STRATA Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]
- Committees
- Foreign Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 22, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to secure and diversify the U.S. critical minerals supply chain by accelerating innovation through international partnerships and excluding adversarial nations.
What it actually does
This bill establishes the Critical Minerals Innovation Partnership Program within the Department of State to foster international cooperation in developing critical minerals technologies. It authorizes the Secretary of State to form partnerships with allied countries and eligible entities, create International Centers of Excellence, and launch a digital platform to facilitate U.S. entity participation. The bill also authorizes funding transfers for these initiatives and adds a new section to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for science and technology cooperation, while explicitly excluding countries of concern and related entities.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill is crucial for U.S. national security and economic competitiveness, reducing reliance on adversarial nations for essential materials. They highlight the need for accelerated research and development, robust international collaboration, and public-private partnerships to overcome supply chain vulnerabilities and maintain technological leadership in critical and emerging technologies.
Opponents contend
Potential 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 broad discretion given to the Secretary in selecting partners and the potential for the program to become a vehicle for specific industry interests rather than broad national benefit.
The bill is relatively concise, allowing for a thorough reading within a reasonable timeframe, making it accessible for evaluation by an informed reader.
Title I, Section 101
Establishment of Critical Minerals Innovation Partnership Program
This section formally creates 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 other countries and entities, aiming to enhance U.S. national security, economic competitiveness, and diversify supply chains. A Director is to be appointed to oversee the program.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this program is essential to address critical mineral supply chain vulnerabilities, which pose significant national security and economic risks. They contend that a dedicated program within the State Department is best positioned to foster international collaboration.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that creating a new program could lead to bureaucratic bloat or overlap with existing efforts in other agencies (e.g., Energy, Commerce), potentially fragmenting resources rather than consolidating them.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between creating a focused, high-level initiative and ensuring it integrates effectively with existing interagency efforts without duplicating them.
Title I, Section 102
Eligibility for Countries and Entities
This section defines which countries and entities are eligible to participate in the Critical Minerals Innovation Partnership Program. Eligible countries are generally U.S. allies or partners, strategically important, and capable of participation, with preference given to those with trade agreements or other strategic partnerships. Eligible entities include higher education institutions, non-profits, federally funded research and development centers, private sector entities, or consortia, explicitly excluding 'foreign entities of concern' and 'countries of concern.'
Title I, Section 104
Required Elements for Partnerships
This section mandates specific components for each partnership established under the program. These include clear objectives, defined responsibilities for both the U.S. and the partner, quantitative benchmarks for progress, a multiyear plan with estimated contributions and implementation mechanisms, and descriptions of third-party participation. It also requires methods for dispute resolution, intellectual property allocation, and handling classified information, unless covered by existing agreements.
Title I, Section 105
Director's Responsibilities and Interagency Coordination
The Director of the program is tasked with broad responsibilities, including establishing dialogue with partners, developing multinational strategies, directing joint solicitations in consultation with numerous federal agencies (e.g., Energy, DFC, Ex-Im Bank, NSF, DoD), coordinating technical standards, aggregating demand for critical minerals, and monitoring outcomes. The Director can also enter into contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, and establish "Country Teams" overseas.
Title II, Section 201
International Centers of Excellence for Innovative Critical Minerals Supply Chain Technologies
This section directs the Secretary of State to establish International Centers of Excellence in participating entities. These Centers will focus on advancing the development, demonstration, and deployment of innovative, responsible, and resource-efficient critical minerals technologies. Their activities include applied research, technical assistance, cooperation among U.S. and partner institutions, development of regulatory frameworks, and data-driven tools for monitoring and reporting.
Title II, Section 202
Digital Platform for U.S. Entity Participation
The bill mandates the creation of a publicly accessible digital platform to serve as a central clearinghouse for U.S. entities to participate in the program. This platform will list opportunities (solicitations, funding, pilot projects), identify capability gaps, and allow U.S. entities (including startups, SMEs, research institutions) to apply for and propose participation. The Secretary is encouraged to ensure early-stage companies are considered and to facilitate matchmaking with partner country stakeholders.
Title II, Section 204
Authorization of Assistance and Funding Transfers
This section amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to allow the President to furnish assistance for science and technology cooperation, specifically for critical minerals and energy projects. It authorizes the Secretary of State to transfer funds from "National Security Investment Programs" appropriations for establishing partnerships. Crucially, it prohibits transactions with "countries of concern" or "country of concern entities" and also prohibits funding to entities where the President or Vice President, or their immediate family members, hold ownership interest or managerial roles.
Title III, Section 301
Sunset Clause for Program Authorities
This section establishes a sunset clause, terminating the authorities provided under the Act and its amendments 10 years after its enactment date. However, existing agreements and the use of funds obligated before the termination date are allowed to continue.
Defines a "country of concern entity" to include any foreign entity that is "more than 25 percent owned, directed, controlled, financed, or influenced directly or indirectly" by the Government of the People's Republic of China, the Chinese Communist Party, or the Chinese military. It also includes entities where these actors have the ability to "determine, direct, or decide for the entity in an important manner" through various means (ownership, board representation, contractual arrangements, etc.).
Section 3(3)(B)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms upfront, but the specific threshold and broad "influenced" language are significant for the bill's scope.
Case for: Proponents argue this broad definition is necessary to prevent circumvention by adversarial governments, particularly China, which often uses complex ownership structures and indirect influence to gain access to sensitive technologies or resources.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a broad definition could inadvertently capture entities with minimal or passive Chinese investment, creating compliance burdens and potentially limiting the pool of legitimate partners.
Estimated impact: Significantly restricts the universe of entities eligible for partnerships, particularly those with any level of Chinese investment or influence.
States that an entity is eligible to participate in the program only if it "is not a foreign entity of concern (as such term is defined in section 10612(a)(2) of the CHIPS Act of 2022 42 U.S.C. 19221(a)(2))."
Section 102(b)(2)
Why it matters:Standard legislative drafting to avoid redundancy, but it means the full scope of exclusions isn't immediately apparent from the bill text alone.
Case for: Proponents argue this leverages existing, well-established definitions designed to protect national security, ensuring consistency across federal programs aimed at critical technologies.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on external definitions can make legislation less transparent and harder for the public and affected entities to understand without specialized legal research.
Estimated impact: Further restricts eligible entities, aligning the Critical Minerals program with the national security guardrails established in the CHIPS Act, particularly regarding semiconductor manufacturing.
Prohibits any funds authorized by the Act from being obligated or expended for grants, contracts, loans, financial assistance, or acquisitions to an entity in which the President, Vice President, or an immediate family member holds any ownership interest or serves in any managerial, officer, director, or board capacity.
Section 204(b)(3)(C)
Why it matters:This is a specific ethics-related safeguard, often placed in limitations sections, but its direct impact on high-level officials makes it noteworthy.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a crucial ethical safeguard to prevent potential conflicts of interest and ensure public trust in the program's funding decisions, especially given the strategic importance and potential for significant financial benefits in the critical minerals sector.
Case against: No significant opposition is typically raised against such ethical provisions, though some might argue it's an overly broad or unnecessary restriction if existing ethics laws are deemed sufficient.
Estimated impact: Prevents any direct financial benefit from the program to entities connected to the current President or Vice President, or their immediate families.