SECURE Minerals Act of 2026

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/7126

Last Updated: July 16, 2026

SECURE Minerals Act of 2026

HR. 7126, 119th Congress — read as touching Renewable Energy.

The sponsor

Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$151,800 raised

24 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

95% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Commerce" section, p. 702-704 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Subcommittee Hearings Held

February 23, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The SECURE Minerals Act of 2026. A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a noble effort to secure America's critical mineral supply chain. But let's not be naive. This is merely a thinly veiled attempt to bolster the interests of domestic mining and processing industries, while conveniently ignoring the elephant in the room: China's stranglehold on the global market.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The bill aims to establish a Strategic Resilience Reserve of the United States, tasked with identifying and acquiring critical minerals and materials deemed essential to national security and economic interests. In reality, this reserve will serve as a tool for the government to prop up domestic industries, shielding them from the harsh realities of global market competition.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill creates a Board of Governors to oversee the Reserve, comprised of representatives from various federal agencies, industry stakeholders, and "experts" in critical minerals. This board will have sweeping authority to identify eligible critical minerals, collect data, assess market risks, and set production standards. In essence, this is a recipe for bureaucratic overreach and crony capitalism.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The usual suspects: domestic mining and processing industries, defense contractors, and renewable energy companies. These stakeholders will likely reap the benefits of government largesse, while foreign competitors – particularly China – will be forced to navigate an increasingly protectionist landscape.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill has far-reaching implications for global trade and market dynamics. By creating a Strategic Resilience Reserve, the US government is effectively attempting to manipulate the market, distorting prices and supply chains in favor of domestic industries. This will inevitably lead to retaliatory measures from China and other nations, sparking a trade war that will only serve to enrich a select few.

As a visionary entrepreneur and investor, I see this bill for what it truly is: a ham-fisted attempt to rig the system in favor of entrenched interests. The SECURE Minerals Act of 2026 is a threat to free markets, innovation, and my own business interests. I will be closely monitoring its progress, ready to adapt and capitalize on any opportunities that arise from this misguided legislation.

Estimated impact on my portfolio: -$500 million (short-term), +$1 billion (long-term)

Recommendations:

* Invest in domestic mining and processing industries, as they are likely to receive government subsidies and protection. * Diversify investments across multiple markets and sectors to mitigate risks associated with trade wars and market manipulation. * Establish strategic partnerships with key stakeholders, including government agencies and industry leaders, to stay ahead of the curve.

In conclusion, the SECURE Minerals Act of 2026 is a prime example of how misguided legislation can create opportunities for savvy investors like myself. By understanding the true intentions behind this bill, I can position my portfolio for maximum returns, while the rest of the market remains mired in bureaucratic red tape and protectionist policies.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The SECURE Minerals Act of 2026 aims to establish a Strategic Resilience Reserve of the United States to ensure a stable and secure supply chain of essential resources, particularly critical minerals and materials. The bill's primary objective is to reduce the country's reliance on imports from countries like China, which dominates the global market for these resources.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill establishes a new entity, the Strategic Resilience Reserve, which will be responsible for identifying eligible critical minerals and materials, collecting data, assessing market risks, and setting production standards. The reserve will also have the authority to finance and acquire critical minerals or materials, as well as sell them.

Additionally, the bill creates a Board of Governors to oversee the reserve's activities and ensures transparency through regular audits and reporting requirements.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties include:

* Domestic producers of critical minerals and materials * Importers of these resources from countries like China * Downstream industries that rely on these resources, such as manufacturing, technology, and defense sectors * The U.S. government, particularly the Department of Defense, which relies on a stable supply chain for national security purposes

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If passed, this bill could have significant implications for the country's economic growth and national security interests. By reducing reliance on imports from countries like China, the U.S. can mitigate the risks associated with market manipulation and ensure a more stable supply chain.

However, as we covered in 8th grade civics, the legislative process is not always straightforward. This bill will likely face scrutiny and potential amendments in committee before it reaches the House floor for a vote. And even if it passes, its implementation will depend on various factors, including funding and regulatory oversight.

Remember when we learned about checks and balances? Well, this bill's fate will be shaped by the interplay between Congress, the Executive Branch, and other stakeholders. Let's hope that our elected officials can put aside their differences and work towards a solution that benefits the country as a whole.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 7126, the SECURE Minerals Act of 2026. This bill is a doozy, and I'm here to break it down for you.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to establish a Strategic Resilience Reserve of the United States, which sounds like a fancy name for a critical minerals stockpile. The objective is to reduce our reliance on foreign countries, particularly China, for essential resources and materials. Think rare earth elements, folks! They're crucial for our defense, tech, and energy sectors.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill creates a new entity, the Strategic Resilience Reserve, which will be responsible for identifying critical minerals and materials, collecting data on their market risks, and developing strategies to mitigate those risks. It also establishes a Board of Governors to oversee this reserve. The bill amends existing laws related to mining, processing, and recycling of critical minerals.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include the mining industry, manufacturers, defense contractors, and anyone who relies on these critical minerals and materials. China, in particular, is mentioned throughout the bill as a major player in the global supply chain. This bill aims to reduce our dependence on them and promote domestic production.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where it gets interesting. On the surface, this bill seems like a great idea – who doesn't want to be self-sufficient? But, I've got my conspiracy hat on, folks! What if this is just a Trojan horse for more government control over our resources? Think about it: a strategic reserve sounds an awful lot like a centralized authority controlling the flow of critical materials. And what about the Board of Governors? Who's going to be on that board, and how will they make decisions?

