In the opening installment of this article, I discussed China’s domination of the essential minerals market and explained why the short-term prospects of displacing China as a supplier is difficult. In this concluding installment, I want to focus on essential minerals located under the sea. Seabed mining was thrust into the headlines when, on 24 April 2025, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order discussing the matter. The background section of that Executive Order reads:

“The United States has a core national security and economic interest in maintaining leadership in deep sea science and technology and seabed mineral resources. The United States faces unprecedented economic and national security challenges in securing reliable supplies of critical minerals independent of foreign adversary control. Vast offshore seabed areas hold critical minerals and energy resources. These resources are key to strengthening our economy, securing our energy future, and reducing dependence on foreign suppliers for critical minerals. The United States also controls seabed mineral resources in one of the largest ocean areas of the world. Our Nation can, through the exercise of existing authorities and by establishing international partnerships, access potentially vast resources in seabed polymetallic nodules; other subsea geologic structures; and coastal deposits containing strategic minerals such as nickel, cobalt, copper, manganese, titanium, and rare earth elements, which are vital to our national security and economic prosperity.”

Perhaps the most controversial part of that statement is the declaration that the United States “controls seabed mineral resources in one of the largest ocean areas of the world.” This may be true in a “might-makes-right” world; however, there are complicating geopolitical factors in play.

Political Implications

The Executive Order directs the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to consult the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Interior, and, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, to expedite the process for reviewing and issuing seabed mineral exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits “in areas beyond national jurisdiction under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (30 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).” Here’s the rub. According to Caitlin Keating-Bitonti, a Specialist in Natural Resources Policy in the Resources, Science, and Industry Division at the Congressional Research Service, the act to which the Executive Order refers was only an interim measure. She explains, “In 1980, Congress passed the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act as an interim measure to allow the United States to proceed with seabed mining activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) until an international regime was in place (i.e., the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS]).”[1] UNCLOS is in place and an International Seabed Authority (ISA) has been established. Trump may be relying on the fact that Congress has failed to ratify UNCLOS — despite pleas by numerous leaders to do so — and the fact that there have been years of delays at the ISA in setting up a regulatory framework for seabed mining. To date, an agreed upon set of ISA rules has yet to be approved.

A report by CBS News “60 Minutes” noted, “Hundreds of former national security, military and political leaders are calling on the Senate to ratify the United Nations’ Law of the Sea, warning … in a letter to lawmakers that China is taking advantage of America’s absence from the treaty. Countries that ratified the Law of the Sea treaty are now rushing to stake claims on the international seabed for deep sea mining. At stake are trillions of dollars’ worth of strategic minerals strewn on the ocean floor, essential for the next generation of electronics. China has five exploration sites, 90,000 square miles — the most of any country. The U.S. has none. It is blocked from the race because of the Senate’s refusal to ratify the Law of the Sea.”[2] John Bellinger, a lawyer and former legal adviser to former President George W. Bush, told 60 Minutes, “We are not only not at the table, but we’re off the field. The United States probably has got the most to gain of any country in the world if it were party to the Law of the Sea Convention, and conversely, we actually probably have the most to lose by not being part of it.”

As the 60 Minutes report noted, “To avoid a free-for-all, 168 countries, including China, have signed onto the United Nations Law of the Sea treaty, which divides the international seabed.” The point is: You can’t win the game, if you’re not in the game. And the United States is not legally in the game. The Executive Order attempts to put the U.S. in the game, but the consequences of acting outside of UNCLOS rules remain unclear. The 60 Minutes report concludes, “With seabed mining starting as early as next year, China is in place to dominate it. China already controls a near monopoly of critical minerals on land. Now it wants to extend that control to the ocean floor. If it succeeds, there are national security fears the U.S. could end up even more dependent on China for these critical minerals.”

If companies attempt operations using seabed mineral exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits issued by the United State that interfere with licenses granted under UNCLOS, clashes are inevitable. Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun made his country’s position clear. He stated, "The US authorization ... violates international law and harms the overall interests of the international community."[3] China has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to forcefully defend its geopolitical positions. A rush to mine the ocean seabed also risks alienating allies. The New York Times reports, “More than 30 countries have called for a delay or moratorium on the start of seabed mining.”[4]

Michael W. Lodge, former Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority (ISA), notes, “Deep-sea mining presents complex regulatory challenges due to its multi-faceted political, economic, technological, scientific, environmental, social, industrial and legal aspects. These must all be sensitively addressed to achieve a commercially viable and socially responsible industry. Furthermore, these aspects are either governed by, or must take into account, the burgeoning regulatory regime promulgated by the International Seabed Authority.”[5]

Concluding Thoughts

Clearly, economic and national security considerations are motivating the Trump administration and the Chinese government to want to start mining sooner rather than later. The New York Times reports, “The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that nodules in a single swath of the Eastern Pacific, known as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, contain more nickel, cobalt and manganese than all terrestrial reserves combined.” It seems prudent, however, to move cautiously forward. RAND analysts observe, “Seabed mining presents an opportunity for the United States and its allies to diversify critical mineral supply chains, bolstering critical mineral supply reliability and security; however, the U.S. government has yet to develop a clear vision for a potential role of the United States and its allies in an emerging seabed mining industry. A global seabed mining industry could produce amounts of nickel and cobalt — key elements for lithium-ion batteries — that are equal to the projected U.S. demand in 2040.”[6]

RAND analysts also note, “The establishment of a seabed mining industry would have geopolitical implications, including shifts among relationships within the Indo-Pacific region, concerns related to regulatory monitoring and enforcement, new territorial disputes, increasing demand for maritime domain awareness and security, and new influences on commodity prices and security of supply.” Geopolitical and environmental concerns suggest the U.S. and China should move cautiously as they look to exploit seabed resources. RAND analysts conclude, “The U.S. government should establish an interagency working group to develop a unified vision for what the United States’ role in a seabed mining industry would be and work with allies to ensure that all are working toward common goals. The group should then determine whether the vision is consistent with existing programs, policies, and partnerships or whether policy actions specifically targeting seabed mining are needed.” One of the best ways to ensure that the U.S. is working concert with allies is for the President to urge Congress to ratify UNCLOS. It’s time to get in the game.

Footnotes
[1] Caitlin Keating-Bitonti, “U.S. Interest in Seabed Mining in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction: Brief Background and Recent Developments,” Congress.gov, 25 April 2025.

[2] Bill Whitaker, Aliza Chasan, Heather Abbott, and LaCrai Scott, “National security leaders worry about U.S. failure to ratify Law of the Sea treaty,” CBS News 60 Minutes, 24 March 2024.

[3] Esme Stallard, “Trump deep sea mining order violates law, China says,” BBC, 25 April 2025.

[4] Max Bearak, Rebecca Dzombak, and Harry Stevens, “Trump Takes a Major Step Toward Seabed Mining in International Waters,” The New York Times, 24 April 2025.

[5] Michael W. Lodge, “Deep-Sea Mining: International Regulatory Challenges and Responses,” Elements Magazine, October 2018.

[6] Tom LaTourrette, Fabian Villalobos, Elisa Yoshiara, and Zohan Hasan Tariq, “The Potential Impact of Seabed Mining on Critical Mineral Supply Chains and Global Geopolitics,” RAND, 9 April 2025.