The United States is an ocean country. Its ocean territorial claim is 3.4 million square nautical miles — larger than the combined land area of all 50 states. It’s not surprising, then, that politics, science, and capitalism collide over the possibility of an underwater treasure hunt for today’s ultimate riches: minerals.

Most recently, the Trump administration is on a quest to make the U.S. the first country to mine the deep sea at a commercial scale. However, the move could be geographically isolating, environmentally harmful, and financially risky.

The deep sea makes up about 54 percent of the earth’s surface and, of that, only a small patch the size of Rhode Island has ever been glimpsed by scientists. This finding — published in May — comes at a time when a growing number of countries in Europe, Oceania and Latin America are calling for a “precautionary pause” on any approvals to mine until scientists can learn more about the deep sea’s ecosystems and our impact on them. 

Yet in April, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that directed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to “fast-track” seabed exploration and commercial recovery permits in both U.S. waters and ocean areas beyond U.S. jurisdiction. 

NOAA’s social media account posted later that the high seas’ minerals are just “waiting to be scooped up and processed.”  When asked about scooping up other areas beyond U.S. jurisdiction, like the Panama Canal and Greenland, Trump told an NPR reporter that it makes the U.S. “bigger, stronger, and better.”

A company takes up the call

Within weeks of the executive order, a Canadian firm called The Metals Company submitted an application to suck up potato-sized rocks from 13,000 feet underwater using an army tank-style vehicle in a spot in the Pacific that is a three-day boat ride from any coastline. The proposed site is far from U.S. waters, and, under international law, the deep-sea minerals there are the “common heritage of humankind.” 

The push to jump-start mining in international waters for a company with experimental technology and an untested business model makes little sense. The most sought-after seafloor deposit — polymetallic nodules — contain almost no rare earth metals. That means deep-sea mining is not a silver bullet to solve the issues with the U.S. supply chain, which is hungry for metals like dysprosium and samarium for our national defense stockpiles. 

Instead, nodules contain high concentrations of cobalt, manganese, copper and nickel, which are needed for electric vehicles, power grid batteries and some defense uses. From 2016 to 2023, EV production skyrocketed by 2,000 percent, but during that same time the price of nickel rose 28 percent and cobalt prices fell by 10 percent. Notably, China has already moved away from using cobalt in its EV batteries. 

Deep-sea mining may also be a bad investment.  Already 63 companies, including major EV makers BMW and Volvo, have taken a stand against sourcing seabed metals for their supply chains. Financial intuitions, including Deutsche Bank, won’t loan money to seabed mining firms. 

Fortunately, the U.S. has a policy pathway: It could ratify the Law of the Sea. For years, countries that are parties to the Law of the Sea have been hashing out a “mining code” — regulations that would green-light a form of commercial seabed mining that are guided by science. 

The global treaty also keeps the peace for U.S. fisheries, naval operations and shipping, and it enforces maritime boundaries.

Only 14 states in the world — including the U.S. — have not ratified it. Other countries that have not signed on include Afghanistan, North Korea, Libya, and El Salvador. 

In addition to protecting long-standing U.S. maritime interests, ratifying the Law of the Sea would be a step in the right direction for bipartisan political renewal. It’s the most significant policy action that the U.S. can take to prevent its adversaries from power-grabbing large swaths of the Arctic, the high seas, and the seabed — an outcome that generally appeals to conservatives. 

Ratification would also give the U.S. a vote at international seabed negotiations where the terms for trying to minimize mining’s impact on ocean ecosystems are now being hashed out. Having a stronger voice in these global talks stresses the importance of following the science — a tenet that appeals to many liberals. 

In late 2023, Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, joined several senators to push the U.S. to ratify the Law of the Sea. It was the closest Murkowski and her colleagues have come to winning over two thirds of U.S. senators, the critical number needed for ratification. Most Republican senators are treaty-averse, claiming that treaties risk U.S. independence; for years, GOP lawmakers have said they are reluctant to risk sovereignty when it comes to the sea.  But, with the Law of the Sea, Murkowski is very close to breaking the decades-long stalemate. 

The U.S. returns to the deep

The U.S. has been in this position before, leading the wave of brazen entrepreneurs who want to mine the deep.  