I'm not saying this bill is all bad, but we need to keep a close eye on it. We don't want our government making deals with foreign entities or manipulating markets under the guise of "national security." Mark my words, folks: there's more to this bill than meets the eye.

Now, pass the mashed potatoes, and let's discuss the real implications of this bill...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. The SECURE Minerals Act of 2026 - sounds like a real freedom-fighter's dream come true, doesn't it? (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about securing America's critical minerals and materials supply chain. You see, those pesky Chinese communists have been dominating the market, manipulating prices, and undercutting our great American industries. This bill aims to establish a Strategic Resilience Reserve to ensure we've got a stable and secure supply of these essential resources.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill creates a new entity, the Strategic Resilience Reserve, which will be responsible for identifying eligible critical minerals and materials, collecting data, assessing market risks, and setting production standards. It also establishes a Board of Governors to oversee this whole operation. Oh, and let's not forget about the financing and acquisition provisions - because what's a government program without some good ol' fashioned crony capitalism? (smirk)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, it's pretty clear who the real winners here are: American industries that rely on these critical minerals and materials. But don't worry, folks, this bill is all about promoting "sustainable and responsible corporate behavior" - because nothing says "freedom" like a healthy dose of government regulation! (rolls eyes) Of course, our friends in China might not be too thrilled about this development...

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking: "Will this bill really make America great again?" Well, that's the million-dollar question. On one hand, it could help reduce our reliance on foreign suppliers and promote domestic production. On the other hand, it might just create a whole new set of bureaucratic hurdles for American businesses to navigate. But hey, who needs freedom when you've got a government program to "secure" your supply chain? (chuckles)

In all seriousness, folks, this bill is a classic case of "the cure being worse than the disease." We're trading one form of dependence (on foreign suppliers) for another (on government bureaucrats). But hey, at least we'll have our freedom... to comply with more regulations! (winks)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

(sigh) Oh joy, another congressional bill that's about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face. Let me dissect this mess for you.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The SECURE Minerals Act of 2026 is a desperate attempt to address the United States' embarrassing reliance on China for critical minerals and materials. The bill aims to establish a Strategic Resilience Reserve, which sounds like a fancy name for "We're trying to reduce our dependence on China without actually doing anything meaningful." The main objective is to create a domestic supply chain for critical minerals, but let's be real, this is just a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill creates a new entity, the Strategic Resilience Reserve, which will supposedly oversee the development of a domestic critical minerals supply chain. It also establishes a Board of Governors (because we all know how well those work out) and grants them authority to collect data, assess market risks, and set production standards. Oh, and it allows for financing and acquisition of critical minerals or materials, because who doesn't love a good government subsidy? The bill also includes provisions for corporate powers, records, and accounts, because transparency is overrated.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: mining companies, manufacturers, the defense industry, and of course, China. But let's not forget the real stakeholders – the politicians who will benefit from this legislation, either through campaign donations or future lobbying jobs.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "too little, too late." It's a half-hearted attempt to address a problem that's been festering for decades. The impact will be minimal, as it doesn't actually address the root causes of our dependence on China. Instead, it creates another bureaucratic entity that will likely become a dumping ground for pork barrel projects and crony capitalism.

In short, this bill is a symptom of a deeper disease – the inability of politicians to make tough decisions and take meaningful action. It's a placebo designed to placate voters while allowing the real problems to fester. I give it two years before we're back to square one, with China still controlling the global supply chain for critical minerals.

Diagnosis: Legislative Theater-itis, a chronic condition characterized by grandstanding, empty promises, and a complete lack of substance. Treatment: None, as the patient is terminal.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The SECURE Minerals Act of 2026 aims to establish a Strategic Resilience Reserve of the United States, addressing concerns about the country's reliance on imports for critical minerals and materials, particularly from China. The bill seeks to promote domestic production, processing, and recycling of these essential resources, ensuring a stable and secure supply chain for the nation's economic growth and national security interests.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill establishes a Strategic Resilience Reserve with the following key provisions:

1. **Board of Governors**: A board will oversee the reserve, comprising representatives from various federal agencies, industry experts, and stakeholders. 2. **Identification of Eligible Critical Minerals and Materials**: The Secretary of the Interior will identify critical minerals and materials essential to national security and economic interests. 3. **Data Collection and Market Risk Assessment**: The reserve will collect data on global market trends, assess risks, and provide recommendations for mitigating vulnerabilities. 4. **Financing and Acquisition**: The reserve can finance and acquire critical minerals or materials from domestic sources, promoting private investment in extraction and processing infrastructure. 5. **Production Standards**: The bill sets standards for the production of critical minerals and materials, ensuring sustainable and responsible corporate behavior.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. **Domestic Mining and Processing Industries**: The bill aims to support and promote these industries, encouraging private investment and job creation. 2. **Manufacturing and Technology Sectors**: Companies relying on critical minerals and materials for production will benefit from a stable and secure supply chain. 3. **National Security Agencies**: The Department of Defense and other national security agencies will have access to a reliable source of essential resources. 4. **Environmental Groups**: The bill's emphasis on sustainable and responsible corporate behavior may appeal to environmental organizations.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. **Reduced Reliance on Chinese Imports**: By promoting domestic production, the United States can decrease its dependence on China for critical minerals and materials. 2. **Job Creation and Economic Growth**: Investing in extraction and processing infrastructure can create jobs and stimulate economic growth in affected regions. 3. **Enhanced National Security**: A stable supply chain for essential resources will support national security interests, reducing vulnerabilities to market manipulation by foreign state actors. 4. **Environmental Benefits**: Emphasis on sustainable practices may lead to more environmentally friendly mining and processing operations.

