The New NOAA Rule on Deep Seabed Mining: A Dangerous Shortcut That Undermines Ocean Stewardship

On 21 January 2026, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration finalized a rule that could fundamentally alter the future of our global ocean—and not for the better.

By consolidating exploration and commercial mining applications into a single streamlined process, the agency has cut environmental assessments and public comment periods in half, reducing the hurdles for industry to access the deep seabed for mining. The Metals Company wasted no time, immediately filing to mine 65,000 square kilometers of the Pacific’s Clarion-Clipperton Zone—more than doubling its original request in this abyssal plain that is known to support thousands of species.

As someone who has spent nearly four decades working on international ocean policy and stewardship, I find this deeply troubling on multiple fronts. These shortcuts pose threats to all life under the sea and the processes that sustain life on Earth. They risk the destruction of underwater cultural heritage. They upend international processes and set a precedent that threatens other agreements that protect our common natural heritage and social wellbeing. Because deep-seabed mining also makes no economic sense, this mad rush seems all the more impetuous.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

The deep seabed is not the barren wasteland mining proponents would have us believe. It’s home to a staggering array of biodiversity, much of it still undiscovered. Experts have said that the diversity of the abyssal plane is related to largely unchanged conditions over millions of years, which allowed many species to develop and thrive.

Studies show that life on the seafloor would take many decades to recover from mining—if it recovered at all. The proposed extraction method—essentially vacuuming the top four inches of the seabed—would crush living organisms, destroy substrate habitat, and create sediment plumes affecting the entire water column. With 80% of the seabed still unmapped, we don’t have the baseline data to understand what we’d be destroying. As Dr. Beth Orcutt of Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences warns, “The stakes are really high if we get it wrong.”

THE DUBIOUS CASE FOR URGENCY (or even NECESSITY)

Mining companies argue these minerals are essential for electric vehicle batteries. The evidence says otherwise for both recycling and future manufacturing.

Battery recycling technologies are advancing rapidly and have proven to be more cost-effective than new mining. Circular economy strategies offer sustainable alternatives. Investment in recycling, not extraction from pristine ecosystems, is the responsible path forward.

Innovation in battery technology has moved decisively away from cobalt and nickel. LFP batteries—which don’t use deep-sea metals—already represent a third of the global EV market. Tesla, BYD, Volkswagen, Rivian, and Ford are already using this technology. And Toyota just announced a workable, solid-state battery that still relies on some of these same minerals but increases energy density, charging speed, safety, and significantly improves longevity.

Between 2016 and 2023, EV production increased by 2,000%, while cobalt prices fell by 10%. Chinese battery makers, which produce most of the world’s batteries, have recently moved entirely away from cobalt and nickel. The market is telling us something that those rushing to destroy the seabed are not hearing.

LEGAL AND DIPLOMATIC CONCERNS

The United States is not a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, nor a member of the International Seabed Authority that the Convention created to regulate seabed mining in international waters. However, because that treaty is in force, the non-party countries are bound to abide by it under customary international law. By moving to issue permits in areas outside U.S. jurisdiction for which the ISA has been painstakingly developing regulations through multilateral negotiation, the U.S. risks setting a precedent that ignores those processes and agreements, encouraging others to violate the mutual agreements intended to create international guardrails for everyone.

Forty countries—including France, Germany, the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and numerous Pacific Island nations—have called for a moratorium or a precautionary pause on deep-sea mining. Even the ISA, criticized by some as too industry-friendly, has been more cautious than this new U.S. approach.

Under UNCLOS, States have a duty not to recognize mineral rights obtained outside the established international framework. The industry’s future is legally murky: many contractors and supply chain participants are based in countries committed to complying with ISA rules, not in the U.S., where permits bypass them.

CULTURAL HERITAGE AT RISK

What few recognize is that deep-seabed mining also threatens irreplaceable underwater cultural heritage. The seafloor holds shipwrecks, submerged archaeological sites, and—in the Atlantic—the final resting places of those who perished during the Middle Passage. AI-based mineral identification cannot yet recognize sites of historic and cultural significance, meaning this heritage could be destroyed before it’s even discovered.

Indigenous leaders from Pacific island communities, including American Samoa and Hawaii, have been outspoken critics of this industry. Their cultures have origin stories tied to the deep sea and have lived in relationship with the ocean for millennia. The new rule removes the ability to ensure effective protection—not just of marine ecosystems, but of this intangible cultural heritage.

FINANCIAL RED FLAGS

The Ocean Foundation’s recent analysis found that the business case for deep-seabed mining doesn’t add up. Operating in conditions exceeding Titanic’s depth, under high pressure, in corrosive seawater, and freezing temperatures, presents enormous technical challenges that have yet to be solved. Two-thirds of comparable offshore industrial projects end up costing 50% or more than their initial budgets.
Thirty-seven financial institutions have urged governments to pause deep-seabed mining until environmental, sociocultural, and economic risks are understood. If the major banks and insurers are skeptical, that should give us pause.

A BETTER PATH FORWARD

The deep ocean is the largest habitat for life on Earth. It is part of the common heritage of humankind. The processes through the International Seabed Authority are deliberative and precautionary for a very good reason: The global recognition that we cannot afford to be wrong.

The deep ocean is the largest habitat for life on Earth. It is part of the common heritage of humankind. The processes through the International Seabed Authority are deliberative and precautionary for a very good reason: The global recognition that we cannot afford to be wrong.

The precautionary principle exists for exactly this situation: when we don’t fully understand the consequences of an action that could cause irreversible harm, we should proceed with caution—not streamline the path to destruction. This is particularly true when we consider any new industrial activities that risk our global natural heritage and the ocean’s life-supporting roles.

This rule does the opposite. It removes safeguards, sidesteps international cooperation, and puts an untested industry’s wishes ahead of technological developments and scientific understanding.

We don’t have to choose between reducing transportation pollution and protecting the ocean. There is no true urgency to mine for these materials—the market has evolved to meet the demand for alternatives. Those entities that would carry the greatest immediate financial risk in this new arena—the banking, investment, and insurance companies—have argued for the precautionary approach.

We have time to get it right. There is no reason to rush to industrialize. There is every reason to be mindful of any new burdens on our global ocean, the 71% of the planet on which all life depends.