Unearth America’s Future Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Stevens, Haley M. [D-MI-11]
- Committees
- Science, Space, and Technology Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 10, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to significantly enhance the United States' self-sufficiency and global leadership in critical material supply chains through financial incentives, strategic investments, and research, while promoting labor and environmental standards and limiting foreign adversarial involvement.
What it actually does
This bill, the "Unearth America's Future Act," establishes a comprehensive framework to strengthen the United States' critical material supply chain. It creates a loan program for domestic and allied manufacturing capabilities, introduces new investment and production tax credits for critical materials, and authorizes cross-cutting research, development, and demonstration activities. The bill also includes provisions for labor standards, environmental sustainability, and strict restrictions on engagement with foreign countries of concern.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is crucial for national, energy, and economic security by reducing reliance on adversarial nations for essential materials. They would highlight the creation of domestic jobs, promotion of sustainable practices, and fostering of innovation as key benefits, ensuring a resilient supply chain for future technologies and defense needs. The integrated approach addresses vulnerabilities across the entire lifecycle of critical materials.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that the bill's extensive government intervention, including loan programs and tax credits, could distort markets, lead to inefficient allocation of resources, and potentially create new bureaucratic hurdles. Concerns could also be raised about the strict labor and foreign entity restrictions potentially limiting flexibility or increasing costs for businesses, or hindering necessary global collaboration.
The bill is substantial, requiring a dedicated reading to grasp its multi-faceted approach to critical material supply chain security, which is appropriate given its broad scope and technical details.
Title I, Sec. 102
National Center for Secure and Transparent Critical Material Supply Chains
This section establishes a national center within the Department of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to support the security and resilience of the critical material supply chain. The Center will study emerging trends, provide policy recommendations, promote environmental sustainability, strengthen the workforce, and foster innovation and international collaboration. Its reports on market dynamics and policy recommendations will be publicly available.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a dedicated national center is essential for a coordinated federal strategy to understand, secure, and advance the critical material supply chain, providing necessary expertise and fostering collaboration.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that establishing a new center could create bureaucratic redundancy, as other federal agencies already address aspects of supply chain security and materials research. They might prefer leveraging existing structures.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between creating a focused, dedicated entity for critical materials versus potentially duplicating efforts of existing agencies. The bill attempts to mitigate this by requiring extensive interagency consultation.
Title I, Sec. 103
Loan Program for Resilient Critical Material Supply Chains
This section establishes a loan and loan guarantee program, administered by the Secretary of Commerce, to expand domestic and foreign (in countries of interest) critical material manufacturing capabilities. Eligible entities must have a plan for resilient supply chains, support existing U.S. government efforts, demonstrate financial viability, and avoid engagement with foreign entities of concern. The program includes strict limitations on loan amounts, clawback provisions for delays, and mandates labor-management cooperation and prevailing wage requirements for recipients.
Title I, Sec. 105
Material Supply Chain Public-Private Partnership and Investment Fund
This section mandates the establishment of a public-private partnership, led by the Center, to engage stakeholders, advise on supply chain dynamics, and foster international collaborations (excluding foreign entities of concern). Crucially, it establishes an Investment Fund within this partnership, authorized to accept private funds, buy/sell critical materials (prioritizing domestic producers), invest in innovative partnerships, and provide financial tools. The Investment Fund is eligible for federal loans from the program established in Sec. 103, with potential for loan forgiveness, and is subject to strict oversight, labor-management cooperation, and wage rate requirements.
Title II, Sec. 201 (amending Internal Revenue Code of 1986)
Critical Material Investment Tax Credit (Section 48F)
This section establishes a new critical material investment tax credit, providing a base rate of 15% for qualified investments into critical material facilities. An alternative rate of 25% is available for facilities meeting prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements, or those producing critical materials vulnerable to disruption, qualified substitutes, or recycled materials. The credit applies to tangible property integral to extraction, processing, refining, recycling, conversion into specific compounds, or specialized manufacturing/R&D equipment. It includes an elective payment option and terminates for property construction beginning after December 31, 2029.
Title II, Sec. 202 (amending Internal Revenue Code of 1986)
Critical Material Production Tax Credit (Section 45BB)
This section establishes a new critical material production tax credit for eligible materials produced and sold in the United States to an unrelated person. The credit amount is 15% of the taxpayer's cost of production for materials at the initial production stage, or 10% (domestically sourced) or 7.5% (domestically or from a 'safe acquisition source' country) for other stages. An additional 10 percentage points are added for meeting prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements or producing high-priority critical materials. The credit phases out from 2031 to 2034 and cannot be claimed if a credit under Section 45X has already been claimed for the same material.
Title III, Sec. 303
Critical Materials Research and Development (National Science Foundation)
This section directs the National Science Foundation (NSF) to make competitive awards for research and development (R&D) activities focused on the sustainability, security, and traceability of critical material supply chains. This includes R&D for manufacturing technologies, innovative materials (like qualified substitutes and byproducts), emerging downstream applications to reduce reliance on critical materials, and technologies promoting circularity and sustainability. It also supports education and workforce development, including training for undergraduate and graduate students and technical workforce pathways. The Director may establish testbeds for translation and commercialization of these innovations.
