The global race for critical minerals has taken a dramatic turn toward the ocean floor, as U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration moves aggressively to challenge China’s dominance in strategic mineral markets through an unprecedented embrace of deep-sea mining. This bold initiative, formalized through a sweeping executive order signed in April, has set the stage for what experts describe as a potential “gold rush” beneath the waves—while simultaneously igniting fierce international controversy over legal authority and environmental protection.
A Strategic Response to China’s Mineral Dominance
The Trump administration’s critical minerals drive represents a direct challenge to China’s overwhelming control of global mineral supply chains, particularly those essential for defense and green technology applications. By fast-tracking deep-sea mining operations within both U.S. territorial waters and international waters, the executive order aims to provide American companies with access to billions of tons of polymetallic nodules—potato-sized rocks rich in strategically important minerals that lie scattered across the ocean floor.
The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a government agency responsible for oceanic and atmospheric research, has expressed strong support for Trump’s announcement. The agency characterized the executive order as heralding “the next gold rush” and predicted it would lay the groundwork for “a thriving domestic manufacturing industry.” This enthusiastic backing from a federal science agency underscores the administration’s view that deep-sea mining represents not just an environmental or commercial issue, but a matter of national economic security.
The strategic importance of these underwater mineral deposits cannot be overstated. The polymetallic nodules targeted by deep-sea mining operations contain high concentrations of cobalt, nickel, copper, and manganese—materials that are essential for manufacturing everything from military equipment to renewable energy infrastructure. As global demand for these materials continues to surge, driven by the expansion of electric vehicle production and renewable energy systems, securing reliable access to these resources has become a critical national priority.
Industry Response and Commercial Opportunities
The business community’s response to Trump’s executive order has been swift and decisive. The Metals Company (TMC), a Nasdaq-listed firm that has positioned itself at the forefront of the deep-sea mining industry, immediately capitalized on the new regulatory environment by applying for a commercial license to mine the ocean floor under U.S. domestic law.
If approved, TMC could achieve the historic distinction of becoming the first seabed mining company to obtain a license for mineral exploitation in international waters. Gerard Barron, the company’s CEO, described the current situation as “getting lively” and expressed optimism about the regulatory certainty that the Trump administration’s approach provides.
“The one thing that this administration offers is some certainty in direction, and I think that the one problem we have always faced is regulatory certainty — and that’s not available at the ISA. But its abundantly available in the USA,” Barron explained during a video call with CNBC.
The CEO’s comments highlight a fundamental tension that has long plagued the deep-sea mining industry: the lack of clear international regulatory frameworks has created uncertainty for potential investors and operators. Barron described the change in investor interest following Trump’s executive order as “like night and day,” with the company now ramping up efforts to achieve production readiness.
“We’re believers. We were confident that we would eventually resolve this one way or another. But the investor interest since the executive order … has been phenomenal,” Barron noted, indicating that financial markets view the U.S. government’s backing as a significant validation of the industry’s commercial potential.
International Legal Challenges and Regulatory Disputes
The Trump administration’s unilateral approach to deep-sea mining has generated immediate and forceful opposition from international bodies and foreign governments. The International Seabed Authority (ISA), a little-known United Nations regulator that oversees deep-sea mining activities, has firmly rejected any attempts to bypass established international processes.
In direct response to TMC’s application for a license under U.S. domestic law, the ISA issued a stern warning that it remains “the only legal authority to regulate seabed mining activities in international waters.” While acknowledging that companies are “free to express their views,” the organization cautioned that any attempt to circumvent established international procedures “would constitute a violation of international law.”
This regulatory standoff reflects broader tensions about governance of the global commons—areas beyond national jurisdiction that are considered the shared heritage of humanity under international law. The ISA has spent years working to develop comprehensive regulations for seabed mining, with negotiators seeking to establish a complete rulebook for the exploitation and extraction of polymetallic nodules before any commercial mining begins.
ISA Secretary-General Leticia Carvalho had previously indicated to CNBC that it was feasible for member states to reach agreement on regulatory frameworks by the end of 2025. However, TMC’s Barron disputes this timeline, arguing that there is no realistic chance of achieving international consensus this year.
China’s foreign ministry has been particularly vocal in its criticism of Trump’s executive order, condemning it as a violation of international law that “harms the collective interests” of the international community. This opposition from Beijing adds another layer of geopolitical complexity to an already contentious issue, as China has been actively involved in ISA negotiations and has significant interests in maintaining the current international regulatory framework.