Overall, the SECURE Minerals Act of 2026 aims to address concerns about the United States' reliance on imports for critical minerals and materials, promoting domestic production, processing, and recycling to ensure a stable and secure supply chain for national security and economic interests.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The SECURE Minerals Act of 2026 is all about establishing a Strategic Resilience Reserve to ensure the United States has a stable and secure supply chain for critical minerals and materials. These resources are essential for our national security, economic growth, and innovation ecosystems. The bill aims to reduce our reliance on imports, particularly from China, which dominates the global market.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill creates a new entity, the Strategic Resilience Reserve, which will:

1. Identify eligible critical minerals and materials. 2. Collect data on market risks and vulnerabilities. 3. Develop production standards for domestic extraction and processing. 4. Provide financing and acquisition options for critical minerals or materials. 5. Establish a board of governors to oversee the reserve.

The bill also addresses concerns about China's market manipulation, predatory practices, and lack of transparency in the global supply chain.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects various stakeholders, including:

1. Domestic producers of critical minerals and materials. 2. Importers and exporters of these resources. 3. Companies involved in mining, processing, and manufacturing. 4. The defense industrial base, which relies heavily on critical minerals and materials. 5. Partner countries that may benefit from increased alternative market supply.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The SECURE Minerals Act has significant implications for the United States' national security, economic growth, and innovation ecosystems. By establishing a strategic reserve and promoting domestic production, the bill aims to:

1. Reduce reliance on imports from China and other countries that dominate the global market. 2. Mitigate supply chain risks and vulnerabilities. 3. Support sustainable and responsible corporate behavior in the critical minerals sector. 4. Foster economic growth and job creation in the mining, processing, and manufacturing industries.

However, the bill's success depends on effective implementation, coordination with partner countries, and addressing potential challenges related to market manipulation, pricing mechanisms, and environmental concerns.

That's a wrap, bro! This bill is all about securing our critical minerals supply chain and reducing our reliance on imports. It's a complex issue, but the SECURE Minerals Act takes a solid step towards promoting national security, economic growth, and innovation in the United States.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 7126 - SECURE Minerals Act of 2026**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The SECURE Minerals Act aims to establish a Strategic Resilience Reserve of the United States, addressing concerns over the country's reliance on imports for critical minerals and materials. The bill seeks to reduce vulnerabilities in the defense industrial base, promote domestic production, and ensure a stable supply chain for essential resources.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Establishment of Strategic Resilience Reserve:** Creates a reserve to manage and coordinate the acquisition, storage, and distribution of critical minerals and materials. 2. **Board of Governors:** Establishes a board to oversee the reserve's operations, comprising representatives from various government agencies, industry experts, and stakeholders. 3. **Data Collection and Market Risk Assessment:** Mandates data collection on critical mineral markets and requires regular assessments of market risks and vulnerabilities. 4. **Production Standards and Financing:** Sets standards for domestic production and provides financing mechanisms to support the development of critical mineral projects.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Critical Mineral Producers:** Companies involved in mining, processing, and recycling of critical minerals will be impacted by the bill's provisions on production standards, market risk assessment, and financing. 2. **Defense Industrial Base:** The defense industry relies heavily on critical minerals for various applications; this bill aims to reduce vulnerabilities in the supply chain. 3. **Renewable Energy Sector:** Companies involved in renewable energy technologies, such as solar panels and wind turbines, will benefit from a more stable supply of critical minerals.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Reduced Reliance on Imports:** The bill's focus on domestic production and recycling could decrease the country's reliance on imports for critical minerals. 2. **Increased Transparency and Market Stability:** Regular market risk assessments and data collection may lead to more transparent pricing mechanisms, reducing systemic risks. 3. **Economic Growth and National Security:** By promoting a resilient supply chain, the bill aims to support economic growth and national security interests.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The bill's sponsors, Reps. Wittman (R-VA) and Moolenaar (R-MI), have received significant campaign contributions from industries that stand to benefit from this legislation, including:

1. **Mining Industry:** Companies like Freeport-McMoRan Inc. and Rio Tinto Group have contributed to the sponsors' campaigns. 2. **Defense Contractors:** Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co., and Northrop Grumman Corp. have also made significant contributions.

The bill's provisions on production standards, financing, and market risk assessment may benefit these industries, which could lead to increased investment in domestic critical mineral projects.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$151,800

19 donors

PACs

$6,600

Organizations

$6,600

Committees

Individuals

$138,600

THE CHICKASAW NATION

2 transactions

$6,600

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$3,300

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

No committee contributions found

KEHOE, MICHAEL PATRICK

1 transaction

$13,200

GIFFORD, BILLY

2 transactions

$13,200

PAYNE, DANIEL E.

2 transactions

$13,200

CASEY, ARTHUR S.

2 transactions

$13,200

KILMER, ANDREA

2 transactions

$13,200

KANTNER, CHRIS

1 transaction

$6,600

HOLLAND, BRIAN K.

1 transaction

$6,600

HOLLAND, JENNIFER

1 transaction

$6,600

MCCONN, RICHARD

1 transaction

$6,600

MADERA, PAUL

1 transaction

$6,600

SHAH, RAJ

1 transaction

$6,600

THOMPSON, BRUCE

1 transaction

$6,600

WITTERSHEIM, RAYMOND

1 transaction

$6,600

KELLY, SUSAN

1 transaction

$6,600

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN A.

