Strategic Expansion in Critical Resources: New Directions for U.S. Sovereign Wealth Fund Investments4/25/2025
SWF 2050™ sample reports appear on this page. For more information and full reports, please contact GPA or visit the Premium SWF 2050™ subscription page.
Disclaimer: Global Policy Advisors® LLC services, including the sample reports provided here, are for informational purposes only and do not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice, nor create an attorney-client relationship. To learn more, please contact GPA and/or visit the terms. By Salar Ghahramani We continue to track the latest developments impacting the plans for the proposed U.S. sovereign wealth fund, along with forward-looking assessments of the policy and market implications of a resource-backed SWF. In March 2025, GPA published two reports--"Capital, Strategy, and Governance: The Market Implications of a DFC-Managed Sovereign Wealth Fund" (March 25) and "Strategic Metals, Rare Earths: The Role of Development Finance Corporation in a Resource-Backed U.S. Sovereign Wealth Fund" (March 27). Our March reports anticipated the growing importance of critical resources in the context of U.S. economic policy and provided early insights into how a resource-backed SWF could operate. These assessments have been confirmed, as Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, speaking at a recent conference, highlighted the growing importance of critical minerals—including lithium, cobalt, and rare earths—and potential plans for the U.S. sovereign wealth fund to invest in domestic miners. Perhaps not coincidentally, just yesterday the U.S. Geological Survey issued a report titled "U.S. Geological Survey Global Seabed Mineral Resources," identifying significant seabed mineral deposits rich in elements critical to energy production and defense, such as nickel, cobalt, and manganese. A Resource-Backed Sovereign Wealth Fund: The National Security Rationale As the U.S. seeks to reduce its dependency on foreign suppliers of critical minerals, the proposed sovereign wealth fund offers an innovative approach. The fund could bolster U.S. mining operations and help ensure a stable supply chain. This initiative could align with the federal government’s recent exploration efforts, as outlined by the DOI’s commitment to deep-sea mining and rare-earth extraction in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). However, there are significant environmental protection concerns, with national security implications of their own, that must also be considered. As we have noted in the past, the Development Finance Corporation (DFC) could play a pivotal role in managing the US SWF. Given its mandate to foster economic development and national security, the DFC is well-positioned to direct investments in the resource sector while balancing risk with long-term value creation. Governance and Market Implications The U.S. government’s involvement in critical mineral markets may trigger debates over the governance of the proposed sovereign wealth fund. It will be crucial for the SWF to operate independently from political pressures, focusing on long-term stability rather than short-term political gains. Questions surrounding the interaction of government policies with private market dynamics will likely shape the governance framework for the proposed SWF. The introduction of a resource-backed SWF also raises important market and geopolitical considerations. Strategic investments in minerals like lithium and rare earths could dramatically impact global markets, especially as demand for clean energy technologies and other mineral uses grows, and the international and oceanic exploration of these resources will almost certainly introduce geopolitical tensions along the way. Full briefings are available to existing clients. Please contact us here for further details. By Salar Ghahramani
As Global Policy Advisors LLC continues to explore the structure and governance of a potential U.S. sovereign wealth fund, a timely question arises: Should such a fund be used to buy domestic equities during market sell-offs? Sovereign wealth funds perform best when their investment decisions are insulated from political pressures. The priority must remain long-term value—not short-term optics. Yet the tension remains: Could—or should—a U.S. SWF act in the name of “national interest” by stepping in to stabilize markets during periods of volatility? Reports suggest China’s CIC may be doing just that, buying the dip to support its stock market amid tariff-driven turbulence. Would this be sound counter-cyclical investing—or a signal that markets are being shaped more by politics than fundamentals? This dilemma highlights the critical design question—how can policymakers structure a SWF that serves national goals without compromising investment discipline. Full briefings are available to existing clients. Please contact us here for further details. By Salar Ghahramani