Environmental Concerns and Scientific Uncertainty
The environmental implications of large-scale deep-sea mining operations remain one of the most contentious aspects of the industry’s development. The practice involves deploying sophisticated machinery to remove minerals and metals from the seabed, potentially disrupting ecosystems that scientists are only beginning to understand.
Environmental scientists have consistently warned that the full environmental impacts of seabed mining are extremely difficult to predict, given the limited research conducted on deep-ocean ecosystems and their responses to industrial-scale disturbance. These concerns are amplified by the fact that many deep-sea environments host unique biological communities that have evolved over millions of years in stable conditions.
Environmental campaign groups have taken an even stronger stance, arguing that sustainable deep-sea mining is fundamentally impossible given the fragility and interconnectedness of ocean ecosystems. These organizations have called for comprehensive moratoria on deep-sea mining until much more extensive scientific research can be conducted.
Despite these concerns, TMC’s Barron maintains confidence in his company’s ability to conduct operations safely. He recently testified at a U.S. congressional hearing and indicated that the company plans to submit an environmental impact statement to regulators. According to Barron, this assessment “conclusively points to the fact that we can do this safely and we can minimize impact.”
“The thing that people have missed is that there is zero chance that this will not happen,” Barron stated, expressing confidence that his company will receive commercial mining permits before the end of the year.
Geopolitical Ramifications and Strategic Implications
The broader geopolitical consequences of Trump’s deep-sea mining initiative extend far beyond immediate commercial or environmental considerations. Maria Jose (Majo) Valverde, a biodiversity and sustainability analyst at Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy, believes the executive order will have profound impacts on international relations and environmental governance.
“I think this order will shake up the geopolitical boardgame. The U.S. has already done that in the climate space by exiting the Paris Agreement and I think that this is now merging into wider environmental processes,” Valverde observed.
Paradoxically, Trump’s unilateral approach might actually accelerate international cooperation in unexpected ways. Valverde suggests that the executive order could incentivize ISA member states to finally reach agreement on formalizing a mining code, particularly since the United Nations has now been effectively challenged to prevent what could become “a race to the bottom of the ocean.”
The analyst warns that if the United States pursues this “go at it alone” strategy, other countries might coordinate their responses in ways that could undermine American interests. For example, nations might agree to avoid purchasing U.S.-extracted minerals or negotiate more favorable bilateral deals among themselves, particularly with China given its active participation in ISA negotiations.
“Trump’s executive order has expanded the panorama of options that countries could pursue, especially now that multilateralism is eroding and that we’re in a G-zero environment where countries only look to their own backyard — and they get more creative on what they are willing to consider,” Valverde explained.
Legal Challenges and Advocacy Opposition
Environmental and legal advocacy groups have expressed deep concern about the implications of Trump’s executive order, both for environmental protection and international legal precedent. Danielle Fugere, president and chief counsel at As You Sow, a shareholder advocacy group, described her organization as “deeply concerned” by the administration’s approach.
“Whatever the U.S. does, there needs to be regulatory review. For Trump to issue an executive order that demands that we go forward with this immediately — that’s problematic,” Fugere stated during a video call with CNBC.
Fugere’s critique highlights the tension between the administration’s desire for rapid action and the complex regulatory processes typically required for major environmental and industrial initiatives. She argues that Trump’s approach creates unnecessary international conflict by challenging established legal frameworks.
“I think this creates a storm. China is saying this is illegal and the law of the sea should govern deep-sea resources that should benefit all mankind, and that in fact is what the law of the sea requires. Yet, here is the U.S. saying it is entitled to plunder the deep-sea resources,” Fugere added.
The legal complexity of the situation is heightened by the fact that the United States is one of the few major nations that has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the primary international treaty governing ocean resources. This non-ratification creates ambiguity about the extent to which international maritime law applies to U.S. deep-sea mining activities.
As You Sow, which actively supports a comprehensive moratorium on deep-sea mining, argues that Trump’s executive order has created intense pressure on ISA member states to rapidly develop regulatory frameworks for determining how—and whether—deep-sea mining should proceed.
“We are very concerned about this executive order and the impact it’s likely to have on these organisms, on these resources and fishing nations who depend on the oceans for their livelihoods,” Fugere concluded, emphasizing the potential broader impacts on ocean-dependent communities worldwide.
The convergence of strategic mineral needs, environmental concerns, and international legal disputes has created a complex situation that will likely define ocean governance and resource extraction policies for years to come. As the Trump administration pushes forward with its deep-sea mining agenda, the global community faces fundamental questions about how to balance national security interests with environmental protection and international cooperation in an increasingly multipolar world.
Acknowledgment: This article was written with the help of AI, which also assisted in research, drafting, editing, and formatting this current version.