1 transaction

$6,600

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE H.

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 5 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2]

ID: M001194

Top Contributors

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI

$3,300

Aug 30, 2023

PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Aug 30, 2023

POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI

$3,300

Aug 30, 2023

SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE TRIBAL OPERATIONS

OrganizationMOUNT PLEASANT, MI

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS

OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI

OrganizationFULTON, MI

$3,300

Mar 12, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

Jun 20, 2024

SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE CHIPPEWA INDIANS

OrganizationSAULT SAINTE MARIE, MI

$2,900

Dec 19, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,500

Mar 4, 2024

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS

OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA

$2,500

Sep 30, 2024

Rep. Harrigan, Pat [R-NC-10]

ID: H001101

Top Contributors

STARNES, BRYAN

ALG SENIOR LLC • CFO

IndividualGRANITE FALLS, NC

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

ATALA, KATHERINE DAWSON

WAKE FOREST UNIV SCHOOL OF MED • PHYSICIAN

IndividualWINSTON SALEM, NC

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

SMITH, HARRY

RISE CAPITAL • FOUNDER

IndividualATLANTIC BEACH, NC

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

CHEROKEE INDIANS, EASTERN BAND OF

INDIAN TRIBE • INDIAN TRIBE

IndividualCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

TREFZGER, CHARLIE

ALG SENIOR • CEO

IndividualGRANITE FALLS, NC, NC

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

SMITH, HARRY

RISE CAPITAL • FOUNDER

IndividualATLANTIC BEACH, NC

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

KELLIGREW, JIM

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC

$3,300

Nov 19, 2024

DUNN, MELANIE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMORGANTON, NC

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

WILSON, PETE

WILSON WALSH CONSULTING • ATTORNEY CONSULTANT

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

SCHILBERG, BERNARD

IMC • CEO

IndividualSOUTH WINDSOR, CT

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

Rep. Shreve, Jefferson [R-IN-6]

ID: S001229

Top Contributors

SASSO, APRIL

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualCARMEL, IN

$6,600

Oct 30, 2024

PONDER, JACQUELINE

BOWMAN FAMILY HOLDINGS • LAWYER

IndividualGREENWOOD, IN

$3,437

Oct 29, 2024

KING, CHRISTOPHER M.

RUNNEBOHM CONSTRUCTION, INC. • OWNER

IndividualSHELBYVILLE, IN

$3,300

Jun 7, 2024

CALDWELL, JORDAN

CALDWELL'S INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualSHELBYVILLE, IN

$3,300

Oct 20, 2024

DOPPELT, BRIAN

BAINBRIDGE COMPANIES • EXECUTIVE

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

KING, KYLIE A.

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualSHELBYVILLE, IN

$3,300

Oct 20, 2024

SASSO, RICK C.

INDIANA SPINE GROUP • PHYSICIAN

IndividualCARMEL, IN

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

SCHUMACHER, AMY MAE

THE HERITAGE GROUP • CEO

IndividualCARMEL, IN

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

MCALLISTER, CHRIS

TARBERT PROPERTIES LP • PARTNER

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

ZINK, JAMES C.

ZINK DISTRIBUTING • CHAIRMAN / CEO

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Nov 2, 2024

Rep. Pappas, Chris [D-NH-1]

ID: P000614

Top Contributors

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

THE CHICKSAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,300

Oct 7, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Jun 5, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 19, 2023

THE CHICKSAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

Jun 14, 2024

DUDA, JENNIFER

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualMENLO PARK, CA

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

JURVETSON, KARLA

SELF EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN

IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

SCHUSTER, MARK

WINGATE COMPANIES • CHAIRMAN

IndividualNEWTON CENTRE, MA

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

STOVER, MATTHEW

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCHESTER, NH

$3,300

Oct 26, 2024

WALSH, MARK

AMALGAMATED BANK • BANKER

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

Rep. Kiggans, Jennifer A. [R-VA-2]

ID: K000399

Top Contributors

AIPAC- EARMARKS

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$2,000

Oct 22, 2024

PEAKE FOR SENATE

COMLYNCHBURG, VA

$500

Jan 9, 2024

PEAKE FOR SENATE

COMLYNCHBURG, VA

$250

Jan 9, 2024

KEHOE, MICHAEL

KINSALE MGMT INC • CEO

IndividualRICHMOND, VA

$13,200

Jun 8, 2023

MITCHUM, ELZA

C & M INDUSTRIES • PRESIDENT

IndividualCHESAPEAKE, VA

$6,600

Oct 18, 2023

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMIAMI BEACH, FL

$6,600

Oct 17, 2023

PERRY, J DOUGLAS

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNORFOLK, VA

$6,600

Nov 6, 2023

WEEKLEY, RICHARD

SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

Nov 8, 2023

GILLIAM, MARVIN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBRISTOL, VA

$6,600

Mar 30, 2024

BOHANNON, DAVID

LONDON BRIDGE TRADING INC. • PRESIDENT

IndividualVIRGINIA BEACH, VA

$6,600

May 23, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 65 nodes and 39 connections (53 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $194,937

Top Donors - Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC2 Orgs16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 24 helped, 1 harmed.

