The Trump Administration’s Controversial and Unprecedented Push for Deep-Sea Mining

Credit: Stock Images

According to former chief of staff of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) Marie Bourrel-McKinnon, the enforcement of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was delayed by 12 years since its adoption in 1982 due to disagreement on how to regulate deep-sea mining. That dispute was never fully resolved, as member states still can‘t agree on regulations for the industry that has always seemed far in the future. The convention initially established a weak set of guidelines, delegating regulatory authority to the ISA to create more comprehensive rules. Despite years of negotiations and a 2026 deadline to finalize the Mining Code, the ISA has still not done so, and the Trump Administration has decided it no longer needs to wait to begin issuing permits.

Recent actions by the Trump Administration to fast-track and issue permits to a private company to mine critical minerals in international waters of the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ) in the Pacific Ocean violate customary international law. Principles established by UNCLOS are accepted as customary international law, meaning internationally accepted norms apply to even non-signatory states. UNCLOS serves as “the legitimate multilateral framework for governing our Oceans,” and warns that any unilateral action sets a dangerous precedent. In light of recent challenges to the customary law responsible for governing the sea’s global commons, the urgency of the ISA to establish clear rules and the international community to respond are more salient than ever.

In April 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order, “Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources” (EO 14285) to accelerate deep-sea mining both in the US EEZ and in international seabeds, cementing the US as the first country explicitly forging into mineral exploration in the area. In January 2026, the Trump administration finalized a rule to fast-track permitting for mining in international waters without thorough environmental review steps, contradicting the ISA’s efforts to establish stricter guidelines. Later in January, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) agreed to accelerate the permitting processes for additional deep-sea mining applicants and sent a ship to begin mapping 8,000 square nautical miles of waters in the Pacific Ocean in April 2026. As part of EO 14285, the administration issued permits to a US-based subsidiary of The Metals Company (TMC) in March 2026 to begin exploration and commercial recovery in the CCZ in the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and Mexico, despite the expectation that only the ISA has the authority to issue permits in that region once the Mining Code rules are complete.

So far, ocean mining exploration has remained within domestic waters, close to land. The US, Japan, Cook Islands, Papua New Guinea, and (briefly) Norway are the only countries that have already issued permits to companies seeking to explore mineral resources in domestic waters or “exclusive economic zones” (EEZs). However, deep-sea mining interest is more concentrated in international waters, necessitating ISA regulations as soon as possible to decide on rules governing commercial mining operations. The ISA and its member states have been unable to agree on rules that will govern commercial mining operations in international waters. The latest round of talks ended in July 2025, and negotiations are set to resume in 2026.  

Critical minerals mined onshore, such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, and other rare earth metals, are necessary for a wide array of technologies, clean energy resources, and infrastructure. Traditionally, mineral mining has been limited to land, such as the mineral-rich African and South American continents. One prominent Canadian company seeking to mine in the ocean, The Minerals Company (TMC), claims there is a shortage of “critical metals” and advertises deep-sea mining as a way for the US to obtain these metals without importing them from China. While little is known about seabed mineral mining, there are millions of square meters of metal ores, or “nodules”, containing copper, cobalt, nickel, zinc, silver, and gold. Recent technological advancements have, for the first time, made large-scale mining of these nodules feasible. TMC hopes to extract 1.5 million tons of nodules in its early years, eventually scaling up to an annual extraction of 10.5 million tons. Seeking authorization, TMC turned to the US, as it is one of the few countries that has not ratified UNCLOS.

UNCLOS provides the strongest form of international law for governing international waters—ratified by 171 countries—and created the ISA to regulate activities in those waters. The US never ratified the UNCLOS, although it has always abided by its rules, contributed to ISA negotiations, and respected ISA’s legal jurisdiction over international waters. Until now.  

The ISA initially responded to EO 14285 by writing, “[the order] can only refer to resources found on the US seabed and ocean floor because everything beyond is the common heritage of humankind” and warned that “any unilateral action not only threatens this carefully negotiated treaty, and decades of successful implementation and international cooperation, but also sets a dangerous precedent that could destabilize the entire system of global ocean governance.” While the US may authorize seabed mining through domestic statutes, the action violates widely accepted customary international laws and the ISA’s jurisdiction of international waters that the US and other nonparties have respected until now. More concerningly, US actions could inspire other countries to bypass the ISA and create a “free-for-all” in nonnational waters. 