About 50 years ago, a U.S. company named Deepsea Ventures pioneered deep-sea mining technology and tried to unilaterally mine in international waters. For my ongoing reporting on deep-sea mining, I recently revisited a museum archive in Newport News, Va. to remind myself just how badly things flopped back then. Yellowed documents from the 1970s and 1980s show how other companies tried deep-sea mining, including U.S. weapons giant Lockheed Martin, but the tech hurdles were difficult and the payoff uncertain — or, as one newspaper wrote, “imaginary.” By 1984, about $650 million had been spent on developing the U.S. deep-sea mining industry with zero return. To this day, no commercial-scale seabed mining has ever taken place. 

Trump’s recent executive order called deep-sea mining “the next gold rush.” If that sounds urgent, I invite you to the Mariners Museum archive where you can see that same exact “next gold rush” tag line being used by deep-sea mining executives back in 1981. The industry never turned a profit. 

U.S. allies respond

The president’s mining directive is already hurting the U.S. relationship with its allies. 

First came a strongly written letter. France, Germany, Sweden and 21 other countries condemned the Trump Administration’s intentions to unilaterally mine the international seabed, calling it “contrary to international law” in a letter released in June 2025. 

The 24 countries that joined in June’s letter believe that the U.S. has no jurisdiction to give out mining licenses in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, in the remote Eastern Pacific, or any place in the high seas. That area is the jurisdiction of the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a United Nations-affiliated body that regulates the seabed according to the conditions spelled out in the Law of the Sea treaty.

A month later, in July, delegates from France, Russia, China, and most of the world’s other major economies gathered to continue mining code negotiations in a conference center in Kingston, Jamaica. The U.S. participated as an ​“observer.”

I attended as a member of the news media and witnessed as the delegates failed to finalize a mining code. I also witnessed long-time allies moving towards China in response to Trump’s go-it-alone mining push.  

At one point, a member of the Chinese delegation called the U.S. explanation for permitting mining in international waters ​“unacceptable.” It omits key facts, the Chinese delegate said, about the long U.S. history of obeying and endorsing international law regarding the high seas. China was the first country to publicly condemn Trump’s deep-sea mining order in April, but Brazil and Panama took the floor to publicly side with the U.S. economic rival.  

The U.N.-level negotiations devolved into a fiery airing of grievances against the United States. 

A risky industry flocks to the U.S.

The Metals Company, which lost its patience seeking a permit through the international community, is seeking a speedier deal with the U.S. as a “stable” pathway. 

The Metals Company argues that its technology today is far different than tech used 50 years ago. It says that the company spent half a billion dollars carrying out all necessary technological and environmental tests. But just five months ago, TMC reported only $3.5 million in the bank and $41.5 million in available loans, which is a tricky financial position for an industry pioneer. 

Many experts say that the economic case for deep-sea mining is just as weak as it was in the 1970s. Historians agree that U.S. 20th century ocean mining pioneers failed because of bad economic forecasts and high financial risk. Those pioneers could never make the math work. 

But Gerard Barron, The Metals Company’s CEO, told members of Congress in April that the 1982 Law of the Sea treaty – and its legacy of multilateralism – is what killed the U.S. 20th century deep-sea dreams. 

This alternative history defies the historical record. When I attended a deep-sea mining industry conference last year — the only reporter present — every conversation I had was about risk. One speaker lamented the industry’s unknown operational costs, like transporting nodules back to shore. A contractor hired by the Metals Company said the human safety risk of transferring nodules between ships on rough seas thousands of miles from shore is also unknown. 

Still, the Trump administration indicated that The Metals Company could receive a commercial “recovery” permit in international waters in as little as 60 days under an obscure 1980 law, the U.S. Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Resources Act, which predates the Law of the Sea. Congress at the time called the 1980 law an “interim legal regime.” 

Before the U.N. treaty went into full force in 1994, the U.S. issued four exploration leases in the Pacific’s Clarion-Clipperton zone. Nothing ever happened in the U.S.-issued lease area except tests. In 1995, NOAA stopped asking Congress to staff and operate its seabed leasing program due to the dormant industry. The NOAA program continued to exist only on paper until Trump invoked the law in his executive order in April. Now, NOAA is wholly unprepared to serve an entirely new mining sector. 

Another deep-sea mining company, Impossible Metals, is seeking an exploration permit for minerals within U.S. waters, near American Samoa, which does not risk violating international law. The company has new robotic technology that it claims is cheaper, safer to operate and has far less environmental impact. In contrast to The Metals Company, the Impossible Metals’ CEO told lawmakers in April at a congressional hearing that he was against a fast-track approach. I’m following Impossible Metals’ approach with great interest. 

Mining our deep ocean may indeed be “inevitable,” but working with allies and environmental experts is the best shot for the U.S. to do the least damage in earth’s final frontier.