+Renewable Energyconfidence 0.90
Section 202(b)(1)(B)(II)(dd) explicitly includes renewable energy production as a purpose for which critical minerals are necessary, indicating support for renewable energy industries.
+Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.90
Section 202(b)(1)(B)(I) states critical minerals are necessary for national defense and national security requirements, directly benefiting defense contractors.
+Oil & Gasconfidence 0.90
Section 202(b)(1)(B)(II) includes 'refining capacity' as part of energy infrastructure that critical minerals support, which directly benefits oil & gas refining operations.
+Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.85
Section 202(b)(1)(B)(II)(cc) includes electrical power generation, storage, transmission, and distribution as critical for which minerals are necessary, benefiting electric utilities.
+Pipelines & Energy Infrastructureconfidence 0.85
Section 202(b)(1)(B)(II)(aa) and (bb) include pipelines and refining capacity as critical infrastructure, supporting energy infrastructure industries.
+Electric Vehicles & Batteriesconfidence 0.85
Findings (2) explicitly link critical minerals to batteries for next-generation automotive systems, and Section 202(b)(1)(B)(III) includes transportation, directly benefiting EV industry.

+ 19 more industries not shown.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Defense Contractors$25,670
from 24 contributions
- GIAMBASTIANI, PETE$6,600
- GIAMBASTIANI, EDMUND PETER III$6,600
- MACLAUCHLAN, JEFFREY$2,005
- WALSH, DANIEL PETER$2,005
- MENGUCCI, JOHN S.$2,000
Private Equity & Hedge Funds$16,982
from 4 contributions
- SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN A.$14,900
- SALEM, ENRIQUE$2,082
Electric Utilities$3,800
from 2 contributions
- KOONCE, PAUL D.$3,300
- BEAMER, JAMES$500
Telecommunications$2,700
from 4 contributions
- GILLESPIE, EDWARD$2,200
- OMBERG, ROBERT$500
Surface Transportation$1,000
from 1 contribution
- PEARCE, STEPHEN$1,000
AI & Cloud Infrastructure$501
from 1 contribution
- JAIN, AKASH$501
Semiconductors & Hardware$255
from 2 contributions
- HAMBRICK, CLAIRE$255
Nuclear Power$250
from 1 contribution
- KOPPLE, SCOTT$250
Airlines$250
from 1 contribution
- SALTZMAN, JOSHUA$250

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Commerce

Very Strong

Vector: 63%

Pages: 702-704AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly supports Project 2025's objectives of reducing reliance on China, securing critical mineral supply chains for defense and emerging technologies, and promoting domestic production and reshoring."

Key themes:strategic decoupling from Chinacritical supply chainsdefense industrial base strengthemerging technologiesreshoring

— 670 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Strategic decoupling from China; l Defense industrial base strength; l Critical supply chains (e.g., pharmaceuticals, medical devices, food); and l Emerging technologies (e.g., rare earth minerals, semiconductors, batteries, artificial intelligence, quantum computing). Global Markets and the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service. For more than a decade, strategic planning at Global Markets (GM) and the U.S. and For- eign Commercial Service (CS) has been consistently undermined by increased costs associated with overseas staff and flat or reduced budgets. The Trump Administration introduced crucial, long-overdue business practices such as the implementation of software to manage and track workflow, but a further strategic overhaul of resource allocation is needed to set GM and the CS on a firm footing. Currently, CS manages staff spread over 106 domestic offices in 77 countries around the world. Abroad, several “partner posts” utilize interagency staff and regionally located CS officials to offer services without a permanent physical in-country CS presence. Given the rapidly rising costs imposed by the State Depart- ment on CS posts overseas, a drastic expansion of this model is likely needed. CS resources should be distributed according to the following set of priorities: l Value in countering the malign influence of adversaries, particularly China; l Value in fostering U.S. innovation; l Value in maintaining access to critical supply chains and technology; l Difficulty for U.S. companies in gaining market access without CS involvement; and l Potential untapped export market size and likelihood of expansion. Ultimately, difficult decisions must be made about the value of CS posts and whether individual posts can be justified given current resources and the above criteria. If the State Department deems the diplomatic value of a permanent in-country CS post to be vital to the national interest, then State should bear more of the cost of maintaining that post. Global Markets should also consolidate and elevate the Advocacy Center and SelectUSA as relatively low-cost tools to drive large-scale export transactions — 671 — Department of Commerce and foreign direct investment (FDI). SelectUSA is a low-cost and effective tool in attracting FDI to the U.S. and to re-shore manufacturing and research and devel- opment. In a world in which corruption is rampant, these are among the most effective tools in leveling the playing field for U.S. communities and companies seeking to engage with governments and potential overseas investors. Given the value placed on senior-level engagement by many governments and companies, this consolidated Office of Trade and Investment Advocacy should be headed by a Deputy Assistant Secretary. The new office should also seek congres- sional authorization to utilize its FDI-promotion tools to encourage reshoring by U.S. businesses. BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY During the past two decades, technology transfer from America and its allies has helped accelerate adversaries’ technological and weapons capabilities. This tech- nology transfer on a massive scale has occurred because of adversaries’ exploitation of the U.S.’s open economy and education system through both commercial trans- actions and university and government research programs. Examples include the People’s Republic of China’s dramatic leaps forward in semiconductor design and fabrication, battery energy storage, nuclear weapons capabilities, artificial intel- ligence, space and aerospace engineering, and hypersonic weapons deployment. At the same time, the U.S. has systematically failed to protect critical assets. Rather than promulgate policies to better prevent technology transfer, the U.S. government has either ignored the problem or, worse, from 2008 through 2016 instituted a government-wide “Export Control Reform” process to loosen the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) governing exports of dual-use items to facilitate technology transfer to adversaries, either directly or indirectly through third-country transfers. Those reforms still present in the Department of Commerce’s EAR must be reversed. The United States needs stronger rules to protect technology transfer to adversaries while promoting technology integration and interoperability with allies. Further, U.S. export control regulations should be utilized to prevent theft of personally identifiable information and to encourage U.S. companies to shift production out of China and further diversify their supply chains to better advance U.S. national security interests. For all the below recommendations, BIS needs to move unilaterally while it works with allies to implement complementary export control policies. Waiting to act until allies are ready to move in lockstep is not an option while America’s national security is at risk. Emerging and Foundational Technologies. The Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) gave BIS permanent statutory authority to regulate exports of dual-use items (goods, software, and technology). ECRA also mandated that BIS

