Technical corrections only. The two versions of H.R. 7037 are substantively identical, with the only changes being the procedural notations indicating that v2 was "Engrossed in House" and v3 was "Referred in Senate." No substantive policy changes were made between v2 and v3.
Developing Overseas Mineral Investments and New Allied Networks for Critical Energies Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]
- Committees
- Foreign Relations Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 9, 2026
Bottom line
The DOMINANCE Act seeks to enhance U.S. and allied energy and critical mineral supply chain security by creating new State Department-led diplomatic, development, and trade mechanisms to counter adversarial nations' influence.
What it actually does
This bill, the DOMINANCE Act, aims to reduce U.S. and allied dependence on strategic competitors, particularly China, for critical minerals and energy. It establishes new diplomatic and financial tools within the Department of State, including authorizing the Minerals Security Partnership, creating Energy Security Compacts with partner countries, and establishing a new Assistant Secretary and Bureau for Energy Security and Diplomacy. The bill also creates fellowship and scholar programs to bolster the U.S. mining workforce and education.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential for U.S. national security and economic stability, directly addressing the weaponization of critical mineral dominance by strategic competitors like China. They contend it will diversify supply chains, promote responsible resource development in partner countries, expand commercial opportunities for U.S. companies, and strengthen alliances by coordinating efforts to secure vital resources.
Opponents contend
Critics may argue that while the goal of securing supply chains is valid, the bill creates new bureaucratic structures that could lead to inefficiencies or duplication with existing agencies. Concerns might also be raised about the potential costs of these new programs, the environmental and social impacts of increased overseas mining, and whether the expanded definition of 'critical minerals' dilutes the focus from truly strategic resources.
The bill is moderately complex, introducing several new interagency structures, programs, and definitions. A thorough understanding requires careful reading, which may exceed the time typically allotted for quick legislative review.
Title I, Sec. 101
International Cooperation to Secure Critical Minerals Supply Chains
This section establishes U.S. policy to collaborate with allies to build secure and resilient critical mineral supply chains, reducing reliance on strategic competitors like China and Russia. It authorizes the President to negotiate agreements with foreign governments to form a coalition for transparent mining, processing, and supply of critical minerals, including mechanisms for joint investment and best practices for labor and environmental protection.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this provision is crucial for establishing a unified front against adversarial nations' economic coercion and market manipulation. It ensures a diversified and resilient supply of critical minerals vital for defense and technology, while promoting responsible practices globally.
Critics contend
Some critics might argue that relying heavily on international agreements could be slow and complex, potentially delaying urgent supply chain diversification efforts. There could also be concerns about the enforceability of 'best practices' in diverse international contexts.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for rapid supply chain diversification with the complexities of international negotiations and the establishment of robust, equitable standards for labor and environmental protection across diverse partner countries.
Title I, Sec. 102
Minerals Security Partnership Authorization
This section formally authorizes the Secretary of State to lead U.S. participation in the 'Minerals Security Partnership' (MSP). The MSP's purposes include identifying and supporting critical mineral projects, coordinating diplomatic strategies, sharing information, facilitating joint projects with funding mechanisms, and preventing critical mineral asset sales to prohibited foreign entities. It also requires the establishment of a database of critical mineral projects and prioritizes staffing with relevant expertise.
Title II, Sec. 201
Energy Security Compacts Authorization
This section authorizes the Secretary of State to establish multiyear 'Energy Security Compacts' with partner countries. These compacts aim to enhance energy and economic security, counter economic coercion, and diversify critical mineral and energy supply chains. It allows for the transfer of funds from National Security Investment Programs to development finance institutions and export-import banks to support these compacts, with specific prohibitions on military assistance, projects causing U.S. job loss, or significant environmental hazards.
Title II, Sec. 202 & 204
Office of Energy Security Compacts and Energy Security Compacts Council
This bill establishes an Office of Energy Security Compacts within the State Department, led by a Director, responsible for administering and implementing the compacts. It also mandates the creation of an interagency Energy Security Compacts Council, chaired by the Secretary of State and composed of principal officers from various federal agencies (e.g., DFC, DOE, Commerce, DoD). The Council will coordinate compact-related activities, recommend eligible countries, and improve interagency collaboration.
