5 Bipartisan Actions to Protect America’s Mineral Supply Chains

In a sharply divided Congress, strengthening U.S. mineral supply chains is a rare area of bipartisan agreement. Therefore, the next Congress offers a significant opportunity for substantive action on critical minerals.

Five bipartisan actions that Congress could take are increasing mineral stockpiling, streamlining the permitting process, increasing funding for mineral projects and education, enhancing mineral supply chain transparency in government procurement, and reviving the U.S. Bureau of Mines. These legislative actions are not only feasible but would also be effective in bolstering mineral supply chains for goods that are critical to U.S. national security, economic prosperity, and sustainability.

Firstly, Congress could pass legislation increasing funds for mineral stockpiling, including for minerals used heavily in conflict but presently absent from the U.S. stockpile, such as copper. Mineral stockpiling already receives bipartisan support in Congress, as evidenced by the Senate defense appropriation subcommittee’s bill for fiscal year 2025, which allocates $600 million to the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund. The draft bill passed out of committee with unanimous support.

The next Congress could also explore expanding the purpose of the National Defense Stockpile from “national defense only” to include economic security, such as stockpiling minerals from domestic mineral producers at above-market prices amid price slumps. China already uses its own stockpiles this way, allowing it to exert a powerful influence on market prices.

Secondly, Congress could pass legislation increasing funds for mineral projects and mineral-related education. Congress has previously funded the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program, which has provided direct loans for mineral processing projects, and the Defense Production Act fund, which has supported both mining and processing projects. The next Congress could explicitly extend direct loans to mining projects and grants to alleviate costs from the permitting process, such as technical reports concerning the environmental impacts of potential mineral projects.

Congress could fund more education programs, too, including grants for recruiting and educating mineral-focused students—as the bipartisan Mining Schools Act of 2023 provides. Mining and geological engineers are expected to have modest employment growth of 2 percent from 2023 to 2033, but more than half of the current U.S. mining workforce is expected to retire by 2029, leaving a workforce gap. And the workforce pipeline is bottlenecked: The number of mining-related graduates has dropped 39 percent since 2016.

Thirdly, Congress could pass legislation seeking to streamline the permitting process for mineral projects. Specifically, the legislation could modify the litigation process for mineral projects, as a bill introduced by Sen. Joe Manchin called the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 seeks to do.

A team at the Institute for Progress recommended establishing a time limit for injunctive relief—that is, a court order preventing construction—for projects subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The time limit would begin with the initiation of the NEPA review and end shortly after the conclusion of the NEPA review. The next Congress could pass legislation adopting this proposal.

Another area for improved legislation is enhancing the industry’s supply chain reporting in government procurement, especially by the Defense Department. In previous years, the National Defense Authorization Act has included reporting requirements on the provenance of minerals in permanent magnets. These reporting requirements could be expanded to other defense goods, such as munitions and platforms like naval vessels. These reporting requirements could be further enhanced into material requirements, too, similar to the already existing restrictions on the Defense Department in acquiring materials for permanent magnets from certain countries, like China.

Lastly, Congress could pass legislation reviving the Bureau of Mines or creating a similar entity, such as a proposed National Critical Minerals Council. Established in 1910, the Bureau of Mines initially worked on addressing mine health and safety issues, eventually expanding into information gathering on the domestic and global mineral industries as well as research on mining and processing technology. But as its functions were largely absorbed by other federal agencies over time, the bureau was dissolved in 1996 amid budgetary battles in Congress.

Most proposals for this renewed (or new) entity suggest that it could coordinate mineral programs across the federal government. However, given varying bureaucratic interests—such as the Defense Department’s focus on minerals in munitions versus the Energy Department’s focus on minerals in electric vehicle batteries—a more suitable role for this new entity could be as the lead agency in NEPA reviews for mineral-related projects.

Agencies that currently act as the lead federal agencies in NEPA reviews for mining projects, such as the Bureau of Land Management, report a lack of staff with adequate expertise, delaying the permitting process. This new bureau would ideally have sufficient mineral experts and could, therefore, help expedite the NEPA process.

Both Democrat and Republican members of Congress consider secure mineral supply chains to be vital to U.S. national security and economic prosperity, and these legislative actions offer a balanced and practical approach for addressing U.S. reliance on minerals from foreign adversaries while supporting American workers and companies.

With largely bipartisan agreement in Congress and likely support from the next administration, the next Congress could be the best opportunity since the Cold War for substantive action on mineral supply chains.