Does Congress Even Have a Critical Minerals Strategy?

Prospects for the Remainder of the 119th Session

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dozens of critical mineral-related bills, Congress only enacted a single proposal: H.J. Res. 140 which narrowly repealed the Biden-era mining ban at the Boundary Waters in Minnesota.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:

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

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

• Reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.