Committee Examines Copper Supply Chain National Security Gap

Why It Matters

Copper is used in electric vehicles, power grids, data centers, and defense systems, but the United States produces only a fraction of the copper it needs domestically. The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources has scheduled a copper mining oversight hearing for April 29 that puts that gap directly in the spotlight, as Congress weighs whether federal permitting rules, trade policy, and critical minerals strategy are equipped to support domestic copper production at the scale the energy transition demands.

The Policy Stakes

Copper sits at the intersection of nearly every major policy debate in Washington right now: the clean energy build-out, national security supply chains, trade tariffs, and the race to reduce dependence on China for critical inputs. The subcommittee's decision to dedicate a full oversight hearing to the metal means Republican leadership sees domestic copper production as a lever worth pulling, and that the regulatory and permitting environment around mining is the obstacle they want examined.

Subcommittee Chair Pete Stauber (R-MN) has been vocal about the issue. On April 16, he announced that the Senate had passed his bill to reverse what he called "Biden's illegal mining ban" in the Superior National Forest, declaring it "headed to the President's desk." Days later, he amplified a Wall Street Journal editorial arguing the mining ban reversal "matters not just for Minnesota, but for America's economic and national security." Stauber chairs the subcommittee holding the hearing and is also the sponsor of the Critical Mineral Dominance Act, which passed the House and would direct the Interior Department to accelerate mineral production on federal lands.

The COPPER Act and Critical Minerals Legislation

The hearing arrives as Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) (whose state produces roughly 70 percent of America's copper, by his account) announced he introduced the COPPER Act to classify copper as a critical mineral formally. "American miners should not have to compete against foreign operations with weaker labor and environmental standards," Schweikert said in a statement released April 22, one week before the hearing.

While Schweikert does not sit on the Natural Resources Committee, the legislation he is pushing would directly inform the policy conversation the subcommittee is convening. Classifying copper as a critical mineral would unlock a different set of federal authorities, expedited permitting pathways, and potentially new tax incentives.

The Critical Mineral Dominance Act, sponsored by Stauber and already passed by the House, would codify executive orders on domestic mining and require the Interior Department to identify priority mining projects on federal lands eligible for immediate approval. A separate bill, the Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act, has also passed the House and would require the Department of Energy to assess supply chain vulnerabilities for critical minerals.

On the other side of the ledger, committee member Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) introduced two bills that would block specific copper mining projects. The Save Oak Flat from Foreign Mining Act would repeal a 2014 law requiring the Forest Service to transfer roughly 2,400 acres in Arizona's Tonto National Forest to Resolution Copper, a joint venture involving Rio Tinto and BHP. A companion measure, the Preserve the Traditional Cultural Place Chí'chil Biłdagoteel Historic District Act, would permanently protect the site from mining. Both bills are pending before the Natural Resources Committee, which means the committee fielding questions about copper mining is the same committee sitting on legislation that would block one of the largest proposed copper mines in the country.

Mining Industry Lobbying Disclosures

Lobbying disclosures show the copper and mining industries have maintained consistent pressure on Congress in the months leading up to it.

The Copper Development Association spent $110,000 in the first quarter of 2026 lobbying on copper supply and demand, mining and refining permitting, the 45X manufacturing tax credit, and comments to the U.S. Trade Representative on critical minerals. That followed $100,000 in lobbying expenditures in the fourth quarter of 2025 on overlapping issues, including the Copper Caucus.

Principal Mineral Co. spent $45,000 in the first quarter of 2026 (and the same amount in the fourth quarter of 2025) specifically "advocating for the role of copper in critical infrastructure, national security, and a broader critical minerals strategy," according to its disclosures.

On the project level, Taseko Mines spent $70,000 in the first quarter of 2026 lobbying on its Florence Copper in-situ recovery project in Arizona and related critical minerals issues. Resolution Copper Mining (the company whose Oak Flat project is the subject of Grijalva's legislation) reported $10,000 in first-quarter 2026 lobbying on copper mining, water policy, labor issues, and economic development.

Southwire Co., a major wire and cable manufacturer that depends on copper as a primary input, spent $40,000 per quarter across all four quarters of 2025 lobbying on legislation affecting the electric grid, infrastructure, and the copper and aluminum industries.

The Subcommittee and Its Hearing

The Natural Resources Committee hearing on copper mining is scheduled for April 29 and is convened by the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. It's chaired by Stauber, with Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ) serving as ranking member and Rep. Nick Begich III (R-AK) as vice chair. No witnesses have been publicly identified in the available hearing record.

The subcommittee's membership includes several members from copper-producing or mining-dependent states, including Arizona, Alaska, Minnesota, Idaho, and Wyoming.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.