Two years ago, automakers were scrambling to lock down cobalt from the Democratic Republic of Congo and lithium from a handful of South American salt flats. By April 2026, the picture looks markedly different. Lithium iron phosphate batteries, known as LFP, captured nearly half of all global EV battery installations in 2024, according to the International Energy Agency’s Global EV Outlook 2025. Because LFP cells contain no nickel or cobalt, that single chemistry shift has started to loosen the industry’s grip on two of the most geopolitically fraught metals in the supply chain.
The numbers behind the shift are striking. LFP packs now cost materially less per kilowatt-hour than their nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) counterparts, and the gap has been widening steadily, giving automakers both a financial and a strategic reason to switch. Chinese manufacturers CATL and BYD, which together control the vast majority of global LFP cell production, have driven costs down through massive scale. That dominance, however, introduces its own vulnerability: the supply chain may be less dependent on scarce minerals, yet it remains heavily concentrated in a single country.
Falling prices, rising questions
On the raw-materials side, the U.S. Geological Survey reported that prices for cobalt, lithium, and nickel all declined in 2024 because of oversupply, even as the overall value of U.S. mineral production edged up. Cheaper inputs have eased cost pressure on manufacturers still using NMC chemistries, but the relief comes with a catch. Low prices discourage new mining investment. If EV adoption accelerates faster than expected, or if recycling capacity falls short, today’s glut could flip into tomorrow’s shortage.
The USGS underscored that point in its 2025 Critical Minerals List. Cobalt, graphite, and several other battery-adjacent materials remain on the list, meaning Washington still considers them vulnerable to foreign supply shocks regardless of where spot prices sit. Cheap metal, in other words, is not the same thing as secure metal.
Policy moves on both sides of the Atlantic
Governments have responded by trying to build resilience into law. The U.S. Department of Energy released a strategy to secure America’s clean energy supply chain, emphasizing domestic processing, diversified import partners, and expanded recycling infrastructure. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory complemented that effort with a structured database mapping North American battery supply-chain companies and facilities, from mining through cell manufacturing to end-of-life recycling.
In Europe, the Critical Raw Materials Act (Regulation 2024/1252) set binding benchmarks for recycling rates and domestic sourcing, along with a risk-monitoring framework for strategically important materials. Both policy packages signal serious intent. What neither has yet produced is a public scorecard. No official U.S. projection ties the NREL-mapped manufacturing base to specific capacity targets for 2030, and no EU implementation report shows how member states are enforcing the new rules or harmonizing permitting across borders.
Meanwhile, tariffs on Chinese-made batteries and EVs, imposed or proposed by both the U.S. and the EU, add another layer of complexity. Those trade barriers are designed to encourage domestic production, but in the short term they risk raising costs for automakers that still rely on Chinese LFP cells and cathode materials.
Sodium-ion and the next chemistry frontier
LFP is not the only alternative gaining attention. Sodium-ion batteries, which replace lithium with one of the most abundant elements on Earth, have moved from laboratory curiosity to early commercial production. The IEA has mapped the geographical distribution of the sodium-ion supply chain across Asia and parts of Europe, and several Chinese manufacturers began shipping sodium-ion cells in low-speed vehicles and energy storage systems during 2024.
Real-world performance data for sodium-ion in highway-capable EVs remains thin, however. Energy density lags behind both LFP and NMC, and no major automaker has published a timeline for deploying sodium-ion packs across a full vehicle lineup. The technology could eventually broaden the menu of available chemistries and further reduce lithium demand, but how quickly it scales to a meaningful market share is still an open question.
The recycling gap
Policy documents in both the U.S. and EU emphasize closed-loop battery systems, where spent packs become feedstock for new cells. The logic is sound: recovering lithium, nickel, and cobalt from retired batteries would reduce the need for fresh mining and blunt the impact of any future commodity crunch. In practice, large-scale commercial recycling of EV packs is still in its early stages. A handful of facilities in North America and Europe are operating or under construction, but the first major wave of EV batteries will not reach end-of-life until the late 2020s and early 2030s.
How efficiently those operations recover critical materials, and whether the economics work without sustained government subsidies, will shape the balance between primary and secondary supply for the next decade. The infrastructure is being built, but it has not yet been tested at the volumes that matter.
What this means for buyers and investors
For consumers watching EV sticker prices, the near-term outlook is encouraging. LFP’s growing market share puts steady downward pressure on battery costs, and soft commodity prices reinforce that trend. Automakers that once paid steep premiums for cobalt and nickel now have a cheaper, more stable chemistry to lean on.
The longer-term picture is harder to call. Supply-chain resilience depends on whether sodium-ion matures into a viable complement to LFP, whether recycling scales fast enough to matter, and whether U.S. and European diversification policies produce real domestic capacity rather than aspirational targets. The verified data, drawn from the IEA, USGS, and published government strategies, points to a supply chain that is genuinely diversifying and, as of spring 2026, less strained than it was two years ago. Whether that resilience holds will come down to investment decisions, trade policies, and technological bets that are still being placed.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
