Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM)
American Minerals Royalty and Investment Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 6 Democratic cosponsors · See all 6 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill establishes new royalty rates for certain hardrock mining claims on federal lands. It creates a Hardrock Mineral Reinvestment Fund to collect and distribute these royalty revenues to States, Indian Tribes, and specific infrastructure and financial assistance programs. The legislation provides financial assistance to domestic entities for processing critical minerals while imposing strict environmental and labor commitments. Additionally, the bill prohibits foreign entities of concern from holding mining claims, leases, or site locations. Finally, it mandates regular reviews and reporting by the Government Accountability Office on the financial assistance program.
Yes· 3 of 18
- Scored +5
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Indian Tribes receive a direct formula-based allocation of royalty revenues and mandatory consultation on nearby projects.
- Scored +5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill mandates strict environmental assessments, mitigation plans, and dedicated state funding for wildlife and natural resource conservation.
- Scored +4
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Financial assistance programs explicitly require initiatives to expand employment opportunities for economically disadvantaged individuals.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Mining operators face increased financial burdens from new royalty rates and restrictions on foreign partnerships.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Support for States and Local Resources: Under Section 3(b)(3)(A)(i) and Section 3(c)(1), a portion of the royalties collected will go directly to States. At least half of these state funds must be used for mitigating damage to wildlife, natural resources, or cultural resources, and for implementing comprehensive conservation management plans, which helps protect local environments.
-
Benefits for Indian Tribes: According to Section 3(b)(3)(A)(ii), a portion of the collected royalties will be allocated to Indian Tribes based on a formula developed through consultation with the tribes, providing direct financial support to tribal communities.
-
Workforce Development and Community Investments: Under Section 4(a)(2)(B)(ii)(I) and Section 4(a)(4)(B), entities receiving federal financial assistance must commit to worker and community investments, including training and education benefits, programs for economically disadvantaged individuals, and support for workforce development.
-
Environmental Protections and Mitigation: Section 4(a)(2)(B)(ii)(V) requires entities applying for financial assistance to assess potential environmental effects on groundwater, surface water, air quality, wildlife, and cultural resources, and to commit to avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating these negative effects in coordination with affected Indian Tribes and communities.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Increased Financial Burdens on Mining Operations: Section 2(a) subjects the gross income from the sale or removal of locatable minerals to a royalty rate between 7 percent and 10 percent. This new cost could create financial pressures for mining operators and potentially lead to higher costs for goods dependent on these minerals.
-
Restrictions on Foreign Investments and Partnerships: Section 5(a) and Section 5(b) prohibit foreign entities of concern and their subsidiaries from locating mining claims, obtaining hardrock mineral leases, operating covered claims, or acquiring mining claims through sales or transfers. This could limit certain business partnerships and foreign capital investments in domestic mining projects.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Indian Tribes receive a direct formula-based allocation of royalty revenues and mandatory consultation on nearby projects. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Financial assistance programs explicitly require initiatives to expand employment opportunities for economically disadvantaged individuals. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural communities benefit from state-level resource allocations and local mining infrastructure investments. Would children be better off under this? — Environmental protections and resource conservation efforts benefit future generations. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Increased domestic processing and manufacturing investments strengthen local economies. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Support for domestic manufacturing and workforce training helps middle-class employment. Would students be better off under this? — Regional educational entities are engaged to provide workforce training and programming. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Workforce development and training programs create new job opportunities. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — General economic reinvestment provides indirect community benefits. Would business owners be better off under this? — Mining operators face increased financial burdens from new royalty rates and restrictions on foreign partnerships.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill mandates strict environmental assessments, mitigation plans, and dedicated state funding for wildlife and natural resource conservation. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — State-allocated royalty funds must be used in part to mitigate mining damage and implement conservation management plans. Does this invest in rural communities? — A portion of mineral royalties is reinvested into states and local infrastructure programs.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill creates a financial assistance program for domestic mineral processing facilities that supports workforce development and job opportunities. Is this likely to grow the economy? — The legislation incentivizes domestic processing of critical minerals and provides funding for infrastructure and reinvestment. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The financial assistance program considers whether applicants are small businesses when reviewing projects.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires regular GAO reviews and public reporting on the financial assistance program. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — States receive a direct allocation of mineral royalties to support local conservation and planning needs.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — The bill prohibits foreign entities of concern from holding mining claims, reducing strategic vulnerabilities regarding critical minerals.
- 10/29/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- 6 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Kathy CastorDemocrat · Florida
Jasmine CrockettDemocrat · Texas
Sylvia GarciaDemocrat · Texas
Jared HuffmanDemocrat · California
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Melanie StansburyDemocrat · New Mexico