BUILD with Allies Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-4]
- Committees
- Foreign Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 1, 2026
Bottom line
The BUILD with Allies Act of 2026 aims to fortify American economic and national security by fostering international partnerships, promoting innovation, and diversifying critical supply chains away from adversarial nations.
What it actually does
This bill establishes several new programs and modifies existing authorities to bolster United States supply chains, technological leadership, and economic competitiveness, primarily through enhanced international cooperation with allied and partner countries. It focuses on critical minerals, manufacturing workforce development, secure cyber and digital technologies, and the shipbuilding industry, while also addressing issues like forced labor and environmental harm in mining. The bill seeks to reduce reliance on foreign adversaries, particularly the People's Republic of China, across these strategic sectors.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential for safeguarding United States national security and economic competitiveness in an increasingly complex global landscape. They contend that strengthening supply chains for critical minerals, energy, manufacturing, and digital technologies through allied cooperation will reduce vulnerabilities to foreign adversaries, accelerate innovation, and create a more resilient and secure economic future for the United States. Supporters also highlight the bill's focus on human rights and environmental standards in global supply chains.
Opponents contend
No specific opposition arguments are explicitly stated in the bill text. However, potential critics might raise concerns about the expansion of federal programs and associated costs, the potential for bureaucratic bloat within the Department of State, or the risk of market distortions through government-led procurement and investment initiatives. Some may also question the effectiveness of such broad international frameworks in achieving specific economic or security outcomes.
The bill is substantial in length and covers a wide array of technical and policy areas, requiring significant time and careful reading for a thorough understanding. The estimated reading time is appropriate for an informed reader.
Title I, Sec. 102
Critical Minerals Innovation Partnership Program Establishment
This section establishes the 'Critical Minerals Innovation Partnership Program' within the Department of State. Its purpose is to support the development and adoption of innovative critical minerals technologies through partnerships with eligible countries and entities, aiming to enhance national security, economic competitiveness, and diversify critical supply chains. The program will be led by a Director appointed by the Secretary of State.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this program is vital for securing a reliable supply of critical minerals, which are essential for advanced technologies and national defense. They contend that fostering international innovation partnerships will accelerate breakthroughs, reduce reliance on foreign adversaries, and ensure the United States remains a leader in emerging technologies.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that establishing a new program within the Department of State could lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies or overlap with existing initiatives in other agencies. Concerns could also be raised about the potential costs associated with a new, broadly defined innovation program.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for robust critical mineral supply chains with the potential for increased federal spending and the complexities of international coordination. It also navigates the tension between promoting innovation and ensuring accountability for public funds.
Title I, Sec. 108
International Centers of Excellence for Innovative Critical Minerals Supply Chain Technologies
This section directs the Secretary of State to establish 'International Centers of Excellence for Innovative Critical Minerals Supply Chain Technologies' within participating entities of the Critical Minerals Innovation Partnership Program. These centers will focus on advancing the development, demonstration, and deployment of responsible and resource-efficient critical minerals extraction, processing, and recycling technologies, while also strengthening technical and regulatory capacity in partner countries and promoting transparency and adherence to international standards.
Title II, Sec. 201
American Manufacturing Revitalization Exchange Program
This section establishes the 'American Manufacturing Revitalization Exchange Program' to be administered by the Assistant Secretary for Education and Cultural Affairs. The program aims to increase manufacturing knowledge, training, and expertise in the United States by sending US citizens with manufacturing backgrounds to allied or partner countries for training in various manufacturing sectors, including robotics, semiconductors, shipbuilding, and energy. The goal is to build a robust and skilled US manufacturing workforce, reduce reliance on foreign manufacturing for skilled labor, and foster innovation.
