HR-2310-119
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, and Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Christopher Smith (R-NJ)
What it does
This bill would create a rebuttable presumption that any goods containing cobalt refined in China are made with forced or child labor, and would direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to block those goods from entering the United States. Importers could overcome the ban only by providing clear and convincing evidence that their goods do not contain China-refined cobalt. The bill would also require the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force to develop an enforcement strategy within 120 days, and would require the President to annually certify whether federally purchased vehicles are free of parts made with forced or child labor in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or China's Xinjiang region.
Who benefits
Children and workers in the DRC who are currently subjected to forced or child labor in cobalt mining. U.S. and non-Chinese cobalt mining and refining companies that would gain competitive advantage. Domestic electric vehicle and battery manufacturers seeking to diversify supply chains away from China. Human rights organizations advocating against forced labor. U.S. national security interests seeking to reduce dependence on Chinese-controlled critical mineral supply chains. Non-Chinese cobalt-producing nations (e.g., Australia, Canada, Philippines) whose industries could fill supply gaps. Consumers who prefer ethically sourced products.
Who is hurt
U.S. manufacturers of electric vehicles, smartphones, laptops, and other electronics that rely on cobalt-containing components sourced through Chinese refiners — who may face supply disruptions or higher input costs. Consumers who could see higher prices for electronics and electric vehicles if supply chains are disrupted. Chinese cobalt refining companies and DRC mining operations financed by Chinese firms. Importers who would bear the burden of proving supply chain provenance, which may be technically difficult and costly. Small and mid-sized U.S. importers with fewer resources to conduct supply chain audits. Retailers and downstream industries dependent on affected electronics and EV supply chains.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that China controls approximately 70% of global cobalt refining and dominates DRC mining operations, where an estimated 40,000 children work in artisanal mines — creating a direct link between Chinese-refined cobalt and child and forced labor. They contend the bill closes a loophole in existing law by establishing a rebuttable presumption similar to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which has successfully shifted the burden of proof onto importers. They further argue that China's near-monopoly over cobalt — a critical input for EV batteries and defense technologies — represents a documented national security vulnerability that requires a legislative response.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's country-of-refining standard is an overbroad proxy that would block goods regardless of whether any specific shipment actually involved forced labor, potentially disrupting supply chains for millions of consumer electronics and vehicles with no direct connection to labor abuses. They contend that the "clear and convincing evidence" standard for the exception is exceptionally difficult to meet given the opacity of global mineral supply chains, effectively making the ban nearly absolute and exposing U.S. manufacturers to severe shortages while alternative supply chains — which take years to develop — are not yet available. They also argue the bill could trigger retaliatory trade measures from China affecting unrelated U.S. export sectors.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to regulate foreign commerce under the Foreign Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), which includes the power to restrict or condition imports. The bill also implicates the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307), existing statutory authority that courts have upheld. As affirmed in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), Congress has wide latitude to restrict economic activity connected to foreign actors engaged in human rights abuses.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority by setting a statutory import presumption and enforcement mandate; the Executive Branch — through CBP, the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force, and the President's certification requirement — implements and enforces the law, while importers retain the ability to rebut the presumption through an administrative process subject to public reporting and congressional oversight.
Historical precedent
The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (2021) established a nearly identical rebuttable presumption for goods from China's Xinjiang region and has served as the direct legislative model for this bill's import ban mechanism.