US Bill Seeks to Repeal Conflict Minerals Disclosures

U.S. Introduces Bill to Repeal Conflict Minerals Disclosure Rules

The U.S. House of Representatives has introduced H.R. 7085, a legislative proposal that would fully repeal mandatory conflict minerals disclosure requirements under U.S. federal securities law. If enacted, the bill would remove the statutory foundation for existing U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules that require publicly listed companies to investigate, document, and disclose the sourcing of certain minerals used in their products.

The proposal represents a significant policy reversal, rolling back disclosure obligations that have been in place since 2010 under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Legal provisions targeted for repeal

H.R. 7085 proposes amendments to two key U.S. financial laws:

• Securities Exchange Act of 1934
  The bill would repeal Section 13(p), which currently mandates conflict minerals disclosures in SEC filings.
• Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
  The proposal would remove Section 1502, the provision that introduced conflict minerals reporting following the global financial crisis.
• Conforming Amendments
  Additional updates would be made to statutory references and tables of contents to ensure legislative consistency following repeal.

What are conflict minerals?

Under current regulations, companies must disclose the use and origin of conflict minerals, commonly referred to as 3TG:

• Tin
• Tantalum
• Tungsten
• Gold

These minerals are widely used across industries such as electronics, automotive, aerospace, defense, and industrial manufacturing. The disclosure rules primarily focus on minerals sourced from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and neighboring countries, where mineral extraction has historically been linked to armed conflict and human rights abuses.

Purpose of the original disclosure regime

The conflict minerals disclosure framework was designed to:

• Improve global supply chain transparency
• Discourage the financing of armed groups
• Promote responsible mineral sourcing
• Provide investors with visibility into non-financial supply chain risks

Companies were required to conduct due diligence, assess supplier information, and submit annual disclosures stating whether their products were considered “DRC conflict free.”

Policy debate surrounding H.R. 7085

Supporters of the bill argue that conflict of minerals reporting creates significant compliance and administrative burdens, particularly for companies with complex global supply chains. They also contend that such disclosures extend beyond the SEC’s core mission of investor protection and disproportionately affect smaller issuers.

Critics, however, warn that repealing the requirements could reduce transparency, weaken accountability for ethical sourcing, and limit access to standardized environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosures. They argue that disclosure requirements play an important role in addressing human rights risks through market pressure.

Legislative status and next steps

H.R. 7085 was referred to the House Financial Services Committee, which voted 30–24 on January 22, 2026, to report the bill with amendments. To become law, the bill must still pass the full House of Representatives, be approved by the U.S. Senate, and receive Presidential assent. It has not yet advanced to a House floor vote.

Compliance and business implications

If enacted, the bill would eliminate mandatory SEC conflict minerals filings and federal supply-chain due-diligence obligations for U.S. public companies, potentially reducing reporting costs. However, the proposal would not affect customer-driven sourcing requirements, contractual obligations, investor ESG expectations, or foreign regulations, including EU sustainability and due-diligence laws.

Multinational manufacturers may still need to maintain 3TG traceability to meet international regulatory requirements and stakeholder expectations.

Conclusion

H.R. 7085 signals a major shift in U.S. regulatory policy on conflict minerals disclosures. While the bill could ease reporting obligations for U.S.-listed companies, global pressures for responsible mineral sourcing are expected to continue through investor demands, customer expectations, and international regulatory frameworks.

Source: BILLS-119hr7085ih.pdf