The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should be allowed to lift or overhaul its conflict mineral disclosure requirements to advance America’s national security interests, reduce overreliance on China for critical minerals, and halt China from strengthening its dominance over mineral supply chains in Central Africa, say U.S. Reps. French Hill (R-AR) and Bill Huizenga (R-MI).
In a June 2 letter sent to the president, Rep. Hill and Rep. Huizenga, chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee, argue that the current SEC disclosure requirements have weakened U.S. access to critical mineral supply chains, and permitted China to expand its influence over resources in Central Africa.
“The current disclosure regime, initiated by Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, was established more than 15 years ago under the Obama administration,” the lawmakers wrote. “It is not only ineffective, it is threatening U.S. strategic interests while producing unintended humanitarian consequences.”
Reps. Hill and Huizenga pointed out that a substantial revision or waiver of the SEC requirements is permitted by law if the president determines that such action serves U.S. national security.
“That standard is clearly satisfied here, particularly in light of intensifying geopolitical competition over critical mineral supply chains,” wrote the members.
The minerals covered by the Exchange Act — tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold — are essential inputs for semiconductors, defense systems, and other advanced technologies, yet the U.S. and its allies face a growing strategic vulnerability: overreliance on China for the processing and supply of critical minerals, according to their letter.
Additionally, companies have spent an estimated $709 million and six million staff hours attempting to comply with the conflict minerals regulation, while “the resulting disclosures have not produced reliable information as to whether covered minerals finance armed groups.”
Reps. Hill and Huizenga asked Trump to exercise his legal authority to terminate, revise, or waive the regulation, saying a termination or waiver would provide immediate relief to advance U.S. national security interests.
“Alternatively, a revision could narrow the scope of covered entities, reduce the frequency or burden of required disclosures, or otherwise align the requirements with real-world supply chain realities,” they wrote.