H.R. 7085, introduced in the US House of Representatives on 15 January 2026, would repeal the statutory basis for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) conflict minerals disclosure regime. The bill proposes deleting subsection (p) of Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and making conforming amendments that remove Dodd-Frank Act Section 1502.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The FDA will require ICH E2B(R3) data standards for electronic safety reporting from October 2026. The change enhances data quality and global harmonisation but requires significant system upgrades. Stakeholders across the pharmaceutical value chain must act early to ensure compliance and avoid regulatory risk.
Minnesota’s extension of PFAS in products reporting deadlines under Amara’s Law provides manufacturers with critical flexibility while reinforcing long-term compliance expectations. Enhanced tools and support aim to improve data quality, but companies must accelerate supply chain engagement to meet evolving regulatory demands.
The EPA has delayed the PFAS reporting start date to 2027, giving industry more time to prepare for TSCA compliance. While easing short-term pressure, the rule maintains extensive reporting obligations, requiring companies to strengthen data systems and supply chain transparency ahead of enforcement.
Subscribe to Foresight Weekly for expert-picked regulatory developments across chemicals, sustainability, product safety, ESG, and HSE.
Free forever. Unsubscribe anytime.
Read by professionals at
