Deep-Sea Mining Order Sparks Global Backlash

President  Trump’s recent executive order to expedite deep-sea mining has ignited widespread criticism from environmental groups, scientists, and international bodies. The directive aims to accelerate the permitting process for seabed mineral extraction in both U.S. and international waters, citing national security and economic interests in securing critical minerals like nickel, cobalt, and manganese.

Among those calling for a ban, moratorium or "precautionary pause" are the governments of France, Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, Mexico, Peru, United Kingdom, Austria, Brazil, Costa Rica, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Ireland, Kingdom of Denmark, Malta, Monaco, Panama, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

Environmental Concerns

Environmental organizations warn that deep-sea mining could cause irreversible damage to marine ecosystems. Jeff Watters, vice president for external affairs at the Ocean Conservancy, told the Associated Press, “Scientists agree that deep-sea mining is a deeply dangerous endeavor for our ocean and all of us who depend on it.  The harm caused by deep-sea mining isn’t restricted to the ocean floor: it will impact the entire water column, top to bottom, and everyone and everything relying on it.’ ” 

Douglas McCauley, a professor of ocean science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, emphasized the potential ecological consequences: “This is being planned on some of the least resilient ecosystems on the planet. It would have catastrophic biological consequences” .

International Legal Challenges

The executive order has also raised legal concerns, particularly regarding its potential to bypass the United Nations-sanctioned International Seabed Authority (ISA), which regulates mining activities in international waters.

Leticia Carvalho, Secretary-General of the ISA, warned that unilateral actions by the U.S. could undermine international agreements and lead to a “free-for-all” in seabed exploitation . “No state has the right to unilaterally exploit the mineral resources of the area outside the legal framework established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,” said Carvalho in a written statement. “It is common understanding that this prohibition is binding on all States, including those that have not ratified UNCLOS.”

White and Case notes notes the U.S. move diverges from the cautious stance of other major powers (e.g., China, UK, EU), who await a comprehensive international regulatory framework under the ISA.  The firm characterizes the EO as a “first mover” strategy to establish U.S. leadership in seabed mineral development amid stalled international negotiations and rising global competition.

Economic Viability and Industry Skepticism

Critics question the economic feasibility of deep-sea mining, citing high costs and uncertain returns.  Attorney and ocean conservation advocate Bobbi-Jo Dobush described the initiative as “a gold rush for fool’s gold,” noting that the cobalt and nickel extracted from the ocean floor would be among the most expensive ever mined, potentially leading to significant financial losses for U.S. taxpayers .  

In a report published in advance of  the Executive Order, Dobush notes numerous european banks and insurers, as well as corporations, including Google, BMW, and Volvo, have joined over 30 countries in calling for a moratorium on deep-sea mining until comprehensive environmental safeguards are established . These stakeholders argue that the rush to exploit seabed resources could have long-term detrimental effects on ocean health and biodiversity.

Executive Orders