What This Bill Does
The Critical Minerals Security Act of 2025 would require the Secretary of the Interior to produce detailed reports on critical mineral and rare earth element resources around the world within 1 year of enactment, and every 2 years after that. Those reports would identify who controls mines and processing operations, including foreign entities of concern, and would also examine mines owned by the United States or allied and partner countries. The bill also directs the Interior Department to create a process for U.S. persons to notify the government before divesting stock in foreign mining or recycling operations, and to develop a strategy for advanced mining, refining, separation, processing, and recycling technologies with allies and partners.
- Requires a global report on critical mineral and rare earth resources within 1 year, then every 2 years.
- The report must identify foreign entities of concern, allied/partner control, and why some resources are not commercially mined.
- For each major mine, the bill seeks output, remaining reserves, operating country/entity, and beneficial owners.
- Creates a process for U.S. persons to notify Interior before divesting stock in foreign mining or recycling operations.
- Directs a strategy on advanced mining, refining, separation, processing, and recycling technologies with allies and partners.
Who This Bill Affects
For most people, this bill would not change taxes, benefits, or eligibility directly. Its effect would be indirect: it could improve U.S. access to critical minerals and rare earths by forcing the government to map supply chains, identify foreign control risks, and coordinate with allies on mining and recycling technology. If that leads to more stable supplies, it could help industries that rely on these materials and, over time, reduce vulnerability to shortages or price spikes.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Defense contractors and national security planners They would likely support the bill because it is designed to reduce dependence on foreign-controlled critical minerals and rare earth elements that are essential for defense manufacturing and other strategic industries. Better mapping of ownership and supply chains could help the U.S. avoid disruptions and identify vulnerabilities earlier.
- Domestic mining and processing companies These firms may favor the bill because it highlights mines and processing operations controlled by foreign entities of concern and encourages collaboration with allied and partner countries. The reporting could make it easier for U.S. firms to compete for investment and supply-chain roles.
- Recycling and advanced materials technology firms They may support the strategy for advanced mining, refining, separation, processing, and recycling technologies because it could expand demand for new methods and create pathways for licensing and international collaboration. The bill explicitly contemplates sharing intellectual property with allied and partner governments.
- Foreign investors and multinational mining firms They may object to the bill’s detailed ownership, beneficial-owner, and control reporting because it increases scrutiny of cross-border mining and recycling assets. The divestment-notification process could also complicate transactions and reduce flexibility in foreign markets.
- Companies with sensitive proprietary technology They may worry about the bill’s emphasis on sharing intellectual property with allied and partner governments. Even if the goal is cooperation, firms could be concerned about how technology is licensed, protected, and commercialized abroad.
- Fiscal conservatives They may question whether the federal government should spend resources on recurring global reports, classified annexes, and interagency coordination without any explicit funding cap in the text. They could see it as an information-heavy mandate with uncertain direct payoff.
Key Implications
-
““Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment... and every 2 years thereafter””
The Interior Department would have to keep producing updated global reports on critical minerals and rare earths, so this is not a one-time study. That creates an ongoing federal monitoring role and means Congress would receive repeated snapshots of supply-chain risks.
-
““under the control of a foreign entity of concern””
The bill focuses on ownership and influence, not just where a mine is located. That matters because a resource can be in a friendly country but still be controlled by actors the U.S. considers risky.
-
““a United States person seeking to divest stock... may notify the Secretary””
This creates a voluntary notification channel for U.S. persons selling stakes in foreign mining, processing, or recycling operations. In practice, it could help the government intervene early to steer assets toward buyers not controlled by a covered nation.
-
““a strategy to collaborate with the governments of countries that are allies and partners””
The bill is not just about restricting adversaries; it also tries to build cooperative supply chains with friendly countries. That could affect how mining and recycling technology is shared and licensed internationally.
-
““may include a classified annex””
Some of the ownership and control information could be sensitive enough that the report would have a classified component. That suggests the bill is meant to inform Congress while still protecting intelligence or security-related details.
Latest Status
June 10, 2026
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Related Bills
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.