The March 20, 2025 executive order issued by the White House, focused on immediate measures to increase American mineral production, may signal more than just industrial policy. While the EO makes no explicit mention of a U.S. sovereign wealth fund, Global Policy Advisors LLC assesses that the language—and timing—suggest a broader strategic ambition: positioning critical materials and rare earths not only as inputs for national security and clean energy, but as a funding base for a state-managed investment vehicle. Global Policy Advisors LLC, in its SWF 2050™ framework, has previously outlined the Development Finance Corporation (DFC) as a potential institutional home for a U.S. SWF. This latest executive order aligns with that vision and reinforces the likelihood of a resource-backed fund structure, potentially anchored in critical material royalties, state-sponsored supply chain investments, and global joint ventures. Beyond domestic extraction, there is subtle language hinting at Ukraine’s mineral deposits—possibly shaping future strategic access or investment rights as part of bilateral agreements. Market observers will note that rare earth narratives are increasingly intertwined with geopolitical leverage, commodity diplomacy, and sovereign capital formation. This SWF 2050™ Report explores the possible role of rare earths and critical materials in shaping the funding model for a U.S. sovereign wealth fund, and the strategic case for situating that fund within the DFC. Key Themes Explored in This Report 🔹 The Executive Order: Strategic Finance by Other Means The March 20, 2025 executive order titled Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production outlines a sweeping directive to boost domestic extraction, processing, and refining of critical minerals and rare earths. It tasks the Department of the Interior, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense with accelerating permitting processes, expanding federal investment in mineral exploration, and coordinating with private sector actors. The Defense Production Act (DPA) is invoked explicitly to ensure expedited federal authority in mobilizing resources for mineral development. What’s said—and what’s implied: While the EO emphasizes domestic supply chain resilience and reducing dependence on foreign sources (particularly China), its broader implications suggest a strategic financial dimension. Terms such as “national interest,” “federal coordination,” and “investment incentives” imply the potential for a centralized framework that not only manages supply but leverages it. Though no sovereign wealth fund is named, the EO’s structure invites interpretation as a foundational step toward monetizing these resources through a federal investment vehicle. This interpretation reflects GPA’s independent assessment of the policy direction embedded in the order. Defense Production Act as financial mobilizer: The DPA, originally a Korean War-era statute, is increasingly being used as a policy lever not just for defense production, but for industrial planning. Its use here echoes pandemic-era applications, where the federal government directly invested in vaccine and equipment manufacturing. In the context of minerals, invoking the DPA may allow the government to acquire assets, provide direct financing, or create offtake agreements—each of which could generate revenue streams that are, in theory, capitalizable into a sovereign investment vehicle. For institutional investors, this sets a precedent for new forms of public-private engagement—particularly in upstream resource finance. 🔹 The DFC Link: Reinforcing GPA’s SWF 2050™ Institutional Framework The March 20, 2025 executive order underscores the increasing centrality of the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) in mineral and supply chain strategy. Notably, the EO assigns a significant role to the DFC’s Chief Executive Officer, who is directed to coordinate directly with multiple agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Energy, Interior, and State. This interagency directive enhances the CEO’s operational authority, signaling that DFC will play a pivotal role in implementing national resource policy—not simply as a passive finance vehicle, but as a strategic hub for deployment of capital across mission-aligned priorities. As per our previous reports, the agency’s investment toolkit—ranging from equity and debt financing to risk insurance—already positions it to deploy capital in strategic sectors. Embedding the SWF within DFC would allow for integrated governance and streamlined public-private partnerships. It also enhances interagency visibility into how capital is allocated across mission-critical industries. Private equity and infrastructure funds could operate under DFC’s institutional umbrella through co-investment models or external mandates, with DFC ensuring that capital deployment aligns with U.S. national interest and supply chain security. The DFC-hosted SWF would combine sovereign credibility with market fluency, and offer investors a clear regulatory channel through which to partner with the U.S. government on next-generation strategic industries. 🔹 Funding a U.S. Sovereign Wealth Fund via Mineral Royalties As federal policy turns toward resource development as a pillar of national strategy, the potential to monetize critical materials and rare earths through royalties and lease payments emerges as a credible pathway to fund a U.S. sovereign wealth fund (SWF). Under existing law, federal lands already generate royalties for the U.S. Treasury through oil, gas, and mineral leases. Expanding and modernizing these mechanisms for rare earths and other critical materials—particularly those identified in the March 20, 2025 executive order—could establish a long-term, recurring revenue stream to anchor sovereign investment. Historically, many sovereign wealth funds have been funded through resource windfalls. Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, and Chile’s Economic and Social Stabilization Fund are prominent examples of states that have capitalized on national commodities to build financial reserves. In each case, the SWF acts not only as a savings mechanism but also as a strategic investment arm aligned with the country’s long-term interests. The U.S. government could replicate this model by establishing revenue-sharing agreements for the extraction of critical materials from federal land and securing long-term offtake agreements with private partners. These agreements, if structured appropriately, could also be securitized—allowing the U.S. to raise upfront capital through bond issuance or other financial instruments backed by future royalty flows. 🔹 Ukraine, Rare Earths, and U.S. Strategic Access The strategic relationship between the United States and Ukraine has increasingly expanded beyond military and humanitarian support to include economic and industrial cooperation. While the March 20, 2025 executive order does not explicitly name Ukraine, its broader context, coupled with previous reports and diplomatic signaling, suggests that access to Ukraine’s rare earth and critical mineral resources could become an unspoken component of ongoing bilateral engagement. Ukraine is known to have significant rare earth potential, though its resource base remains underdeveloped due to years of conflict and limited capital investment. Recent commentary and speculation—including assertions of U.S. interests in Ukrainian mining rights—point to a growing interest in using Ukraine’s mineral base as part of the strategic calculus for postwar reconstruction and Western industrial diversification. Concurrently, Russian sovereign wealth entities have reportedly expressed interest in these same assets, framing the competition as part of a broader geopolitical struggle for control over strategic supply chains. For Western institutional investors, the prospect of future co-investments or public-private partnerships tied to Ukrainian mineral projects—potentially guaranteed or facilitated through U.S. sovereign mechanisms—presents both opportunity and geopolitical risk. Such access could prove critical not only for commercial returns but for reshaping the rare earth landscape in a post-conflict global order. 🔹 Market Implications for Investors A U.S. sovereign wealth fund backed by critical minerals and housed within the Development Finance Corporation would introduce a new institutional player into sectors already characterized by limited supply, opaque pricing, and high geopolitical sensitivity. For institutional investors, this presents both a signal and an opening. Public-private positioning will be key. Asset managers, infrastructure funds, and mining-oriented private equity firms could benefit from co-investment channels or indirect exposure to sovereign-backed projects. The DFC's credibility and oversight mechanisms could also derisk early-stage investments in emerging markets or politically sensitive jurisdictions, particularly if backed by long-term offtake agreements or federal guarantees. Moreover, a federally anchored buyer or investor in critical minerals would likely shift pricing power, affect global deal flow, and influence supply chain strategies. Investors should anticipate new policy tools such as mineral-backed bonds, preferred supplier arrangements, or expanded use of export credit facilities. The result may be a tighter, more government-shaped market for key inputs across defense, energy, and technology sectors. Looking ahead, capital allocators in private equity, infrastructure, and commodity trading will need to incorporate sovereign intent and regulatory shifts into their underwriting models. The alignment of federal industrial policy with sovereign capital formation marks a structural evolution in how the United States may pursue economic security—and how markets will participate. Full briefings are available to existing clients. Please contact us here for further details. Capital, Strategy, and Governance: The Market Implications of a DFC-Managed Sovereign Wealth Fund3/25/2025
By Salar Ghahramani
As policymakers evaluate the possible establishment of a United States sovereign wealth fund, institutional placement will be a critical determinant of the fund's effectiveness, governance, and legitimacy. According to Bloomberg, one institutional option under consideration is the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC). This advisory note is Global Policy Advisors' independent assessment of the implications. Created in 2019 through the bipartisan Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development (BUILD) Act, the DFC serves as the federal government’s development finance institution. Its core mission is to mobilize private capital in support of economic development and foreign policy objectives, particularly in emerging markets. In this respect, the DFC operates at the intersection of public purpose and market-based investment—an operational profile that aligns conceptually with the potential goals of a U.S. SWF. The DFC’s structure combines executive-branch oversight with investment-oriented operations. Its governance model includes cabinet-level ex officio board members such as the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and Commerce, thereby offering a platform for interagency coordination and deliberation. This institutional architecture could facilitate a multi-perspective approach to the SWF’s investment strategy, ensuring alignment with national interests across diplomacy, economic policy, and trade. This report examines the rationale for housing the SWF within the DFC, with a focus on mandate alignment, governance design, investment experience, and broader policy considerations. I. Rationale for Housing the SWF within DFC
