A Crossroads for North America’s Battery Future

PERSPECTIVES No.14  |  February 13, 2026

This week may prove to be one of the most consequential moments yet for North America’s battery materials industry.

The U.S. Department of Commerce has issued a final determination imposing a 93.5 percent antidumping duty and a 67 percent countervailing duty on imports of Chinese graphite-based active anode material (AAM), including AAM contained within finished lithium-ion batteries.

The decision now moves to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is expected to vote on March 12 on whether those duties will stand and place the tariffs of 160% on AAM imports from China.

That vote will do more than settle a trade dispute. It will determine whether North America’s nascent battery-grade graphite processing industry accelerates, or stalls before it truly begins.

Active anode material is not a niche input. It is the single largest component of a lithium-ion battery by weight. It sits at the heart of the devices that power everything from electric vehicles and power tools to grid-scale storage systems, microgrids, renewable integration and backup power solutions. Without it, electrification does not happen.

Yet today, the global supply of battery anode material is overwhelmingly concentrated in China. For years, Western battery manufacturers have relied on abundant, low-cost Chinese AAM, even amid growing fears about the risks of single-source dependency in critical supply chains.

Commerce’s determination acknowledges what many in the industry have long argued: that Chinese producers have benefited from state support and pricing practices that distort the market. If the ITC upholds the duties, the United States will be sending a clear signal that it intends to create durable, rules-based conditions for domestic and regional investment in this critical segment of the battery value chain.

If the ITC rejects the duties, the status quo will continue. Battery makers, facing the economics of cheaper imported material versus more expensive local supply, will have little incentive to “buy local.” Domestic development will proceed slowly, driven primarily to mitigate the risk of dependence on China,  rather than by a commercial logic needed to build a competitive industry at scale.

That is why this moment represents a crossroads.

Upholding Commerce’s ruling would not shut off global trade, nor would it guarantee instant success for North American producers. What it would do is provide more predictable conditions for investment. It would temper the uncertainty created by shifting geopolitical winds and episodic policy measures. And it would also align with broader legislative efforts, including the Trump administration’s recently passed “Big Beautiful Bill”, aimed at reinforcing domestic manufacturing and critical mineral supply chains. Now, the effective tariff rate for AAM is 205% when adding in President Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and reciprocal tariffs of 10% each, and 25% Section 301 tariffs implemented by USTR in 2024.

The antidumping and countervailing duty cases were initiated in December 2024 by the American Active Anode Material Producers (AAMP) — alongside other North American petitioners — in an effort to address what they view as structural imbalances in the market. The ITC has now heard from both petitioners and opponents.

This is not about protectionism for its own sake. It is about whether North America is serious about building capacity in the materials that underpin electrification, energy security and defense readiness.

If the ITC affirms Commerce’s determinations, it will mark a watershed in the North American battery materials landscape. If it does not, the region risks remaining structurally dependent on a supply chain concentrated thousands of miles away, vulnerable to geopolitical friction and export controls.

On March 12, the ITC will decide not only the outcome of a trade case, but the trajectory of an industry. At stake is whether North America builds the foundation of its battery future at home, or continues to import it.

Read AAMP Commentary to this week’s decision here.