Does Congress Even Have a Critical Minerals Strategy?

2026 has been the year of critical minerals for the Trump administration.

In January, the administration's push to increase U.S. influence over the Arctic circle placed critical minerals at the center of foreign policy by raising the prospect of tapping into Greenland’s rare earth resources. The executive branch continued to show critical mineral ambitions abroad in February by establishing the Forum on Resource Geostrategic Engagement (FORGE) to replace the Biden-era Mineral Security Partnership as the vehicle for critical mineral trade agreements. Meanwhile, it seemed like a week could not go by without either the Department of Defense or Department of Energy announcing another grant for a critical mineral project.

Congress, on the other hand, saw little action, indicating a more constrained vision for U.S. critical mineral supply chains. In fact, despite introducing dozens of critical mineral-related bills, Congress only enacted a single proposal: H.J. Res. 140 which narrowly repealed the Biden-era mining ban at the Boundary Waters in Minnesota. Beyond that, only a meager few bills passed either chamber in 2026 so far.

Partisan tension combined with the Trump administration's preference for unilateral action have paralyzed this Congress, leaving it unable to advance its own proposals—let alone forge them into a coherent national critical minerals strategy.

Democrats in particular are stuck on the defensive. A long-standing hesitancy to support mineral production leaves simple procedural reforms in limbo like the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act (S.544; H.R.1366) which would expedite the mine permitting process by allowing developers to rearrange parcels of federal land if they need to revise their designs.The Senate first introduced the proposal in 2023 (S.1281) with later iterations adding funding for cleaning up abandoned mines left from operations that ceased before remediation laws came into effect in the 1970s and 1980s. Yet, its passage remains unlikely even after this sweetener for environmentalist contingents.

Indeed, any regulatory reform to U.S. mineral production may ultimately need a home in a grander permitting bargain that Democrats feel sufficiently supports renewable energy. Chances for that, however, are dwindling as the 119th Congress nears its lame duck session and Democrats—hoping to protect renewables projects from Trump administration cancellations—eye their chances for a better bargaining position after midterm elections.

Meanwhile, oversight concerns over Trump administration spending on critical minerals projects deter Democrats from advancing proposals that authorize the executive branch to wield any additional financial support like the SECURE Minerals Act (S.3659; H.R.7126) which would buffer mineral producers from market volatility by strengthening market liquidity and trading in conjunction with physical commodity storage and financial support tools..

Thankfully, three proposals stand a chance of passing this Congress with bipartisan support:

• 1. Reauthorization of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Earth Mapping Resource Initiative;

• 2. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act reforms that facilitate extraction of critical minerals from industrial waste; and

• 3. Reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.

With their lame duck session nearing, this Congress has little time left to shape a national critical mineral strategy. In fact, what little action the 119th Congress has taken so far has only harmed critical mineral supply chains by repealing tax credits for critical minerals through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act while offering them to metallurgical coal (which the U.S. net exports with significant shares going straight to China). Indeed, the last few weeks before the mid-term elections will indicate if the current congressional make-up is equipped to deal with the challenges the U.S. minerals industry faces or can only yield action and spending to the executive branch, for better or worse.

The Earth Mapping Resource Initiative

The Earth Mapping Resource Initiative (Earth MRI) is a U.S. Geological Survey-led program that collects preliminary geologic data through field surveys and makes the results available to the public. The data expedites and expands the mineral project pipeline by pointing the private sector to exploration targets more likely to yield a viable mineral deposit. The U.S. has lagged behind other major mining countries like Canada and Australia in developing a modern, publicly available geoscience database, making Earth MRI an irreplaceable tool for regaining U.S. competitiveness in attracting industry. Speaking with the Breakthrough Institute, one public sector geologist described Earth MRI as “bringing the U.S. into the modern age.”

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) established Earth MRI in 2021, authorizing the program through 2026 and equipping it with $64 million in annual funding. Now, with the authorization’s expiration date fast approaching, Congress must decide whether to continue the program and, if so, at what level of funding.

Reauthorization appears likely due to the program’s remarkable bipartisan support of the variety of Earth MRI data applications. Democrats have looked beyond the benefits to mineral production, lauding how the data aids public land management by identifying groundwater resources and geologic hazards. IIJA also tasked the program with inventorying legacy mine sites, making Earth MRI one of the few federal efforts supporting abandoned mine clean up.

