Farming in the US is indeed subsidized with minimum prices. Because the government isn't itself in the value chain of most farm goods, there's a two-level payment structure; rather than telling the buyer they must pay at least $X, the government steps in to pay the difference between the market price and the minimum (https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/arc-plc). But the products made from critical minerals are almost all destined for government purchase, so there's no point in complicating things.

> That statement is irrelevant to the quote it replied to.

I don't think that's true, unless the quote was meant as a snippy aside that's irrelevant to the source article. If the US wants to talk about critical minerals, you can (probably should!) be skeptical of any promises or commitments the current administration makes, but refusing to talk isn't a realistic option.

They're talking to China too, to be clear. The EU hosted talks in October. However, the Chinese position on the matter is pretty clear: they're happy to export these minerals for civilian applications, but they don't want to supply foreign militaries, and they're going to enact whatever restrictions are necessary to ensure that stops happening.