Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Defense announced a $1.4 billion conditional loan commitment to Sila, a leading manufacturer of next-generation silicon anode battery technologies. Issued through the Department’s Office of Strategic Capital, the loan, when finalized, will expand Sila’s silicon-carbon anode manufacturing capacity at an existing facility and fund construction of an additional lithium-ion battery cell manufacturing facility.
This deal arrives at a crucial point as the U.S. races to onshore supply chains for the minerals and technology components underpinning national security. China manufactures over 80% of all major components of lithium-ion batteries, including over 90% of anode material processing. These batteries power a growing list of military technologies such as drones and autonomous systems. Should China restrict exports amid a trade dispute or broader conflict, the U.S. and its allies would struggle to continue producing these technologies domestically. Onshoring this supply chain is a critical national security concern.
But, of course, batteries are not just a defense technology—they are also vital components of a changing electric grid, allowing cheap but intermittent sources like solar and wind to store electricity generated during periods of low demand but high resource availability (capitalizing on midday sun and overnight wind) and discharge it during peak hours. Batteries are already reshaping how power systems operate. Global battery deployment exploded 46% in 2025, shifting 14% of solar energy usage to off-peak hours and helping solar generation grow 33%.
The Sila deal is one example of a broader pattern: in pursuing national security objectives, the U.S. government will also continue to build out the industrial base for low-emissions energy technologies. Climate mitigation may not be the current administration’s goal, but the U.S. remains a key player in developing and building technologies needed for global decarbonization.
Pursuing National Security Will Build the Base for Lowering Emissions
For decades, vast oil and gas reserves—supercharged by the fracking revolution—ensured American energy security and trade leverage. But the global energy and trade landscape is shifting. Spurred not only by climate policy but also geopolitical shocks and fragile energy supply chains, countries are turning to clean energy sources in search of energy autonomy and insulation from global price swings. China recognized and capitalized on this shift years before the U.S. did and has since established control over nearly all elements of critical minerals, clean tech, and EV supply chains. Policymakers on both side of the aisle agree that reducing reliance on Chinese supply chains and combatting Chinese influence is a national security priority.
As shown by the Sila deal, solutions to combat China’s grip on global supply chains and growing international influence have a co-benefit: they also move the U.S. and its allies toward decarbonization, even when combatting climate change is not a stated priority.
This co-benefit is true in industries beyond batteries, such as critical minerals. The Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (EXIM) recently announced $58 million in loans across three major critical minerals deals: a $25 million loan to Westwater Resources for a graphite processing facility in Alabama, a direct input to battery anodes; a $25 million loan to Global Advanced Metals to expand tantalum and niobium processing in Pennsylvania, minerals used in capacitors, steel alloying for pipelines and aircraft, and magnet production; and $8 million to 5E Advanced Materials for its Fort Cady boron project in California, supplying a mineral used in permanent magnets and semiconductor manufacturing. None of these deals were framed around emissions, with EXIM Chairman Jovanovic stating that “critical mineral security is national security.” All of them nonetheless strengthen the mineral base that clean energy technologies—batteries, EVs, wind turbines, semiconductors for grid electronics—depend on, paving the way for decarbonization.
Nuclear energy tells a similar story. In May, President Trump signed Executive Order 14302, seeking to accelerate nuclear testing procedures and quadruple American nuclear energy capacity by 2050. The administration cited the “global race to dominate in artificial intelligence, a growing need for energy independence, and access to uninterruptible power supplies for national security” as the key drivers for such measures. A well-known co-benefit of nuclear: providing around-the-clock “clean firm” power (low- or zero-carbon power sources that can run continuously and on demand, regardless of weather circumstances). This reduces the need for additional gas plants to power large manufacturing facilities and data centers, adding emissions-free electricity to the grid.
It would be a mistake to characterize these investments as part of an intentional federal climate strategy. But it would also be a mistake to conclude that the U.S. is absent from the global energy transition. Even under an administration that explicitly opposes climate action, national security needs and shifting global trade lines are pushing federal dollars toward batteries, critical minerals, and nuclear fuel—the same building blocks needed for reducing global emissions.