US House Bill Would Repeal SEC Conflict Minerals Disclosure Requirements

If enacted, the change would reduce a long running compliance obligation for certain US public companies, but it would not automatically remove supply chain transparency demands from customers, investors, and other jurisdictions.

What The Conflict Minerals Disclosure Rule Requires Today

The existing US framework is designed to increase transparency around minerals that may finance conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and adjoining countries. In practice, it has driven supply chain information collection for so called 3TG minerals, tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold, used in electronics, automotive components, industrial equipment, and aerospace applications.

Companies within scope typically conduct a reasonable country of origin inquiry, survey suppliers, and document due diligence processes. The disclosure obligation has also shaped supplier onboarding and purchasing conditions, because manufacturers often need upstream data to support their own reporting.

What Repeal Could Mean For Manufacturers And Suppliers

For issuers that currently manage conflict minerals programmes primarily to support SEC disclosures, repeal could mean fewer mandatory filings and less prescriptive public reporting. However, many supply chains treat conflict minerals information as a standard data request, particularly where end customers have their own governance rules or require evidence for responsible sourcing policies.

Businesses should also consider that conflict minerals expectations can be driven by more than the SEC. Customer contracts, lender requirements, and public commitments may still demand traceability, and non-US regulatory developments may influence what data is needed to access certain markets.

Summary

H.R. 7085 is a targeted repeal bill that would remove the Exchange Act provision underpinning SEC conflict minerals disclosure requirements. Compliance teams should monitor whether it advances through Congress, and in parallel review whether conflict minerals due diligence is still required by customers, investors, or market access conditions even if the SEC regime is rolled back.