early-stage prospecting and exploration – “has not been a priority for the EU and US”.
NZ prepares for negotiations
Officials met US representatives on the sidelines of a Minerals Security Partnership meeting, as well as in Washington DC.
As the Herald has previously reported, Kiwi officials met representatives from the US National Security Council and the Department of Commerce on November 21 to “discuss critical minerals and express New Zealand’s interest in an arrangement with the US”.
A December 1 briefing to Jones said recent meetings had been “positive” and the US had agreed to “share a draft framework with New Zealand”.
The US indicated the framework would “be the starting point and there would be scope to discuss and adapt the provisions”.
While officials were yet to see the agreement, they expected it was “likely to be based on agreements” already signed between the US and other countries, such as Australia.
The Australian deal says the two countries “intend to support the supply of raw and processed critical minerals and rare earths crucial to the commercial and defence industries”.
This would be done through “economic policy tools and co-ordinated investment”, including identifying projects of interest, deregulating permitting processes, and assisting in mapping resources.
New Zealand officials set up “key workstreams” to prepare for negotiations. This included understanding how a framework related to New Zealand’s interests and providing advice on consultation with iwi.
It was recommended that ministers consider “the level of signatory for an agreement”, noting that previous agreements the US had signed had been at a leader-to-leader level.
The topic was put down for a meeting of ministers on December 3, with officials saying there was “strong interest from ministerial colleagues in the topic and anticipate there will also be interest in the draft US agreement and how that can be turned into a signed deal”.
“Opportunities and risks” to the deal were outlined, though these are mostly redacted. They relate to the “impact on other international obligations and relationships” and the need to be “cautious about creating expectations that will be challenging or costly to meet”.
What the draft agreement included
The draft framework was received by New Zealand in early December and was viewed by officials as being “comparable to other recent US agreements”.
According to a December 16 briefing, the draft included a “goal” of “supplying of raw and processed critical minerals needed by the commercial and defence industries of both countries”.
“It seeks to achieve this through economic policy and investment targeted at current critical minerals operations as well as new developments.”
The framework was “non-binding” and “does not create rights or obligations under domestic or international law”.
Officials would seek to understand how the deal “addresses energy transition and defence uses”, how it might impact other international relationships, and the extent of iwi engagement needed.
Shortly after the draft was received, MFAT was told by the US that Rubio intended to host a critical minerals summit in Washington DC on February 4.
The US wanted to know if New Zealand was “inclined” to conclude the framework, and about the feasibility of doing so before the summit.
Officials said there would be a “tight” window for negotiations before the summit and warned the event “should not drive the negotiation timeline”.
Among the advice presented was that there was a risk to moving too quickly when MFAT had yet to fully analyse the draft.
“Undertaking an overly swift or cursory analysis of entering into a framework runs the risk of not understanding or fully considering the broader risks inherent in any deal, potentially leading to costly consequences for New Zealand,” officials said.
“Indicating an inclination to enter an agreement before that analysis is completed risks creating an expectation that we are not subsequently able to deliver on.”
Officials said that, to “keep our options open”, New Zealand should indicate interest in negotiating the framework; that, pending negotiations, New Zealand could aim to conclude the framework by the end of January; and that the Foreign Affairs Minister was interested in attending the summit.
Decisions for ministers
Officials worked to a timeline that aimed for the Cabinet to consider a paper on the framework on January 27 and conclude it by the February 4 summit.
On January 26, MFAT and MBIE provided an update to Peters and Jones on negotiations and “options for signing”. It was recommended that the briefing also be referred to other ministers, including the Prime Minister.
The paper included the name of the proposed framework – “United States-New Zealand Framework For Securing of Supply in the Mining and Processing of Critical Minerals and Rare Earths”.
The document is highly redacted, but one subheading said: “We are closer to agreement on the framework text, but US revisions still present some uncertainty”.
The risks and opportunities remained consistent with what officials advised ministers in December.
There had been “positive commercial interest from the New Zealand critical minerals sector in US investment”.
But Māori stakeholder groups had identified concerns with a “truncated negotiation process, the substance of the framework, [and] engagement with the US given recent geopolitical developments”. This might be raised at the Waitangi Tribunal.
Officials continued to say the US summit shouldn’t determine the negotiation timeline. A “truncated process” would make it difficult to “fully consider the broader risks of the framework”.
If ministers proceeded with signing the framework before the summit, they would be accepting this risk as well as the possibility of a Waitangi Tribunal complaint, officials warned.
Signing the framework also wasn’t a prerequisite to New Zealand attending the US summit.
A Cabinet paper from Jones and Peters, previously reported by the Herald, confirmed officials had negotiated amendments to the US proposal. This document outlined benefits and risks.
But ministers wanted more information. On February 2, the Cabinet invited Jones to return in the future “with further advice on the proposed framework and to seek approval for the next steps”.
A minute of that Cabinet meeting noted New Zealand wouldn’t sign the framework at the US summit. Peters did not attend, with the head of MFAT, Bede Corry, going instead.
Since then, Peters and Jones have announced $80 million from the Regional Infrastructure Fund to develop and process domestic critical minerals.
Peters said New Zealand could be a “credible and reliable source of critical minerals”.
“New Zealand engages with a broad range of partners to gather information about the scope of market interest in this sector, and how that relates to the New Zealand Government’s objectives and priorities.
“We will continue to engage with the New Zealand public appropriately, as and when policy and project proposals around critical minerals are developed.”
Last week, Rubio said he had discussed with Peters “co-operation on critical minerals supply chains”.
Peters, talking to RNZ, gave little away about what that discussion included. He confirmed that work was ongoing but that a framework was yet to be finalised.
Jamie Ensor is the NZ Herald’s chief political reporter, based in the press gallery at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. He was a finalist in 2025 for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
- Share this article
- Copy Link
- Twitter/X
Reminder, this is a Premium article and requires a subscription to read.