Summary The potential establishment of a U.S. sovereign wealth fund raises complex questions of structure, oversight, and strategic purpose. Locating such a fund within the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation may provide a balanced and pragmatic solution. The DFC’s interagency governance, investment infrastructure, and alignment with national priorities offer a promising institutional foundation. While further deliberation is necessary, the DFC represents a credible and operationally ready candidate for housing a U.S. SWF in a manner consistent with both fiduciary responsibility and public interest. The full briefing and the market implications of a DFC-managed US SWF is available to existing clients. Please contact us here for further details. U.S. Sovereign Wealth Fund and the Federal Reserve Board: Global Policy Advisors' Forecast2/16/2025
By Salar Ghahramani
In February 2025, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order directing the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce to produce a plan for a U.S. Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) within 90 days. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent projected that a U.S. SWF could be operational within 12 months. Global Policy Advisors LLC (GPA) forecasts that the proposal may include a defined role for the Federal Reserve, potentially involving its assets (including excess FX reserves) as a funding mechanism. Such a development could carry significant implications for monetary policy, Federal Reserve independence, and congressional authority. Global Policy Advisors anticipates that the 90-day proposal may explore using Federal Reserve assets, expertise, and infrastructure as an expedient means to seed the SWF, given the immediate liquidity and expertise they could provide. Such a measure would represent a shift from the Federal Reserve’s traditional role of managing monetary policy and economic stability, raising questions about the separation between fiscal and monetary policies. If the proposal includes a role for the Federal Reserve, it may introduce new concerns regarding the Fed's autonomy. The intersection of Federal Reserve operations with a fiscal initiative like the SWF could blur responsibilities, raising the potential for conflicts between economic stabilization efforts and investment mandates. The forecast also notes that any proposal involving Federal Reserve assets would likely require congressional approval due to Congress’s constitutional control over federal spending. The inclusion of the Fed in the proposal could spark debate over executive authority, fiscal governance, and legislative oversight. The full briefing is available to existing clients. Please contact us here for further details. A Roadmap for Establishing a U.S. Sovereign Wealth Fund: Strategic Considerations and Governance9/25/2024
By Salar Ghahramani
The United States, a global financial leader, is one of the few major economies without a national sovereign wealth fund (SWF). As geopolitical risks and economic challenges rise, the concept of creating a U.S. SWF has attracted increasing interest—not just from policymakers, but also from financial market participants. A U.S. SWF presents a potential mechanism for stabilizing the economy, managing national assets, and generating investment opportunities for public and private stakeholders. For policymakers, a U.S. SWF presents a chance to safeguard future fiscal stability, finance infrastructure projects, and manage long-term pension liabilities. For financial market participants—such as investment managers, private equity firms, and financial institutions—it represents an opportunity to engage in the management of large-scale, long-term capital, driving economic development and potentially expanding the financial markets. This report offers a comprehensive roadmap for how the U.S. government might establish a SWF, detailing key considerations in the areas of fund type, governance and institutional structure, external investment management, asset allocation, and the broader political implications. This roadmap aims to foster dialogue and collaboration among government officials, financial institutions, and investors in crafting a U.S. SWF that aligns with both national policy goals and market opportunities. Access full briefing in PDF format by requesting it here. SWF 2050™ Report