Title III, Sec. 301
Annual List of PRC Entities Carrying Out Mining Involving Forced Labor or Environmental Harm
This section mandates the Secretary of State to annually submit to Congress and make publicly available a list of People's Republic of China (PRC) entities engaged in critical mineral, gold, or iron mining in certain African countries (Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Guinea, Zambia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, or other African countries) that use forced labor, forced child labor, or cause environmental harm to protected areas. The list must also identify the specific mines or concessions where such activities occur.
Title IV, Sec. 402
United States Cyber and Digital Technology Procurement Program
This section authorizes the establishment of the 'United States Cyber and Digital Technology Procurement Program' within the Department of State. The program aims to streamline the procurement of trusted US-origin cyber and digital technologies by foreign government partners. Its purposes include establishing long-term procurement pipelines, identifying financing mechanisms, providing comprehensive support packages (logistics, capacity building, sustainability assessments), and assessing risks of partners adopting technologies from foreign countries of concern. The program includes vetting requirements to prevent support to governments engaged in human rights abuses or transnational repression.
Title V, Sec. 502
Expansion of United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) Country Eligibility
This section amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to allow the Director of the United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) to provide assistance in high-income countries. Previously, USTDA's focus was primarily on middle-income and developing countries. This expansion permits USTDA to fund activities in high-income countries for projects that serve United States strategic interests in the energy, critical minerals, transport, or telecommunications sectors.
Title VI, Sec. 601
Statement of Policy to Counter China's Shipbuilding Practices
This section declares it United States policy to eliminate materials sourced from the People's Republic of China (PRC) from supply chains for both commercial and military ships. This comprehensive effort includes knowledge transfer and skillset development for the US shipbuilding labor force, securing direct investment in US shipyards by allies and partners, and developing a long-term strategy to diversify shipbuilding supply chains and expand domestic capacity, involving all relevant federal agencies.
Title VI, Sec. 604
Re-designation and Expansion of Assistant Secretary for Water, Environment, and Space Affairs
This section amends the Department of State Appropriations Authorization Act of 1973 to re-designate the Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs as the 'Assistant Secretary for Water, Environment, and Space Affairs.' It significantly expands the portfolio of this role and establishes a new 'Bureau of Water, Environment, and Space Affairs,' adding responsibilities related to space affairs, critical minerals (including seabed mining), and international maritime diplomacy, including leading engagement in the new Allied Maritime Framework and Maritime Group of Nations.
Title VI, Sec. 607
Allied Maritime Framework
This section directs the President to engage allied countries to develop a shared framework aimed at enhancing collective capacity to design, produce, and maintain military and civilian ships. The framework will include mechanisms for information exchange, industrial collaboration, strengthening marine industries, promoting counterintelligence best practices, and incentivizing financial investments in shipbuilding. It also mandates the establishment of a joint workforce-development program and an agreement among participants to procure ships and components from specialized shipyards.
Title VI, Sec. 609
Directives for United States Ambassador to the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
This section directs the United States Ambassador to the United Nations to use US influence at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to advocate for specific policies. These include ensuring greenhouse gas emission reduction measures do not limit conventional fuels or impose financial penalties, promoting an 'energy all' approach, mandating withdrawal of regional schemes like the EU's Emissions Trading System, and opposing net-zero 2050 targets deemed unreasonable. It also directs the Ambassador to advance US citizens into senior IMO positions, combat anti-competitive practices of the PRC, advocate for consistent enforcement of safety rules, and de-link US domestic environmental requirements from international certificates.
Grants the Secretary of State broad authority to acquire, manage, operate, and dispose of real or personal property, equity interests, mineral rights, infrastructure, facilities, or other tangible/intangible assets necessary for the Critical Minerals Innovation Partnership Program. This can be done without regard to certain federal property laws (31 U.S.C. 3324(a) and (b)) and chapter 91 of subtitle VI of title 31, United States Code. Proceeds from disposal can be applied to program purposes or held in a revolving fund available until expended.