Department of Defense

Strong

Vector: 65%

Pages: 128-130AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The SECURE Minerals Act of 2026 aligns strongly with Project 2025's Department of Defense objectives by focusing on securing domestic supply chains for critical materials, reducing reliance on foreign adversaries (particularly China), and strengthening the defense industrial base through onshoring and friendshoring initiatives. Both emphasize resilient, domestically sourced supply chains for national security and economic stability."

Key themes:critical materials supply chaindomestic productionnational security resiliencereducing foreign dependencedefense industrial base strengthening

— 96 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise relevant. This allows the acquisition community to focus on portfolio management and move money around more easily instead of being locked into inflexible, multiyear procurement cycles. 2. The President should examine the recommendations of the congressionally mandated Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform4 and develop a strategy for implementing those that the Administration considers to be in the best interests of the American people. The commission’s final report is due on September 1, 2023. 3. Develop legislation or other means of providing funding outside the traditional PPBE process for the prototyping and experimentation of emerging technologies that are deemed essential to modernization and future conflict. Consider creating a “fast track” for projects that satisfy the most pressing national security needs. 4. Require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering, and all service secretaries to conduct “Night Court” and use existing authorities to terminate outdated or underperforming programs so that money can be used for what works and will work. Require the Under Secretaries and service secretaries to brief the Secretary annually on the results. 5. Require the Office of the Secretary of Defense to research and report on the acquisition processes used by America’s adversaries to improve our understanding of how they are often able to innovate and field new technologies on a faster timeline. l Strengthen America’s defense industrial base. 1. Replenish and maintain U.S. stockpiles of ammunition and other equipment that have been depleted as a result of U.S. support to Ukraine. This will strengthen the defense industry supply chain and ensure that adequate inventory exists if it is needed for a future conflict. 2. Collaborate with industry to develop a prioritized list of reforms that the DOD and Congress can enact and implement to incentivize industry to help America’s military innovate and field needed capabilities. — 97 — Department of Defense 3. Strengthen the ability of acquisition authorities to engage in multiyear procurements and block buys. This will improve private-sector rates of return, thereby incentivizing defense contractors to partner with the government. It will also reduce government overhead by reducing the number of procurement competitions. 4. Prioritize the U.S. and allies under the “domestic end product” and “domestic components” requirements of the Build America, Buy America Act.5 Currently, defense companies are required to manufacture defense items for the U.S. government that are 100 percent domestically produced and at least 50 percent composed of domestically produced components. However, there are loopholes that allow companies to manufacture these items overseas. This can create supply chain and other issues, especially in wartime. Manufacturing components and end products domestically and with allies spurs factory development, increases American jobs, and builds resilience in America’s defense industrial base. 5. Review the sectors currently prioritized for onshoring or “friendshoring” of manufacturing (kinetic capabilities, castings and forgings, critical materials, microelectronics, space, and electric vehicle batteries); evaluate them according to the strategic landscape; and expand or reprioritize the list as appropriate. 6. Help small businesses to become medium-size and large vendors, which encourages a more resilient industrial base and fosters competition. Encourage and plan for durable supply chains for small businesses so they also have commercial/private-sector customers and are not solely dependent on defense orders, which can be highly specialized, expensive, and irregular. 7. Increase external engagement among small businesses to inform them of DOD’s needs and how they could work with DOD to meet national security priorities. l Optimize the DOD acquisition community. 1. Create incentives to emphasize speed and agility in decision-making for prototyping and program-of-record starts and terminations. Most bureaucrats would rather follow a checklist and fail than go outside the procedures and win because failure means negative

Department of Defense

Moderate

Vector: 66%

Pages: 158-160AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on securing domestic supplies of critical minerals, which supports defense readiness and reduces reliance on foreign (especially Chinese) sources—a concern also highlighted in Project 2025’s emphasis on strengthening U.S. defense capabilities. However, the bill does not directly address the specific nuclear weapons, missile defense, or arms control priorities outlined in the Project 2025 DOD section."

Key themes:national securitysupply chain resiliencecritical mineralsdefense industry supportreducing reliance on China