By Salar Ghahramani During geopolitical tension, sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) pivot their investment strategies from growth-focused to more conservative approaches, emphasizing capital preservation and risk management. A critical aspect of this shift is the increasing reliance on external asset managers, including hedge funds, which offer specialized expertise in navigating volatile markets. The external managers provide SWFs with diverse investment strategies and insights, crucial for managing risks and identifying opportunities in uncertain geopolitical landscapes. Hedge funds, with their agility and ability to employ various strategies like short selling and leverage, become particularly instrumental. They may help SWFs hedge against market downturns and capitalize on inefficiencies that emerge from geopolitical unrest, thereby playing a vital role in the reallocation of assets towards safer havens like government bonds and gold. This collaboration between SWFs and external asset managers has significant implications for global financial markets, which this report considers in detail. More in-depth analysis and the full report is available to Global Policy Advisors® LLC SWF 2050™ clients. U.S. Tightens Investment Rules in Chinese Tech: Implications for China Investment Corporation8/10/2023
SWF 2050™ Report
By Salar Ghahramani President Joe Biden's administration has unveiled a set of comprehensive rules aimed at curbing U.S. investments in advanced technology sectors within China. These measures underscore the administration's growing concerns about the potential national security implications of American capital flowing into Chinese tech industries. Of particular note is how these regulations might impact the China Investment Corporation (CIC), a prominent sovereign wealth fund. The CIC, which has traditionally been active in various global investments, may find its U.S. technology ventures under increased scrutiny or face restrictions on new investments. The rules highlight specific sectors where investment will be restricted, reflecting the U.S. government's intent to protect national interests and technological edge. This move not only signals a continuation of the strategy to decouple certain elements of the U.S. and Chinese economies but also emphasizes the challenges that institutional investors like the CIC might face in navigating the complex geopolitical, regulatory, and legal landscape landscape. More in-depth analysis and the full report is available to Global Policy Advisors® LLC SWF 2050™ clients. By Salar Ghahramani
The Alaska Permanent Fund, a sovereign-wealth fund valued at $77 billion, has recently outlined plans to cut back on its investments in private equity. This asset class has been a major focus for the fund in recent years. Board's Decision to Cut Private Equity Allocations: During its quarterly meeting held on May 17 and 18, the board of trustees agreed to a revised strategy. For fiscal year 2025, they approved a reduction in target allocation to private equity from the original 19% to 15%. This adjustment represents a notable shift from the five-year asset-allocation plan approved back in May 2020. Establishment of Tactical Opportunities Portfolio: Further, the board gave a green light to the creation of a tactical opportunities portfolio, setting a target allocation of 2%. The Alaska Permanent Fund aims to invest this portfolio across public and private markets. The strategy will focus on exploring opportunities that may not align with the conventional categories within the portfolio, yet are anticipated to display "equity-like" returns. Chief Investment Officer's View on Private Equity: The adjustment in policy follows the concerns raised by the fund's Chief Investment Officer, Marcus Frampton. He cautioned against "excesses" within the private-equity market and expressed that the valuations of such assets were currently higher than their justified values. Frampton further stressed on the importance of risk mitigation in order to preserve liquidity for the Alaska Permanent. First Quarter Portfolio Outflows: The beginning of the year has been marked by notable net outflows from the fund's investment portfolio. This includes nearly $21 million specifically from its private-equity portfolio, resulting in a total net outflow of around $1.2 billion in the first quarter of the year. Current and Future Commitments to Private Equity: The fund's private-equity assets stood at $15.3 billion as of March 31, accounting for almost 20% of the total fund's portfolio. This surpasses the interim 17% target that was set as part of its five-year plan for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2023. It has actively backed funds managed by seasoned firms such as Advent International, Bain Capital, GTCR, Hellman & Friedman, and Insight Partners. In the years leading up to 2021, the fund committed an average of $1.8 billion per year to private equity. However, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2023, commitments are on track to be around $1 billion, with the same amount targeted for the following year. Debate Among Board Members: The decision to adjust the asset-allocation plan sparked debates among the board members. Some trustees questioned the wisdom of reducing the fund's private-equity investments during a period of economic uncertainty that could bring attractive, lower-valuation opportunities in the market. Implications: The decision made by the board of trustees of the Alaska Permanent Fund will undeniably have significant implications. With a reduced allocation to private equity, the fund's portfolio will become more diversified, which may potentially increase its resilience against market volatility. On the other hand, the decision raises questions about missed opportunities in the private equity market. With