Trump’s Seabed Mining Order Sparks Fierce Congressional Debate and Global Backlash, But Is it Relevant?

Highlights

• President Trump’s executive order fast-tracks seabed mining.
• Intense political and international controversy arises over mineral extraction in the Pacific Ocean.
• The Metals Company seeks to extract mineral-rich polymetallic nodules from the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.
• The company promises a new mineral supply chain independent of China.
• Congressional hearing reveals deep partisan divides.
• Key issues include environmental risks, economic feasibility, and geopolitical strategy.

---

According to a New York Times article (opens in a new tab) from today, less than a week after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to fast-track seabed mining, the decision has ignited a contentious political battle in Washington and drawn sharp criticism from the international community. At the heart of the controversy is the Metals Company (opens in a new tab), a firm eager to tap into the Pacific Ocean’s hidden wealth of critical minerals such as cobalt, nickel, and manganese. The company’s CEO, Gerard Barron (opens in a new tab), appeared before the House Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday to defend what he hailed as a transformative moment for American industrial strategy—likening Trump’s order to a “starting gun” in a global race for deep-sea resources.

A Race for a Different Kind Mining

Barron’s company promptly submitted the first permit application under the new order, signaling its readiness to extract mineral-rich polymetallic nodules lying more than two miles beneath the ocean’s surface. The nodules, concentrated in the vast Clarion-Clipperton Zone between Hawaii and Mexico, are thought to contain more of some minerals than all known land-based reserves combined. For proponents like Barron, seabed mining promises both a mineral supply chain independent of China and a boon for American jobs and industry.

But the congressional hearing made clear that enthusiasm is far from unanimous. Democratic lawmakers, led by Representative Jared Huffman (opens in a new tab) of California, lambasted the move as premature, environmentally dangerous, and based on speculative economics. Huffman condemned the approach as a “reckless cowboy manner,” accusing both Trump and the Metals Company of sidestepping due diligence and international norms in their rush to mine the deep sea.

Democratic skepticism was echoed by Representative Maxine Dexter of Oregon, who questioned the underlying business case for seabed mining. With electric vehicle manufacturers increasingly pivoting to battery technologies that don’t rely on cobalt or nickel, she argued that the industry’s projections are “wildly optimistic” and disconnected from evolving market realities.

Conflicted Realities

The hearing also revealed deep partisan divides. Republicans, spearheaded by Committee Chairman Paul Gosar (opens in a new tab) of Arizona, argued that seabed mining is crucial for reducing America’s dependence on China, which currently dominates the global processing of key minerals. Gosar framed the executive order as a necessary geopolitical countermeasure, particularly in light of recent Chinese export restrictions on rare earth elements, which are vital to American technology and defense industries.

As political faultlines deepened in Washington, the global response was no less fraught. By declaring its intent to mine not just in U.S. territorial waters but also in areas governed by international agreement, the Trump administration has drawn accusations of flouting international law. Most countries recognize the authority of the International Seabed Authority (opens in a new tab) (ISA), a United Nations-backed body that has spent decades developing a regulatory framework for deep-sea mining. Progress at the ISA has been notoriously slow—Barron called the 14-year delay in establishing a mining code “a deliberate strategy” to stonewall the industry—but critics argue that the U.S. move undermines multilateralism at a moment when global environmental governance is already strained.

The committee also heard from Thomas Peacock (opens in a new tab), a mechanical engineering professor at MIT who has studied the environmental impact of seabed mining, including in research partially funded by the Metals Company. Peacock struck a more cautious but not entirely critical tone, suggesting that some of the ecological risks, such as sediment plumes impacting marine ecosystems, might be less dire than commonly feared. He likened the potential disruption to “a grain of sand in a fishbowl.”

A Third Way?

Still, even among mining advocates, there’s a push for more careful methods. Oliver Gunasekara, CEO (opens in a new tab) of a rival company, Impossible Metals (opens in a new tab), told the committee that his firm is developing technology that selectively harvests nodules without disturbing the seafloor. Using AI-guided underwater robots that hover above the seabed, Gunasekara claims they can collect minerals while leaving 60 percent of the area untouched and avoiding visible marine life altogether. His company has reapplied for an exploration permit near American Samoa, confident that the new political leadership will be more receptive.

Trump’s executive order has undeniably re-energized the debate over seabed mining, a practice long held at the fringes of both environmental and industrial policy. As Congress, industry leaders, and scientists grapple with the risks and rewards, the outcome could shape not just the future of mineral extraction but also the boundaries of international cooperation and environmental stewardship in a rapidly warming world. The question now is whether the race to the bottom of the ocean can—or should—be run at all.

Realities

A contrarian point of view: how will seabed mining help the U.S. out of its current jam in the short to intermediate run?

Deep-sea mineral mining, while promising in theory, is unlikely to solve the REE crunch created by China in the near or even medium term. The technology is still largely experimental, with no commercial-scale operations producing critical minerals at an industrial rate. Massive capital investment, environmental uncertainty, and complex international legal frameworks surrounding seabed rights further delay development.

Even if mining were to begin within the next decade, it would still require years of permitting, infrastructure buildup, and downstream processing capacity, much of which remains concentrated in China. Critically, China’s dominance isn’t just in raw materials but in refining, separation, and magnet production, areas where deep-sea mining offers no near-term alternative. Thus, seabed extraction is not a practical pathway to rare earth independence today—it is a long-term prospect at best.