President Donald Trump’s recent efforts to bypass international regulations and fast-track deep-sea mining in international waters could trigger a race among nations to claim sovereignty over the oceans, legal experts caution.
Last month, Trump signed an executive order speeding up permits for seabed mining—both domestically and beyond U.S. jurisdiction—citing a little-known 1980 law. The move has raised concerns as Canadian firm The Metals Company has already applied for commercial deep-sea mining rights in international waters, circumventing the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the UN-backed body governing ocean floors outside national borders.
The legal framework for ocean governance stems largely from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), established in 1982 to prevent a chaotic scramble for control over seabed resources. Though the U.S. never ratified the treaty, it has historically adhered to many of its principles.
“The U.S. benefits greatly from customary international maritime law,” said Coalter Lathrop, an attorney at Sovereign Geographic. “But if it selectively ignores the principle that deep-sea minerals belong to humanity as a whole, it could destabilize the entire legal order of the oceans.” He warned that unilateral U.S. actions might unravel a system that has long served American interests.
International Backlash
The U.S. and Canadian moves have drawn sharp criticism from ISA members, including China, which called the move a breach of international law. ISA Secretary-General Leticia Carvalho cautioned that “unilateral actions set a dangerous precedent, threatening global ocean governance.”
While The Metals Company holds contracts with ISA members like Japan—partnering with smelting firm Pamco—legal experts suggest these nations could still enforce UNCLOS rules against the company, even if the U.S. grants it a permit.
“This is Trump’s most dangerous move yet,” said Guy Standing, an economist at the University of London. “If ocean laws collapse, we could see a free-for-all, with major powers like the U.S., China, and Russia dividing up the Arctic and other regions.”
However, not all experts agree. James Kraska, a professor of maritime law at the U.S. Naval War College, argued that “the U.S. has no legal obligation to comply with a treaty it never joined,” dismissing concerns as politically motivated rather than legally grounded.
The controversy highlights growing tensions between national interests and international cooperation in managing the world’s oceans—a conflict that could reshape global maritime law.