Title III, Sec. 301 & 302
Assistant Secretary and Bureau for Energy Security and Diplomacy
This bill authorizes the establishment of an Assistant Secretary for Energy Security and Diplomacy and a corresponding Bureau within the Department of State. This new Assistant Secretary will be responsible for formulating and implementing international energy, energy technology, critical minerals, and relevant supply chain policies. The Bureau will be the operational arm, with temporary expedited hiring authorities to quickly staff with experts in critical minerals, defense, energy, and technology sectors.
Title III, Sec. 303 & 304
Critical Mineral Mining Fellowship and Visiting Scholars Programs
This bill establishes two new programs under the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (Fulbright Program): the Critical Mineral Mining Fellowship Program and the Visiting Mining Scholars Program. The Fellowship Program will send U.S. citizens to foreign mining institutions to build U.S. mining workforce capacity. The Visiting Scholars Program will bring foreign mining academics and professionals to the U.S. to bolster mining education, workforce development, and research at U.S. institutions. Both aim to reduce dependency on foreign energy and critical mineral supplies.
Title III, Sec. 306(2)
Expanded Definition of 'Critical Mineral'
This section amends the definition of 'critical mineral' within the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (as amended by this bill) to include not only minerals on the official critical minerals list (as of January 1, 2026) but also explicitly 'gold and copper.' This expanded definition applies to the new Critical Mineral Mining Fellowship and Visiting Mining Scholars Programs.
The bill defines 'critical mineral' by referencing section 7002(c)(3) of the Energy Act of 2020 (30 U.S.C. 1606(c)(3)) as of January 1, 2026. However, for the purposes of the new educational exchange programs (Sec. 306), it explicitly adds 'gold and copper' to this definition.
Sec. 3(5) and Sec. 306(2)
Why it matters:The initial cross-reference is standard legislative practice. The specific inclusion of gold and copper for only certain programs in a later definition section might be to tailor the scope of those programs without broadly redefining 'critical mineral' for the entire Act, or it could be a deliberate choice to expand the scope in a less conspicuous manner.
Case for: Proponents would argue that gold and copper are essential for many modern technologies and industries, and ensuring a skilled workforce and secure supply chains for these minerals is also strategically important, even if they are not 'critical' in the same scarcity-driven sense as rare earths.
Case against: Critics might argue that including widely traded and abundant metals like gold and copper in 'critical mineral' programs dilutes the focus and resources from truly scarce and strategically vulnerable minerals, potentially diverting attention and funding from the most pressing supply chain security issues.
Estimated impact: This expansion significantly broadens the scope of the Critical Mineral Mining Fellowship and Visiting Mining Scholars Programs, potentially increasing the number of eligible participants and the range of academic and industry focus areas.
Prohibits the obligation or expenditure of funds for any grant, contract, loan, or other financial assistance to an entity in which the President, Vice President, or an immediate family member holds, directly or indirectly, any ownership interest or serves in any managerial, officer, director, or board capacity.
Sec. 201(e)(5)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice to include specific ethics provisions within the relevant program's limitations. It ensures that the prohibition directly applies to the funding authorized by that section.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provision is essential for preventing conflicts of interest and ensuring the integrity and public trust in the Energy Security Compacts program, demonstrating a commitment to ethical governance.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against such ethics provisions, as they are widely supported as good governance practices.
Estimated impact: Prevents potential conflicts of interest for high-level executive officials and their immediate family members in relation to Energy Security Compact funding.
Requires the Minerals Security Partnership to establish procedures to prevent, review, and deter critical mineral asset sales to 'prohibited foreign entities (as such term is defined in section 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code)' by companies within the jurisdiction of MSP member countries.
Sec. 102(a)(9)
Why it matters:The cross-reference is standard legislative drafting to avoid repeating lengthy definitions. Its placement within a list of purposes is typical for outlining the scope of a new partnership's activities.
Case for: Proponents would argue this is a critical measure to prevent strategic competitors from acquiring vital critical mineral assets, directly addressing national security concerns and ensuring the integrity of allied supply chains.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on a definition from the Internal Revenue Code for foreign policy and national security purposes could be overly complex or potentially misaligned with the specific strategic threats the bill aims to address. It might also raise questions about the extraterritorial application of U.S. law or influence on allied countries' investment policies.
Estimated impact: Establishes a framework for international cooperation to block strategic acquisitions of critical mineral assets, potentially impacting foreign investment flows and corporate transactions involving critical minerals.