The international community remains wary of the US and sees the actions as violating international law under UNCLOS, creating legal uncertainty for potential investors. China, one country that has decided to delay issuing permits until the ISA agrees on rules, claims that the US is violating international law. It is also unclear how the Swiss firms, Allseas and Glencore, working with TMC as operational partners, will be willing to bypass the ISA as TMC did, even as Switzerland ratified UNCLOS.

There are more issues with TMC’s deep-sea mining plan and the US’s rush to sanction it, including a lack of clarity in domestic law, profitability concerns, and a number of environmental implications pointed out by environmental advocates and Pacific island residents.

Given its unprecedented nature, there are legal questions about the domestic laws sanctioning EO 14285. The Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMR) of 1980 and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) of 1953 authorize Department of Interior agencies to issue permits, yet neither explicitly endorses large-scale commercial mining in international waters. OCSLA grants the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) authority to manage and lease submerged lands for non-energy mineral development in national waters, with mandates for environmental safeguards. The DSHMR grants authority to NOAA to issue permits for exploring and recovering minerals from seabeds in areas beyond national jurisdiction, with environmental protection requirements. However, it was designed as an interim framework pending the updated global ISA Mining Code, anticipating eventual US ratification of UNCLOS. The DSHMR also denies assertion of US sovereignty over the region, and its language does not consider the large-scale commercial extraction TMC is envisioning today. 

Then there is the question of who would make up the market for deep-sea minerals, and whether companies would actually profit. Emma Wilson, Policy Officer at the Deep Seabed Conservation Coalition, said, “The Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that signatory states cannot allow any of their nationals, companies, or entities to engage in seabed mining activities outside the framework established by the Convention.” The US may be the only buyer. TIME argues that minerals should be treated as conflict minerals on international markets, subjecting them to transparency reporting and compliance standards. Conflict minerals carry a stigma in global markets, and major manufacturers and investors try to avoid them. Other investors and nations are already wary of TMC’s violation of international norms. Legal uncertainty poses economic risk, jeopardizing the potential commercial success of the industry. The large technology costs might also limit market competition with other critical minerals. 

US and TMC are also facing pushback from residents of Pacific islands, who have criticized NOAA and BOEM for not consulting them, and environmental issues remain a top concern among those opposing the project. The extent of the impacts on deep-sea ecosystems from mining disruptions is still understudied, and environmental groups argue that mining would result in long-lasting effects. A 2025 study found that mining testing in the CCZ region in 1979 permanently altered biodiversity. Disruptions to sediment can impact marine life and thus fishing industries, among other lesser-known impacts. 

In some ways, the potential breaches of international law in permitting deep-sea mining projects are precisely what the US government sought to avoid in not ratifying UNCLOS. While some US senators raised concerns of sovereignty and other issues with ratifying the convention amid the debate in 1982, then-President Ronald Reagan vocally opposed the deep-sea mining provisions in Part XI of UNCLOS. Although it provides only a ground-level framework, the governance of deep-seabed mining in Part XI requires mandatory technology transfers to an international authority and introduces a royalty or profit-sharing system. While maintaining commercial autonomy over activity in international waters, in theory, a priority for Regan in the 1980s, it remains a priority for the Trump administration today, with the potential of being realized.

Despite the legal arguments raised by the international community and environmental advocates, the think tank Heritage Foundation argues, “Simply put, America cannot violate obligations it never accepted.” However, this misunderstands how customary international law works. The norms established by UNCLOS for governing the global commons don’t depend on treaty signature alone but require global respect of the shared ocean commons. The recent actions will raise questions of how other UNCLOS non-party countries will act, but also what the international community will do in response to the new precedent the US is on its way to successfully establishing.

Annabel Williams is a senior at Brown University studying International and Public Affairs. She is a Blog Writer and an Illustrator for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review, and can be reached at annabel_williams@brown.edu.

Daniel Shin is a junior at Brown University studying Economics & International and Public Affairs. He is a Blog Editor for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review, and can be reached at sangjun_shin@brown.edu.

Luca Feng is a junior at Brown University studying Engineering & Political Science. He is a Blog Editor for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review, and can be reached at trevor_feng@brown.edu.