On April 24, 2025, President Trump signed a far-reaching executive order aimed at accelerating the development of deep-sea mining for critical minerals beneath both United States and international waters. Framed as a matter of national security and economic necessity, the order seeks to position the U.S. as a global leader in the extraction and processing of seabed resources. The move has ignited fierce debate among policymakers, industry leaders, environmentalists, and the international community, raising fundamental questions about the legal, environmental, and geopolitical implications of mining the ocean depths.
Companies like The Metals Company (TMC) and Impossible Metals have already applied for U.S. permits to mine in the Clarion–Clipperton Zone and near American Samoa. TMC hopes to begin mining by the end of 2025.
This post provides an overview of deep-sea mining, its potential risks and benefits, the international and domestic legal frameworks governing it, the substance of Trump’s executive order, and the implications that may follow.
What is Deep-Sea Mining?
Deep-sea mining is the exploration and extraction of mineral resources from the ocean floor. The primary targets are polymetallic nodules; potato-sized lumps rich in manganese, nickel, copper, cobalt, and rare earth elements which take millions of years to form. Other sources of minerals on the sea floor are cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts and polymetallic sulfides found on seamounts and hydrothermal vents. The minerals are needed for a range of modern technologies, including electric vehicle batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, advanced electronics like smartphones, aerospace equipment, and military hardware.
Current technologies deploy heavy machinery to collect these nodules or crusts from the seabed, transporting them to the surface, and then processing them on land. Two main approaches are under development: mechanical claws that scrape the seabed and industrial vacuums that suck up nodules. Bringing nodules to the surface would require kilometers of tubes to carry sand, water, and minerals up, before unwanted remnants are discarded back into the ocean. This would generate significant sediment plumes and potentially destroy fragile marine ecosystems.
While the commercial viability of deep-sea mining remains unproven, the potential resource base is enormous. For example, the Clarion–Clipperton Zone (CCZ) in the central Pacific Ocean is estimated to contain more nickel, cobalt, and manganese than all terrestrial sources combined. As demand for critical minerals surges, proponents argue that the deep sea represents a vast, untapped frontier. To date, commercial-scale deep sea mining has never been done anywhere.
What are the Risks and Benefits of Deep Sea Mining?
Deep-sea mining is controversial and both sides of the debate recognize the enormous stakes. Opponents of deep-sea mining highlight catastrophic environmental risks and reputational and financial risks for companies wading into these waters. Proponents cite opportunities for resource and national security, as well as economic growth and environmental benefits.
Risks
The environmental risks are wide-ranging. The deep-sea ecosystem is not well studied and mining could destroy natural resources that are not yet understood or properly protected. Along with it, such mining could eliminate new discoveries like yet unnamed species, new medicines, or even a better understanding of the beginning of life on Earth.
Damage to the ecosystem could be long lasting: A March 2025 study found that a test area in the CCZ, mined in 1979, has yet to recover. Smaller organisms returned, but larger ones did not, suggesting the practice leaves scars which take at minimum decades to fade. Ocean biodiversity could be irreversibly altered.
Moreover, the lack of knowledge about the relationship between the deep-sea ecosystem and the broader ocean and global ecosystems and the untested nature of the technology means impacts are unpredictable. Sediment plumes from deep sea mining could block out light, impacting the water column from top to bottom, harming marine life, degrading underwater food webs, polluting critical fisheries with metals, and touching “everyone and everything relying on” the oceans.
Faced with these uncertainties and substantial risks, experts have questioned whether deep sea mining is truly necessary to acquire critical minerals used in various products or whether terrestrial sources and recycling of already-mined minerals could more efficiently meet the needs of industries using the minerals in their products. Thirty-three countries have called for a moratorium on deep sea mining, including Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Mexico, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.
Companies that opt to push onward face reputational and financial risks. The technology could prove so costly that the minerals retrieved cannot compete in the market for critical minerals. The growing demand for sustainably produced products could mean that other companies shy away from doing business with them. Any environmental destruction could subject miners to tremendous environmental liability.
Benefits
Conversely, proponents see these untapped resources as a source of growth and a solution to many of the world’s technological needs. With increasing demand for these minerals in modern technology, supporters see a huge market and believe tapping into it could bring economic returns to companies and investors. The Trump Administration has represented that the industry could boost the U.S. GDP by $300 billion over ten years and create 100,000 jobs. Proponents also claim that it could also help the development of clean energy infrastructure by opening a new supply chain for needed minerals.
A Trump Administration official has said that there are an estimated 1 billion metric tons of nodules in U.S. waters. Accessing them has been framed as a matter of national security for the U.S.; increased U.S. access to critical minerals could mean greater independence from foreign suppliers. China is currently a dominant source of critical minerals globally.