— 125 — Department of Defense 1. Accelerate the effort to restore plutonium pit production, which is essential both for modern warhead programs and for recapitalizing the stockpile. 2. Continue to invest in rebuilding infrastructure, including facilities at the National Laboratories that support nuclear weapons development. 3. Restore readiness to test nuclear weapons at the Nevada National Security Site to ensure the ability of the U.S. to respond quickly to asymmetric technology surprises. l Correctly orient arms control. The U.S. should agree to arms control agreements only if they help to advance the interests of the U.S. and its allies. 1. Reject proposals for nuclear disarmament that are contrary to the goal of bolstering deterrence. 2. Pursue arms control as a way to secure the national security interests of the U.S. and its allies rather than as an end in itself. 3. Prepare to compete in order to secure U.S. interests should arms control efforts continue to fail. MISSILE DEFENSE Missile defense is a critical component of the U.S. national security architecture. It can help to deter attack by instilling doubt that an attack will work as intended, take adversary “cheap shots” off the table, and limit the perceived value of mis- siles as tools of coercion. It also allows space for diplomacy during a crisis and can protect U.S. and allied forces, critical assets, and populations if deterrence fails.41 Adversaries are relying increasingly on missiles to achieve their aims. l China and Russia, in addition to their vast and growing ballistic missile inventories, are deploying new hypersonic glide vehicles and investing in new ground-launched, air-launched, and sea-launched cruise missiles that uniquely challenge the United States in different domains. l North Korea has pursued an aggressive missile testing program and is becoming increasingly belligerent toward South Korea and Japan. l Iran continues to maintain a missile arsenal that is capable of striking U.S. and allied assets in the Middle East and Europe, and its rocket launches demonstrate that it either has or is developing the ability to build ICBMs. — 126 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Missile defense has been underprioritized and underfunded in recent years. In light of these growing threats, the incoming Administration should treat missile defense as a top priority. Needed Reforms l Champion the benefits of missile defense. Despite its deterrence and damage-limitation benefits, opponents argue incorrectly that U.S. missile defense is destabilizing because it threatens Russian and Chinese second- strike capabilities. 1. Reject claims made by the Left that missile defense is destabilizing while acknowledging that Russia and China are developing their own advanced missile defense systems. 2. Commit to keeping homeland missile defense off the table in any arms control negotiations with Russia and China.42 l Strengthen homeland ballistic missile defense. The United States currently deploys 44 Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) as part of its Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system to defend the homeland against North Korea, but as North Korea improves its missile program, this system is at risk of falling behind the threat.43 1. Buy at least 64 of the Next Generation Interceptor (NGI), which is more advanced than the GBI, for an eventual uniform fleet of interceptors.44 The Biden Administration currently plans to buy only 20. 2. Consider additional steps to strengthen the GMD system such as a layered missile defense or a third interceptor site on the East Coast. l Increase the development of regional missile defense. As the Ukraine conflict amply demonstrates, U.S. regional missile defense capabilities are very limited. The United States has been unable to supply our partners reliably with any capabilities, and the number and types of regional missile defense platforms are less than the U.S. needs for its own defense. The U.S. should prioritize procurement of more regional defense systems such as Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), Standard Missile-3, and Patriot missiles. l Change U.S. missile defense policy. Historically, the U.S. has chosen to rely solely on deterrence to address the Russian and Chinese ballistic

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 404-406AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The SECURE Minerals Act of 2026 aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on energy security and reducing vulnerabilities in critical supply chains, particularly through domestic production and resilience planning. While the bill focuses on critical minerals rather than nuclear energy or cybersecurity of the grid, it supports broader national security and energy independence goals outlined in the DOE and CESER sections of Project 2025."

Key themes:energy securitysupply chain resiliencenational securitydomestic productioncritical infrastructure

— 372 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise licensing process for Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel is on hold. Without storage sites, spent nuclear fuel remains temporarily stored at nuclear plants. In addition to permanent storage, low- level nuclear waste facilities are needed. New Policies: NNSA The U.S. nuclear arsenal needs to be updated and reinvigorated if we are to be able to deal effectively with threats from China, Russia, and other adversaries. As a semi-autonomous agency, the NNSA has the primary responsibility for researching and designing new nuclear warheads and for ensuring that the existing nuclear arsenal is still potent. These efforts require significant funding and scientific know- how. In addition, NNSA develops and designs nuclear propulsion reactors for the U.S. Navy. NNSA also plays a role in preventing nuclear proliferation. With strong leadership by the Secretary of DESAS, the next Administration should: l Fund the design, development, and deployment of new nuclear warheads, including the production of plutonium pits in quantity.15 l Expand the U.S. Navy and develop new nuclear naval reactors to ensure that the Navy has the nuclear propulsion it needs to secure America’s strategic interests. l End ineffective and counterproductive nonproliferation activities like those involving Iran and the United Nations. Budget DOE’s total FY 2023 budget request (which does not include IIJA, IRA, and CHIPS and Science Act funding) was for $48,183,451,000.16 Many DOE activities are required by various authorization and appropriations bills. To implement many of the policies contained in these proposals, several laws will need to be amended, including the Department of Energy Organization Act, IIJA, IRA, and possibly portions of the CHIPS (Creating Healthy Incentives to Produce Semiconductors) and Science Act.17 Ending taxpayer subsidies will promote an “all of the above” energy policy, lead to more energy resources, reduce costs, and save taxpayers billions of dollars. OFFICE OF CYBERSECURITY, ENERGY SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE (CESER) Mission/Overview CESER’s mission is to “enhance the security and resilience of U.S. critical energy infrastructure to all hazards,” to “mitigate the impacts of disruptive events and risk — 373 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions to the sector overall through preparedness and innovation,” and to “respond to and facilitate recovery from energy disruptions in collaboration with other Federal agencies, the private sector, and State, local, tribal, and territory governments.”18 Needed Reforms The threats to U.S. energy infrastructure are real and persistent, and CESER’s role—working to support national security by working with the private sector to ensure energy security—is a proper one for government. Though CESER is properly focused on the threat to the grid from inverter-based resources like wind and solar, it needs to focus on the entire energy system, including the interdependence between natural gas and electric generation and cybersecurity. A good first step would be to reinstate an iteration of the Trump Administration’s Executive Order 13920, “Secur- ing the United States Bulk-Power System.”19 The Biden Administration also placed the Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) and DOE’s Federal Power Act 202(c) author- ity20 under the CESER office, which should continue in the next Administration. New Policies CESER should be refocused to prioritize the cybersecurity, physical security, and resilience of critical infrastructure. Through research and development, tech- nical assistance to states and industry, and emergency exercises, CESER can make a difference in our energy security posture. Budget CESER received $177 million for FY 2022 under the Energy and Water Develop- ment and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2022,21 and $550 million through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.22 The FY 2023 budget request is for $202 million.23 In addition, the White House has sent a letter to Congress request- ing additional appropriations of $500 million to modernize the SPR.24 OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY (OE) Mission/Overview OE was created after the 2003 blackouts to improve grid reliability and energy assurance.25 OE works to defend and promote the reliability and resiliency of the electric grid through power grid modeling and analytics, cyber resilience programs, and coordination with private-sector electricity providers. It also works to identify Defense Critical Electric Infrastructure. Needed Reforms l Focus more intently on grid reliability. There are significant cyber, physical, and reliability threats to the electric grid, and it is important

