STRATEGIC Minerals Act: New Trade Deals to Secure Critical Minerals and Cut Reliance on China by 2035

The "Securing Trade and Resources for Advanced Technology, Economic Growth, and International Commerce in Minerals Act"—or the STRATEGIC Minerals Act for short—is all about making sure the U.S. has a steady supply of the critical minerals and rare earth elements needed for everything from electric cars to fighter jets. The bill gives the President the green light, through the Trade Representative, to hammer out trade deals with other countries focused specifically on these materials, with the goal of diversifying our supply chain and reducing dependence on nations like China by July 1, 2035 (Sec. 4).

Reshaping the Supply Chain

The core of this bill is about reshaping where we get these vital materials. It lets the President negotiate and enter into free trade agreements focused solely on critical minerals and rare earth elements. Think of materials like lithium for batteries or neodymium for magnets. The bill expands the definition of a "domestic source" under the Defense Production Act. This means companies in countries with these new trade agreements can be considered "domestic," but there's a catch: they can't be more than 10% owned or controlled by a "foreign entity of concern"—basically, companies tied to countries like China (Sec. 5). For example, a cobalt mine in Australia that supplies a U.S. battery manufacturer could now be considered a domestic source, if it meets all criteria, strengthening our supply chain security.

Real-World Rollout & Who Feels It

So, how might this play out? Imagine a U.S. based electric vehicle manufacturer. Currently, they might rely on materials processed in a country with questionable labor practices. This bill pushes for agreements that prioritize "sustainable practices" and "worker rights" (Sec. 4). While that sounds good on paper, the bill doesn’t spell out exactly how those standards will be enforced. The bill also requires the Trade Representative to brief congressional committees within 120 days on the potential for these agreements (Sec. 3), so the details are still very much in the works.

Another key part is the expanded "domestic source" definition. This could be a boon for companies processing these minerals in allied nations. However, a U.S. mining company that doesn't meet the strict foreign ownership limits (no more than 10% owned by a "foreign entity of concern") might find themselves at a disadvantage compared to, say, a Canadian competitor. The Secretary of Defense, along with the Secretaries of Interior and Energy, will be in charge of figuring out which minerals are actually facing supply shortages, and therefore qualify under this expanded definition (Sec. 5).

Challenges and Connections

One potential snag: the bill initially prohibits deals with "nonmarket economy countries" (think China), but they can join later if Congress approves (Sec. 4). That could create a loophole down the line. Also, while the bill aims to boost U.S. competitiveness, it relies heavily on international cooperation. The bill mandates that the Secretary of Defense issue guidance on compliance, and there are penalties for breaking the rules, including paying back any funds received, being banned from future contracts, and even facing civil or criminal charges (Sec. 5). This is a big shift, and how it's all enforced will be crucial.

This bill builds upon the existing framework of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, using similar procedures for oversight and implementation (Sec. 4). It also connects to the Defense Production Act of 1950, changing who qualifies as a "domestic source" for critical minerals. Ultimately, the STRATEGIC Minerals Act aims to make our supply chains more resilient, but the devil is in the details of how these trade agreements are crafted and enforced.