Deep-sea mining companies claim that the environmental risks have been blown out of proportion, and that their methods have been developed with support of scientific research in geology, biology, and chemistry to be environmentally friendly. Proponents also believe that deep sea mining could mean less mining on land, and fewer terrestrial ecosystems and communities being harmed by critical minerals mining.
International Law & Deep Sea Mining
Adopted in 1982, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has been called the constitution of the ocean because it sets out the international legal framework for the oceans. It establishes maritime zones that provide for rights to the ocean’s resources, such as the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The most relevant zone here is “the Area,” which is the seabed and subsoil beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
Under UNCLOS, countries can pursue seabed mining on their continental shelves, which is generally the first 200 nautical miles of a country’s coastal baselines. Several countries support and are pursuing deep sea mining on their own continental shelves. This includes Brazil, China, the Cook Islands, Japan, and Norway. But, many of the desired mineral resources lay in the areas beyond national jurisdiction and this is where UNCLOS’ framework for the Area comes into play. It should be noted that many of the States that support deep sea mining on their own continental shelves oppose deep sea mining in the Area.
Before UNCLOS, maritime zones beyond national jurisdiction were ruled by the principle of freedom of the seas, as articulated by Hugo Grotius, and the seafloor and the waters above it were open to exploitation by any state. At that time, there was no serious possibility that a party could exploit the resources on the seabed because of limits in technology. But, in the 1960s a shift in opinion began.
Increased technological capabilities and new States forming in the wake of decolonization meant more interest in an international governance system for the oceans. In 1967, Maltese Ambassador Arvid Pardo called for the adoption of a new deep sea governance system founded on the idea that the ocean beyond areas of national jurisdiction and its resources were the common heritage of mankind. The conferences and negotiations which ensued over the following decade led to the signing in 1982 of UNCLOS, which established the International Seabed Authority (“ISA”) to regulate mining in the Area. However, major international players like the United States did not ratify UNCLOS. This impasse led to the 1994 Implementing Agreement, which modified the deep sea mining provisions of UNCLOS and which, together with UNCLOS, governs today.
Under the present framework, the ISA, headquartered in Jamaica, is tasked with organizing, regulating, and controlling all mineral-related activities in the Area for the benefit of humanity as a whole. Each State which is a party to UNCLOS is also automatically a member of the ISA and can participate in decision-making as part of the ISA’s Assembly. There were 170 members as of April 2025.
The ISA crafted rules for exploration of the seabed and has entered thirty-one contracts for exploration—not development—for polymetallic nodules. It will eventually oversee exploitation of seabed minerals as well, but has not yet finished developing its years-in-the-making comprehensive mining code and so no deep-sea mining operations have been approved. The code will include environmental protection standards and benefit-sharing mechanisms once completed.
For an entity to explore or exploit the mineral resources of the Area, it must be sponsored by a member State of the ISA and enter into a contract with the ISA. According to the ISA, “any commercial exploitation outside of national jurisdiction carried out without the authorization of ISA would constitute a violation of international law.”
The U.S. is not among those member States, and therefore it cannot sponsor an entity to enter into a contract with the ISA. While the U.S. signed UNCLOS in 1994, due to objections in the Senate, the U.S. has never ratified UNCLOS or the 1994 Implementing Agreement. It has therefore not been entered into force. However, the U.S. has historically participated as an observer at the ISA and has recognized many parts of UNCLOS as reflecting customary international law.
U.S. Domestic Laws Affecting Deep Sea Mining
Two U.S. laws primarily govern deep sea mining. In 1980, before UNCLOS was adopted and when there was no international governance system, the U.S. enacted a stopgap measure called the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA). It was meant to allow U.S. companies to proceed with seabed mineral activities until an international regime could be established.
The DSHMRA establishes a licensing system for U.S. nationals to explore and recover mineral resources from the deep seabed, including in the Area. It sets forth environmental protection requirements, mandates the use of best available technologies, and encourages the development of mining technology. It also explicitly disclaims any assertion of U.S. sovereignty over the deep seabed and provides for the transition to an international regime once ratified by the United States.
Under DSHMRA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is responsible for reviewing and issuing exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits for deep sea mining beyond national jurisdiction. NOAA issued four exploration licenses in 1984. Two are held by Lockheed Martin, which declared that it could not engage in deep sea mining as any such venture must be done in line with UNCLOS, and the other two were surrendered thirty years ago. Since the creation of the ISA in 1994 upon the entry into force of UNCLOS, the U.S. has not issued any new licenses for areas beyond national jurisdiction.
