During a Senate subcommittee hearing this week, Senator Cory Booker went on the offensive—only to find out there was nothing to attack. While questioning State Department officials about staffing in Africa, Booker slammed the Trump administration for slashing essential jobs. But in a moment that drew smirks from both sides of the aisle, he was calmly informed that not only were no jobs eliminated—more were added.

The hearing, titled “Critical Minerals: Finding Opportunities for U.S.-Africa Partnerships,” focused heavily on the growing threat of Chinese dominance over rare-earth minerals. Republicans like Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Steve Daines sounded the alarm about China’s chokehold on global supplies of cobalt, lithium, and copper—materials that are essential to modern energy and defense technologies. They argued that Beijing is using corrupt lending practices and forced labor in African nations to manipulate prices and outcompete American industry.

Booker, however, took the discussion in a different direction. While acknowledging the risk posed by China’s influence, he insisted the solution was not smarter investment or trade realignment—but more government employees. He claimed Trump’s administration had gutted the State Department, cutting jobs that were “integral” to U.S. engagement in Africa.

But that narrative unraveled quickly.

Jonathan Pratt, a senior official from the Bureau of African Affairs, politely corrected the record: “I’m pleased to report that in the Africa bureau we’ve had zero RIFs,” referring to “reductions in force,” or job cuts. In fact, he added, “We got a result we were pleased with in terms of the staffing we were able to retain,” even noting that under Trump, the bureau added an office.

Undeterred, Booker continued pushing for more staff and aid for environmental and peace-building programs. But his case weakened considerably once it was clear that his central complaint—Trump gutting African affairs staffing—was factually false.

Meanwhile, other senators focused on the real geopolitical stakes. Cruz highlighted how China has poured billions into African nations like the Congo, Zimbabwe, and Tanzania to dominate mineral markets. These investments are coupled with abusive practices, including child and forced labor and debt-trap diplomacy that locks African countries into unfair agreements.

Daines and others pointed out how America’s own mines—especially in resource-rich states like Montana, Minnesota, and Idaho—are being strangled by environmental red tape and foreign dumping practices. Scott Woodard from the State Department confirmed that Chinese overproduction has crippled U.S. competitiveness.

One strategic fix discussed was the Lobito Corridor, an infrastructure route connecting Angola to key mining zones in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zambia. Cruz and other committee members advocated shifting control of this corridor from Chinese hands to U.S. and EU allies, calling it a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to reshape African partnerships through investment, not endless aid.

While Booker fumbled his facts and called for more bureaucracy, others on the committee painted a vision of proactive, strategic investment to counter Beijing’s grip on global supply chains. In Cruz’s words, it’s time to move from “aid-based to investment-led engagement.”

With China racing to secure the minerals of the future, the stakes couldn’t be higher—and neither could the consequences of focusing on phantom problems.