What This Bill Does
The DOMINANCE Act would direct U.S. diplomacy, financing, and interagency coordination toward securing critical minerals and energy supply chains with allies and partner countries. It authorizes new structures at the State Department, including an Assistant Secretary for Energy Security and Diplomacy, a Bureau of Energy Security and Diplomacy, and an Office of Energy Security Compacts. The bill also lays out policy for international cooperation on mining, processing, recycling, and advanced manufacturing tied to critical minerals, with a focus on reducing dependence on China and other strategic competitors.
- Creates an Assistant Secretary for Energy Security and Diplomacy at the State Department.
- Establishes a Bureau of Energy Security and Diplomacy and an Office of Energy Security Compacts.
- Authorizes international agreements to secure critical mineral supply chains with allied countries.
- Targets critical minerals listed under the Energy Act of 2020 on or after January 1, 2026.
- Calls for financing, insurance, and other support for mining, processing, and related infrastructure.
Who This Bill Affects
For a typical American, this bill would mainly matter indirectly by trying to make the supply of critical minerals and energy-related inputs more secure and less dependent on China. That could help stabilize prices and availability for products that rely on those materials, including electronics, vehicles, defense-related manufacturing, and energy infrastructure, while also expanding U.S. diplomatic and financing efforts abroad. It does not create a direct benefit payment or new consumer program, but it could affect jobs and investment in mining, processing, and advanced manufacturing sectors.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- U.S. manufacturers and defense contractors They would argue the bill helps secure a steadier supply of critical minerals needed for electronics, weapons systems, batteries, and industrial equipment. More predictable access to inputs can reduce supply disruptions and dependence on adversarial countries.
- Mining and mineral-processing companies They would likely support the bill’s emphasis on financing, political-risk insurance, and joint projects in partner countries. Those tools can make large, capital-intensive mining and processing investments more feasible.
- Allied governments and resource-rich partner countries They may see value in the bill’s focus on transparent development, infrastructure, and market-based cooperation. The bill explicitly says partner-country development should be responsible and transparent and should benefit local populations.
- Environmental advocates They may worry the bill accelerates mining and processing projects abroad and at home without enough safeguards for land, water, and community impacts. The emphasis on expanding supply could be seen as favoring extraction over stricter environmental review.
- Fiscal conservatives They may object to creating new offices, fellowship programs, and financing mechanisms at the State Department. Even without a single large appropriation in the text, the bill expands federal administrative responsibilities and could increase spending commitments.
- Trade skeptics and some domestic industry groups Some may argue that international coalitions and foreign projects could distract from building more processing and manufacturing capacity in the United States itself. They may prefer stronger domestic incentives rather than relying on overseas supply arrangements.
Key Implications
-
““reduce or eliminate reliance on critical mineral supply chains controlled by the People’s Republic of China””
This is the bill’s core strategic goal. In practice, it pushes U.S. policy toward alternative suppliers and away from dependence on Chinese mining, refining, and processing.
-
““The President may negotiate an agreement with the governments of foreign countries””
The bill opens the door to a formal coalition or compact with other governments. That could shape trade, investment, and procurement rules for critical minerals across multiple countries.
-
““political risk and other insurance opportunities, financing, and other support””
This language points to federal tools that can lower the cost and risk of mining and processing projects. For companies and host countries, that can make projects easier to launch, but it also means the U.S. government is backing more overseas industrial activity.
-
““The Department shall establish an Office of Energy Security Compacts””
This creates a dedicated bureaucracy to negotiate and manage country-level energy security compacts. For the public, it means the bill is not just policy guidance; it builds a standing federal office to carry it out.
-
““critical mineral” means any mineral on the list ... on or after January 1, 2026”
The bill ties its scope to the Energy Act of 2020 list as updated in 2026. That means the covered materials can change over time as the federal critical-minerals list is revised.
Latest Status
June 9, 2026
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.