Funding levels, however, remain uncertain owing largely to Republican fiscal austerity. Both chambers introduced bills that would reauthorize Earth MRI through 2031. The Senate proposal (S.4870) would provide the same annual funding of $64 million that IIJA provided while House spending rules have arbitrarily capped appropriations for the House version (H.R.9640) based on the 2027 President’s budget request of roughly $16 million per year.

Reauthorization even with minimal funding levels would allow Earth MRI to live to fight another day, potentially setting it up for a supplementary funding package next Congress. Any delay in spending, however, would slow the rate of data collection which in turn would defer the program's benefits. If critical minerals security is a bipartisan priority, then a coherent U.S. national strategy would choose to fund Earth MRI now, rather than later. The funding levels of either the House or Senate bill versions will not sufficiently enable the U.S. Geological Survey to complete the IIJA-mandated task of modernizing national mapping data by 2031. As things stand, the next Congress or its successor will need to either greatly make up for past funding shortfalls or extend the program’s deadline.

Recycling Regulatory Reforms

Republican interest in producing critical minerals from all potential sources has made recycling and recovery of critical minerals from industrial waste a novel area of bipartisan interest, overlapping environmentalist ideals of a circular, zero-waste economy. This common ground stands a good chance of materializing action by Congress as it offers Democrats an opportunity to show attention to critical mineral supply constraints without supporting conventional mining.

Proposals here generally take the form of changes to waste management regulations like those governed by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Congress has not proposed any broad, industry-agnostic reforms and has instead offered material-specific bills, making the material a key factor in garnering support for any recycling bill.

Republicans have long shown interest in extracting critical minerals from fossil fuel waste like rare earth elements from coal fly ash or vanadium from spent petroleum refining catalysts. While the Department of Energy under the Trump administration has funded research on these potential sources, Democratic hesitancy to encourage fossil fuel production makes action by Congress doubtful.

Bills introduced in February (H.R.7523; S.3879), for example, would exempt facilities that handle spent petroleum catalysts from Solid Waste Disposal Act permitting requirements if the facilities recover critical minerals. The bill argues Solid Waste Disposal Act regulations for such activities become duplicative of Clean Air Act requirements. These Republican proposals have yet to find a Democratic cosponsor.

Regulatory reform for battery recycling on the other hand appears to enjoy broader support. Recycling of lithium ion batteries so far remains limited in the U.S. even though the sector offers a potential and likely growing source of lithium, nickel, copper, aluminum, and cobalt.

The bipartisan Battery Recycling for America’s Competitive Economy Act (H.R.9615) would help domestic recycling companies enter the market and scale up by allowing facilities to stockpile used batteries under universal waste permits rather than the more burdensome hazardous waste permits they currently require. While the bill addresses the storage and handling stage of recycling, it stops short of relaxing requirements at the processing stage, potentially signaling the limits of Democratic interest in deregulation.

Export-Import Bank Reauthorization

The Export-Import Bank (EXIM) has emerged as a key vehicle for Trump administration critical mineral ambitions, announcing over $15 billion in financing for mineral projects including a titanium processing facility in Virginia and a graphite mine in Alabama. EXIM’s charter will expire at the end of 2026 which poses the question of reauthorization to the 119th Congress.

Despite the agency’s broad benefits to U.S. commerce as a trade facilitator, reauthorization has not been a sure thing in the past largely due to skepticism by free market conservatives. In 2015, for example, members of Congress led by then-Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling allowed EXIM’s charter to lapse for 6 months. Even after reauthorization the board operated without a board quorum which prevented any loans over $10 million until its latest reauthorization in 2019.

The Trump administration’s preference for the agency has surely recouped some support from this historically hesitant wing of the GOP. Complications this time around may instead stem from any ambitions to expand EXIM as part of its reauthorization.

Currently, the only EXIM bill introduced by the 119th Congress proposes a clean reauthorization (S.3772). Members, however, may yet want to codify aspects of Project Vault which the Trump administration announced in February 2026 as a physical reserve of critical minerals available to private sector participants created using $10 billion in EXIM financing. This vision may clash with earlier proposals from Congress like the SECURE Minerals Act which proposed an independent government corporation authorized to use a variety of financial and physical tools to support critical mineral projects, covering functions of both Trump administration initiatives Project Vault and FORGE.

Democratic concerns regarding oversight of Trump administration spending will dissuade many members from any proposals that grant the executive branch more spending authorities. Proposals like the SECURE Minerals Act would serve to rein in unilateral powers by creating an independent government corporation with freshly devised oversight controls. It appears unlikely though that Congress can work out the details to sufficiently comfort oversight-minded members before the end of this session, making a clean reauthorization the most likely path forward.