Title I, Sec. 110
Why it matters:While broad authorities are sometimes necessary for agile program implementation, granting such extensive powers to acquire and dispose of assets, and to retain proceeds in a revolving fund, without typical federal property law constraints, is a significant delegation. Its placement and technical phrasing could make it less immediately apparent than other policy provisions, potentially allowing for greater executive discretion with less immediate oversight.
Case for: Proponents would argue that such broad and flexible authorities are essential for the Secretary of State to effectively and rapidly establish partnerships, acquire necessary resources, and develop infrastructure in foreign countries, especially for critical minerals projects that often require complex, long-term investments and quick responses to market opportunities. The ability to use a revolving fund ensures sustained support for the program without constant re-appropriation.
Case against: Critics might contend that these broad authorities, particularly the exemption from certain federal property laws and the use of a revolving fund, reduce transparency and congressional oversight over significant financial and asset management decisions. They could argue it creates a potential for misuse of funds or assets, or for the Department of State to engage in activities typically handled by specialized development or investment agencies without adequate checks and balances.
Estimated impact: Potentially grants the Department of State significant financial and operational autonomy in managing assets and investments related to critical minerals, with impacts measured in hundreds of millions or billions of dollars over the program's lifespan, depending on funding levels.
Grants the Secretary of State special hiring authorities for the Office of United States Technology Procurement for a 2-year period. This allows the appointment of up to 10 employees to positions without regard to competitive service provisions (5 U.S.C. 3309-3318) and allows their basic pay rates to be fixed without regard to General Schedule rates, up to Executive Schedule Level IV (5 U.S.C. 5315).
Title IV, Sec. 403(c)
Why it matters:While special hiring authorities are sometimes granted for critical or rapidly developing programs, allowing appointments outside competitive service rules and at high pay scales without standard classification can be controversial. Its placement within a broader administrative section could make it less visible than the program's main policy objectives, potentially facilitating its passage.
Case for: Proponents would argue that these special hiring authorities are essential for the Department of State to quickly recruit highly skilled and specialized talent, particularly in rapidly evolving fields like cyber and digital technologies. They contend that traditional federal hiring processes are too slow and rigid to attract top experts, and this flexibility is necessary to ensure the program's effectiveness and competitiveness.
Case against: Critics might argue that bypassing competitive service rules and allowing for higher pay scales can undermine merit-based hiring principles, create inequities within the federal workforce, and potentially lead to cronyism. They could also contend that such authorities should be reserved for truly exceptional circumstances and be subject to stricter oversight.
Estimated impact: Enables the rapid staffing of a critical new office with up to 10 highly compensated experts, potentially costing several million dollars over the 2-year period, with broader impacts on the Department's capacity to execute its technology procurement mission.
Amends existing federal law to require new reporting. Specifically, Section 707(b) of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, is amended to include information about unfair business practices in maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors in the annual 'Investment Climate Statement.' Additionally, Section 7031(b)(2) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, is amended to require disclosure of investments in maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors by countries receiving aid.
Title VI, Sec. 606(c) and (d)
Why it matters:Amending existing, often obscure, statutory reporting requirements is a common legislative practice to add new policy directives without creating entirely new legislative vehicles. While not necessarily evasive, it ensures these new requirements are integrated into established reporting cycles, potentially with less public debate than a standalone bill focused solely on these disclosures.
Case for: Proponents would argue that these amendments are crucial for increasing transparency and accountability in the global maritime and shipbuilding sectors, particularly in light of concerns about China's anti-competitive practices. They contend that better information on unfair business practices and foreign investments will enable more informed US policy decisions and diplomatic engagement.
Case against: Critics might argue that adding more reporting requirements to existing statements could increase the administrative burden on the Department of State and other agencies without a clear demonstration of added value. There could also be concerns that the information collected might be difficult to verify or could be used to unfairly target specific countries or companies.
Estimated impact: Increases the scope of annual reporting requirements for the Department of State and other agencies, with a moderate administrative burden. The impact on international maritime practices would depend on how the collected information is subsequently used by US policymakers.