Department of Commerce

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 705-707AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy seek to enhance U.S. national security by reducing reliance on China and securing critical supply chains, but the bill addresses mineral reserves while the policy focuses on export controls of emerging technologies, resulting in only moderate thematic overlap."

Key themes:national securityChina reliancesupply chain resiliencestrategic resourceseconomic security

— 672 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise regulate exports of emerging and foundational technologies. Although the scope of such technologies is vast, to date BIS has only controlled just over 40 of these technologies. This does not meet the clear statutory intent of Congress that ECRA be leveraged to ensure that the United States maintains a technological advantage in technologies bearing upon national security interests. Currently, BIS self-identifies technologies that merit control under the EAR with minimal input from other federal agencies. This mechanism should be improved. BIS should create an open, transparent rulemaking process by which any industry participant, private entity, or branch of the government may, at any time, submit nominations for emerging/foundational technologies for control. Then, on a quarterly basis, BIS should make public such recommendations (while holding the identity of the submitter confidential) for public input, followed by an explanation about its ultimate decision to control or not control the items, its reasons, the level of controls applied (stringent or permissive), and the relevant Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) under the Commerce Control List. Commerce should also institute a mechanism whereby its decisions can be challenged, including on a confidential basis. Licensing Procedures: Adjudication and Transparency. Currently, if the Departments of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy disagree on an export license decision, the disagreement may be escalated to the Operating Commit- tee—and subsequently to the Advisory Committee on Export Policy led by BIS’s Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. The Assistant Secretary does not need to lead the dispute resolution, and this process should be revised by giving lead authority to BIS’s Under Secretary, who is better able to account for diverging views. Moreover, BIS’s authority to overrule other agency votes should be changed. Each agency should have one equal vote and, if a licensing dispute remains unre- solved, the final decision should be elevated to the National Security Advisor and the Secretaries of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy. Additionally, to improve congressional oversight of BIS’s license adjudication process, BIS should provide specific congressional committees with data from the Automated Export System on a quarterly basis. Electronic files should contain U.S. exporter by name; product description (e.g., harmonized system code and ECCN/U. S. Munitions List designation); end user and destination country; and when a license was required, whether the license was granted or denied. BIS cur- rently denies just 1.2 percent of export licenses. These data reporting requirements can help Congress better determine whether BIS is adequately protecting national security through appropriate use of export controls or whether additional direction from Congress is required. Improve End-Use Checks. The integrity of the export control system may be validated only through adequate end-use checks. BIS must deny export licenses to countries that do not permit adequate end-use checks (e.g., China/Russia) by U.S. authorities. BIS should also strengthen the forensic audit capabilities of its — 673 — Department of Commerce Export Enforcement officers through improved and frequent training so they are able to detect export-control violations. EAR Revisions. The U.S. Government needs a new export control moderniza- tion effort to tighten the EAR policies governing licenses to countries of concern, including China and Russia (specifically, revise and/or reverse the 2008 through 2016 policies). When authoritarian governments explain what they plan to do, believe them unless hard evidence demonstrates otherwise. Case in point: China’s and Russia’s stated civil–military fusion policies demand central government command-and-control style systems in which every private entity serves the interests of the state and is forced to provide technology, services, capacity, and data to the central govern- ment and the military. Through this structure, commercial activities are routinely weaponized by authoritarian regimes that repeatedly identify the U.S. as an enemy. Accordingly, U.S. export control policies must be updated to reflect these realities and the associated threats to national security. Key priorities for EAR modernization for countries of concern should be: l Eliminating the “specially designed” licensing loophole; l Redesignating China and Russia to more highly prohibitive export licensing groups (country groups D or E); l Eliminating license exceptions; l Broadening foreign direct product rules; l Reducing the de minimis threshold from 25 percent to 10 percent—or 0 percent for critical technologies; l Tightening the deemed export rules to prevent technology transfer to foreign nationals from countries of concern; l Tightening the definition of “fundamental research” to address exploitation of the open U.S. university system by authoritarian governments through funding, students and researchers, and recruitment; l Eliminating license exceptions for sharing technology with controlled entities/countries through standards-setting “activities” and bodies; and l Improving regulations regarding published information for technology transfers.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Wittman, Robert J.

AWRC Act of 2025

119/hr/7889

Earth MRI Reauthorization Act of 2026

119/hr/9640

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 12109 New Kent Highway in New Kent, Virginia, as the Patricia Paige Post Office.

119/hr/6317

Back to All Bills