To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to repeal certain disclosure requirements related to conflict minerals, and for other purposes.

Proponents argue that conflict minerals disclosure imposes excessive compliance costs on U.S. companies without effectively stopping mineral trafficking, that disclosure rules are unilaterally burdensome compared to international competitors, and that the SEC rule is overreach beyond its core securities mission. Critics contend that the disclosure requirement is a proven tool for applying market pressure to reduce funding of armed groups in Central Africa, that repealing it signals U.S. withdrawal from corporate human rights accountability, and that companies have successfully integrated conflict minerals due diligence into supply chains, proving feasibility. Non-partisan evidence is mixed: the State Department and academic researchers have documented that conflict minerals disclosure has reduced certain armed groups' revenue and improved supply-chain practices, but compliance costs have been significant and implementation has been inconsistent across industries. No CBO or GAO fiscal impact assessment was available in the bill text.