For the seabed within the U.S.’s national jurisdiction, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OSCLA) authorizes the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to grant leases for the exploration and development of seabed mineral resources.
The Executive Order
President Trump’s April 2025 executive order boldly departs from past U.S. policy on deep sea mining and UNCLOS, marking the first time this century that the U.S. has planned to mine the seafloor. The order begins by emphasizing the national security and economic interests the U.S. has in deep sea minerals. The key provisions of the order are as follows:
- Expedited Permitting: It directs the Secretary of Commerce (through NOAA) and the Secretary of the Interior (through BOEM) to establish expedited processes for reviewing and issuing exploration licenses and commercial mining permits for seabed mineral resources. The processes should be established within sixty days of the order (by June 23, 2025). It encourages mining both within the U.S.’s outer continental shelf and in the Area, under and the OCSLA and DSHMRA, respectively.
- Investment in Science and Technology: It calls for increased investment in deep sea science, mapping, and technology to support exploration, extraction, and processing of seabed minerals.
- Domestic Supply Chain Development: The Administration aims to create a robust domestic supply chain for critical minerals derived from seabed resources, including new processing capabilities and the use of the Defense Production Act to support domestic industry.
- Partnerships with Other Nations Mining Their Continental Shelves: The order instructs agencies to engage with allies and partners to support seabed mineral development in areas within their national jurisdictions and to explore the feasibility of international benefit-sharing mechanisms for mining in the Area.
- Private Sector Interest: The order directs drafting of a report on private sector interest and opportunities for deep sea mining in the U.S. outer continental shelf and in the Area.
- Countering the People’s Republic of China: A central rationale in the order is that it is necessary to counter China’s growing influence over seabed mineral resources and ensure that U.S. companies are well-positioned to support allies and partners interested in responsible seabed mining.
- Stockpiling and Financing: The Secretaries of Defense and Energy are directed to assess the feasibility of using the National Defense Stockpile for materials derived from seabed mining and to explore grant, loan, and procurement authorities to support domestic processing.
- Mapping and Data Collection: Agencies are tasked with developing plans to map priority areas of the seabed, particularly those with abundant or accessible resources, to accelerate data collection and characterization.
Implications of the Executive Order
President Trump’s executive order marks a dramatic shift in U.S. ocean policy, with profound legal, environmental, and geopolitical implications. A few are highlighted below:
1. Legal and Diplomatic Fallout
By directing U.S. agencies to issue permits for deep sea mining in international waters under domestic law, the order effectively
bypasses the ISA and the international law framework established by UNCLOS.
The ISA, the European Union, China, and several other countries have condemned the move as a violation of international law and the principle of the common heritage of humankind. Norway, which pursued mining of its continental shelf, has aligned on this issue with States opposed to deep sea mining in the Area.
2. Environmental Uncertainty
The order accelerates the timeline for deep sea mining before the full environmental or other commercial and fisheries impacts are understood or adequate safeguards are in place. The lack of comprehensive international regulations heightens the risk of a race to the bottom, with companies and countries competing to exploit resources with minimal oversight. In a worst-case scenario, huge swaths of ocean ecosystems from the seafloor to those in the water column could be destroyed, with unknown even wider environmental consequences.
3. Geopolitical Tensions & Precedent for Unilateral Action
The U.S. move may trigger a new era of competition for seabed minerals, with other countries following suit and issuing their own licenses outside the ISA framework. This could lead to overlapping claims, maritime security challenges, and even conflict in international waters. In so doing, it could also undermine the legitimacy of the multilateral system that has governed the high seas for decades. This could have far-reaching consequences for the management of other global commons, from fisheries to climate regulation, and could provoke a breakdown of global ocean governance if other nations are emboldened to do the same.
4. Industry and Investment Signals
The Executive Order is consistent with the Trump Administration’s announcement of its interest in acquiring the mineral-rich lands of Greenland and Canada, its “Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production” Executive Order, and its opening of public land to mining. However, the various risks remain high, and the lack of international legitimacy may deter some investors.
The executive order is a controversial bid to jump-start the deep-sea mining industry. With this move, the Administration has added new fuel to the ongoing debate about the balance between economic development, environmental protection, and compliance with international law. It also opened the door for the first ever issuance of a license for mineral extraction under the DSHMRA.
The choices made in the upcoming months and years will shape both the future of the marine ecosystem and global ocean governance. The ultimate outcome will depend on the response of States—be it through legal or political means, the willingness of companies to invest despite the various risks, and the ability of scientists and regulators to develop effective safeguards.
