Rep. Young Kim is pushing the DOMINANCE Act to break China’s grip on critical minerals by expanding U.S. partnerships, boosting foreign investments in mining, and creating a new Washington office charged with coordinating energy and mineral diplomacy. The bill aims to reduce reliance on Chinese refining and supply chains, strengthen alliances, and move the United States from reactive to strategic in securing the materials that power our tech and defense industries.
Kim, a California Republican, frames this as both an economic and national security priority, arguing the U.S. can no longer accept vulnerability in materials vital for advanced manufacturing and defense. The push is practical: diversify suppliers, invest where markets are thin, and make American policy coherent across government and with partners. That blunt approach reflects concern that current reliance hands leverage to a strategic competitor.
The DOMINANCE Act would formalize and scale up current efforts, turning ad hoc programs into a steady U.S. strategy to lock in raw material pathways beyond China. Central to the proposal is a new office, the Bureau of Energy Security and Diplomacy, which would “perform such functions related to the formulation and implementation of international energy, energy technology, critical minerals, and relevant supply chain policies, as the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs may prescribe.” That kind of centralization is meant to stop friendly agencies from working at cross-purposes.
The legislation also targets the weakest links: refining and processing capacity overseas, where China has long enjoyed market dominance. It calls for a framework to underwrite projects that build mines, refineries, and training in partner countries so America and its allies have reliable alternatives. Policymakers see this as the only realistic way to shift supply chains that have evolved under Beijing’s influence.
Specifically, the bill lays out “a mechanism and process for the United States to provide support for critical mineral projects in foreign countries” and to “prioritize projects that advance the national and economic security interests of the United States and allies and partners of the United States.” Those lines lock policy to security goals instead of allowing development aid to drift into low-impact deals. The wording ties every dollar of support to clear strategic outcomes.
Republicans backing the measure point to hard lessons: decades of investment by China across Africa, Latin America and Asia created a massive head start in extraction and refining. “Beijing already has a 30-year head start over the United States. So, to win the critical minerals race, we need to put together an all-star team,” Kim warns, urging a coordinated U.S. response that blends diplomacy, finance, and technical assistance. That urgency drives the push for bipartisan cooperation.
Kim is not working alone; the bill has cross-party sponsors who see shared risk in the current setup. The argument is straightforward for Republicans: secure supply chains strengthen American industry and sharpen national defense without surrendering leverage to a geopolitical rival. The DOMINANCE Act packages that reasoning into concrete authorities and funding pathways that can scale quickly if Congress acts.
Domestically, leaders acknowledge that ramping up U.S. production helps but will not be enough on its own, so the bill balances homegrown capacity with overseas partnerships and workforce training. Kim is blunt: “We cannot let China turn our rare earth supply chains into shackles.” That line captures the political case — this is about independence, not isolation, and about building resilient networks that protect American innovation and security.
Momentum will depend on lawmakers willing to fund strategic projects and on officials who can move from planning to execution without bureaucratic drift. If adopted, the bill would signal a tougher, organized U.S. posture: matching China’s long-term investments with American partnerships that preserve choice and keep critical industries running. The coming months will test whether Congress treats mineral strategy as a national mission or lets the status quo calcify into continued dependence.