Title III, Sec. 305 (amending Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act)
Grant Program for Pilot Projects To Expand Domestic Capacity of Critical Materials (Department of Energy)
This section amends existing law to establish a grant program at the Department of Energy to finance pilot projects that promote domestic capacity, reduce supply chain disruptions, and support innovation in the critical material supply chain. Grants, limited to $25 million each, can fund innovative technologies, materials (including qualified substitutes and byproducts), downstream applications, and circularity/sustainability techniques. Priority is given to economically viable projects, with a minimum of 40% of funds for qualified substitutes, secondary recovery, or recycling projects. Projects cannot export for manufacturing to foreign countries of concern. $150 million is authorized annually for FY2026-2030.
Mandates specific labor-management cooperation rules for any recipient of a loan under this section. This includes recognizing a labor organization based on a majority of employees signing valid authorizations (card check) and requiring binding tripartite arbitration if collective bargaining fails after a specified period.
Title I, Sec. 103(k)
Why it matters:While labor provisions are common in federal funding programs, the specific mechanisms of card check recognition and binding arbitration are substantial policy changes that typically face significant debate. Placing them as conditions for a critical materials loan program may be a tactical maneuver to advance these labor policies within a bill addressing a widely supported national security issue.
Case for: Proponents argue these provisions ensure that federal investments in critical materials also create high-quality, union-represented jobs with fair wages and working conditions, aligning economic development with worker empowerment. It prevents a 'race to the bottom' on labor standards.
Case against: Opponents contend that these provisions impose significant restrictions on employers' rights, potentially deterring companies from seeking federal loans due to increased labor costs and reduced flexibility. They argue that mandating union recognition via card check bypasses secret ballot elections, which they view as more democratic.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant impact on labor relations and unionization rates within the critical materials sector, affecting the cost structure and operational flexibility of loan recipients.
Establishes a 'clawback' mechanism allowing the Secretary to progressively recover up to the full amount of a loan or guarantee if the construction, expansion, modernization, or repurposing of a facility does not commence and complete within established target dates. A waiver is possible for unforeseen circumstances, but not for failure to cooperate with regulatory agencies for permit approval.
Title I, Sec. 103(j)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for federal funding programs to ensure accountability and prevent projects from stalling indefinitely after receiving funds. It's a necessary safeguard for taxpayer money.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures responsible use of federal funds, incentivizes timely project completion, and protects taxpayers from projects that fail to materialize or are unduly delayed.
Case against: Some critics might argue that strict clawback provisions, even with waivers, could deter risk-averse entities from applying for loans, especially given the inherent uncertainties and potential for unforeseen delays in large-scale industrial projects.
Estimated impact: Enhances accountability for billions of dollars in authorized loans, potentially influencing project timelines and financial risk management for recipients.
Allows the Secretary to forgive all or part of a loan awarded to the Investment Fund (established within the public-private partnership) in an eligible fiscal year, provided the Investment Fund maintains good standing.
Title I, Sec. 105(b)(3)(D)
Why it matters:This provision provides a powerful incentive for the Investment Fund to take on potentially risky but strategically important projects. While it's a key financial lever, its placement might be to integrate it as a tool for the fund's mission rather than highlighting it as a direct subsidy.
Case for: Proponents argue that loan forgiveness is a necessary tool to incentivize the Investment Fund to undertake high-risk, high-reward projects critical for national security that might not otherwise attract sufficient capital. It allows for flexibility in achieving strategic goals.
Case against: Critics might view this as a significant potential subsidy and a moral hazard, where a public-private entity could take on excessive risk knowing that the government might absorb losses. This could lead to concerns about accountability and the use of taxpayer funds.
Estimated impact: Could result in the forgiveness of substantial federal loan amounts, potentially billions of dollars over the program's lifetime, shifting financial risk from the Investment Fund to the federal government.
Increases the critical material production tax credit by an additional 10 percentage points if the taxpayer meets specific labor standards: paying prevailing wages (Davis-Bacon) and fulfilling apprenticeship requirements established by the Secretary of Labor.
Title II, Sec. 202(b)(2)(A)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to tie federal financial incentives (tax credits) to broader social or economic policy goals, such as promoting high-wage jobs and workforce development. It's a way to encourage specific behavior without directly mandating it for all businesses.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision leverages tax policy to ensure that the growth of the critical materials industry also benefits workers through fair wages and robust training programs, creating a skilled and stable workforce.
Case against: Opponents might argue that tying tax credits to specific labor practices adds complexity and cost for businesses, potentially making the credit less attractive or creating an uneven playing field for companies that cannot easily meet these requirements.
Estimated impact: Could significantly increase the value of the production tax credit for eligible companies, potentially leading to higher labor costs for those seeking the enhanced credit, but also promoting higher wages and apprenticeship programs in the sector.