economic uncertainty prevalent, there might be an influx of high-potential, lower-valuation investment opportunities. Simultaneously, the creation of the tactical opportunities portfolio brings a new aspect to the fund's investment strategy. This venture may open doors to diverse opportunities in both public and private markets that do not fit into traditional investment categories, thereby offering potentially lucrative "equity-like" returns. Lastly, it will be interesting to observe how the fund navigates through its private equity commitments in the upcoming years. A reduction in the annual commitment from $1.8 billion to $1 billion, while aiming to maintain strong partnerships with established firms, will be a delicate balance to maintain. This strategic shift might signal a change in the overall approach towards private equity among similar funds, with many possibly reviewing their investment policies in light of this new direction. However, only time will tell if this decision is a strategic masterstroke or a missed opportunity. Salar Ghahramani is the founder of Global Policy Advisors® LLC. By Salar Ghahramani
Abstract: The proposed Belt and Road Oversight Act, currently under consideration by the U.S. Senate's Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, outlines an extensive system to scrutinize investments by China's sovereign wealth funds, including the China Investment Corporation (CIC), in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The Act calls for wide-ranging reporting, examination, and strategic planning by assigned "Country China Officers" in U.S. embassies across the globe. This brief provides an overview of the proposed legislation, highlighting its potential implications for monitoring and understanding the influence of the CIC and other Chinese entities within the BRI. Introduction: The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a comprehensive project by the Chinese government to increase regional integration and expand its global influence. The initiative includes numerous infrastructure projects, primarily financed by China's banking systems and sovereign wealth funds, such as the China Investment Corporation (CIC). The proposed Belt and Road Oversight Act ("the Act"), now being considered by the U.S. Senate's Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, is intended to enhance scrutiny of these investments, but, if passed, would likely add to the existing points of geopolitical contention in international economic affairs between the two countries. The Proposed Belt and Road Oversight Act: The Act, if passed, would put in place a system for monitoring and reporting on China's activities worldwide. This includes designating a "Country China Officer" in each U.S. embassy, tasked with compiling comprehensive reports on Chinese government's equity and assets within their respective countries. The responsibility extends to tracking infrastructure projects funded by the Chinese banking system, its sovereign wealth funds, and international financial institutions. China Investment Corporation's Role and Influence: As a prominent sovereign wealth fund active in the BRI, the CIC plays a significant role in China's foreign investments. Understanding its investments is critical for comprehending the breadth of China's economic influence. The proposed Act, with its comprehensive reporting requirement, could provide a means to evaluate the extent of CIC's involvement, associated risks, and the broader implications for economies receiving these investments. Debt Obligations, Collateral, and China's Assets: The Act also proposes an evaluation of each country's total debt obligations to China. An understanding of these obligations is key, given their potential to highlight economic vulnerabilities tied to the BRI. The reporting would entail detailing any known or speculated collateral tied to the debts accrued by BRI projects and identifying assets owned by Chinese entities within these nations. Strategy to Counter China's Influence: The proposed Act calls for the development of a comprehensive, country-specific strategy to counter China's influence by each Country China Officer. This strategy aims to equip diplomatic personnel with the means to mitigate China's impact. Annual reports summarizing these strategies, alongside the identification of specific challenges and opportunities linked to China, are to be provided under Act. Assessing Procurement Needs and Alternative Financing: The Act encourages analysis of potential procurement and infrastructure needs and the likelihood of Chinese financing for such projects. It recommends that the United States International Development Finance Corporation focus on providing alternative financing opportunities, particularly for countries targeted by the BRI. Implications: The proposed Belt and Road Oversight Act presents a comprehensive system for tracking, evaluating, and developing responses to China's growing global influence through the BRI. By zeroing in on Chinese entities like the China Investment Corporation, the Act, if passed, could provide a detailed understanding of China's overseas investments and their implications for international economics and geopolitics by US policy-makers but could also create additional points of contention between the two countries. Salar Ghahramani is the founder of Global Policy Advisors® LLC. |
SWF 2050™
|