Trump’s deep-sea mining push defies treaties, stirs alarm

US President Donald Trump’s executive order to fast-track deep-sea mining has reignited fierce global debate over the future of ocean resources, international law and environmental oversight. Framed as a bid to reduce US reliance on China for critical minerals, such as nickel and copper, the move has instead sparked concerns over ecological damage and international stability.Signed in April, Trump’s directive leverages the US Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act to bypass international regulatory bodies and directly authorize seabed mining operations, including in international waters. This path circumvents the United Nations’ International Seabed Authority (ISA), the global body responsible for regulating deep-sea mining and protecting ocean ecosystems.The order marks a dramatic shift away from decades of US adherence, albeit unofficial, to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). While the US has never ratified UNCLOS, it has historically followed its guidelines, particularly when asserting claims over maritime territory. The new unilateral approach signals a departure that legal experts warn could undermine global maritime governance and spark a broader trend of independent action.Fracturing frameworkMining lawyer Scot Anderson, co-head of the Energy and Natural Resources practice at Womble Bond Dickinson, notes the US has always had an “awkward relationship” with UNCLOS. Although Washington helped shape the treaty, it rejected ratification due in part to provisions requiring shared mining technology. Even so, the US has long abided by its deep-sea mining provisions through a separate agreement under Part XI of UNCLOS.“By fast-track deep sea mining, the US may undercut that framework, and could create both legal and diplomatic risks,” Anderson told MINING.COM. He cautioned that other countries may now feel justified in ignoring international norms. “[actions that weaken the UNCLOS legal framework] could embolden nations already expanding claims to territorial waters to stretch boundaries further,” he added.Impossible Metals wants to mine the Pacific for EV mineralsThis shift comes as the ISA continues to delay the release of long-promised exploitation rules. Under UNCLOS, the ISA was obligated to publish those regulations by 2023 after Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. triggered a rule-making deadline with its 2021 application to mine the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a mineral-rich region of the Pacific. Two ISA meetings have passed without agreement, leaving a vacuum that countries like the US are now exploiting.ISA Secretary-General Leticia Carvalho, who took the helm in January, has sharply condemned moves to bypass the authority’s governance, warning that any unilateral action weakens international law and collaboration, just as ecological and legal safeguards are needed most.Environmental and diplomatic falloutGreenpeace USA’s latest report, Deep Deception, argues that geopolitical tension is being strategically leveraged to justify a reckless rush into seabed mining. The group accuses the industry of exploiting regulatory delays to fast-track exploitation of one of Earth’s last untouched frontiers.Major General (Ret.) Randy Manner, in the report’s foreword, warned that defying international consensus could destabilize the very foundations of national security. “The bedrock of national security is not simply weapons or minerals — it is global stability, rule of law, and ecological resilience,” Manner wrote.Jeff Watters, vice president of external affairs at Yale University’s Ocean Conservancy, echoed that warning. “A decision to unilaterally embark on deep-sea mining runs counter to the way we as a global community have been cooperatively working on the high seas for decades,” he said in a recent interview.Watters argues that such moves could trigger diplomatic rifts and even maritime conflict. “It opens a Pandora’s box of legal and territorial disputes on the high seas. We’re not just talking about environmental impact — this is about maintaining peace and order in international waters.”Full tiltDespite the controversy, Canada’s The Metals Company (TMC) is moving full speed ahead. In April, the company submitted applications under the US mining code for a commercial recovery permit and two exploration licences covering nearly 200,000 square kilometres of the Pacific seafloor. These zones include areas rich in polymetallic nodules—rocky deposits laden with cobalt, manganese, and rare earth elements.In June, South Korea’s Korea Zinc invested $85.2 million in TMC, acquiring a 5% stake. The deal positions Korea Zinc as a non-Chinese alternative capable of refining TMC’s extracted materials into battery-grade metals.Trump is the best news for deep sea mining – The Metals Company CEO“This is more than capital,” said TMC CEO Gerard Barron. “It’s alignment on values, on urgency, and on building a resilient supply chain for the United States.”Peer Impossible Metals, a Silicon Valley startup with operations in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, has asked US federal officials to launch an auction for access to seabed deposits off the coast of American Samoa.Scramble beneathThe US is not alone. Several nations, including the Cook Islands, Japan and Norway, are pursuing deep-sea mining within their territorial waters, citing rising global demand. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects surging needs for key minerals used in clean energy tech. Copper and rare earths may see demand jump 40%, while lithium, cobalt, and nickel could rise as much as 90%.Supporters of seabed mining argue that undersea extraction has a lower environmental footprint than traditional land-based mining. But critics insist that claim remains unproven. The deep ocean is home to ecosystems that science barely understands, and disturbing them could trigger consequences that ripple up the food chain.Watters notes that the failure of the ISA to issue clear rules only deepens the risk of chaotic, piecemeal development. Until the global community sets enforceable guidelines, he says, the temptation for countries to act alone will remain and that makes future conflicts more likely.Ticking clockAs the ISA struggles to finalize its framework, time may be running out for international coordination. Once one nation begins commercial-scale mining outside the UN framework, others may follow. This will set a precedent that could unravel decades of diplomatic effort.For now, Trump’s executive order has lit a fuse under the global seabed, raising difficult questions about who controls the ocean floor and at what cost. Whether the world moves toward cooperation or conflict may hinge on how quickly (and how wisely) international bodies and national governments respond.Weiter zum vollständigen Artikel bei Mining.com Weiter zum vollständigen Artikel bei Mining.com