The United States’ Reactivation of Deep-Seabed Mining Under DSHMRA and Executive Order 14285

In 2025, the US witnessed a significant growth in corporate interest and activity in deep sea mining under US laws, namely, the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act 30 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. (“DSHMRA”). This has largely been driven by a renewed federal push to secure critical mineral resources from the ocean floor, spurred by President Donald Trump’s Executive Order (E.O.) 14285, ‘Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources’, issued in April 2025.

E.O. 14285 directs US federal agencies to accelerate the development of offshore critical minerals, including by expediting the review and issuance of seabed mineral exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits under DSHMRA in areas beyond national jurisdiction (“ABNJ”), i.e. outside of US territorial waters. E.O. 14285 has signalled a pivotal shift in US seabed mining policy, with private sector actors mobilising investment to develop offshore mineral resources, particularly in international waters.

Since the issuance of E.O. 14285, The Metals Company USA, LLC. (“TMC USA”) became the first company to apply for exploration licenses and a commercial recovery permit under DSHMRA in May 2025.

This article explores the US legal framework for deep sea mining, namely, DSHMRA (including the US regulator in charge of administering DSHMRA), the policy objectives behind E.O. 14285 and implications for the deep sea mining industry.

What is the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act?

DSHMRA was passed by the US Congress in 1980 to establish a domestic legal regime to regulate deep seabed mining activities by US nationals in the ABNJ while the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”) remained under negotiation. The primary reasons for Congress passing DSHMRA were:

• to provide a licensing and permitting framework for US nationals to conduct deep seabed exploration and commercial recovery activities in the ABNJ – which activities the US has considered as forming part of the freedoms of the high seas – until an international treaty for deep sea mining was finalised and ratified by the US;

• to reduce the US’s dependency on foreign sources for critical hard minerals (such as nickel, cobalt and manganese) as the deep seabed offered an alternate, independent source of supply essential for US industrial needs; and

• to ensure that exploration and commercial recovery activities were conducted in a manner that ensures resource conservation and the protection of the marine environment and promotes the safety of life and property at sea.

The US ultimately did not sign or ratify UNCLOS and has remained a persistent objector to the competence of the International Seabed Authority to regulate seabed mining activities for US nationals. The US recently confirmed this position at the Meeting of States Parties to UNCLOS in June 2025 and at the 30th Session of the International Seabed Authority Assembly in July 2025.

DSHMRA remains the governing regulatory regime for deep sea mining for US nationals in the ABNJ.

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) is the US federal agency charged with administering DSHMRA, including the issuance of exploration licenses to explore a specific area and commercial recovery permits allowing resource extraction.

To date, NOAA has issued four exploration licenses under DSHMRA. In 1984, NOAA issued exploration licenses to four US mining consortia for an initial term of ten years in relation to four areas located outside of US jurisdiction in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (“CCZ”).

In recent years, NOAA has approved extension requests with respect to certain licenses. A license can be extended by five-year periods. Whilst NOAA has not issued any new exploration licenses since 1984, two exploration licenses remain active today, both now held by Lockheed Martin Corporation.

NOAA has not issued any commercial recovery permits. As such, commercial recovery or large-scale mining of deep seabed minerals has not yet been conducted by US nationals under DSHMRA.

E.O. 14285: ‘Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources’

On 24 April 2025, Donald Trump issued E.O. 14285, “Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources”. The Executive Order establishes a new US strategy to accelerate the exploration, development and processing of critical minerals found in the deep seabed, including in the US Outer Continental Shelf and the ABNJ.

E.O. 14285 sets forth a policy to:

• accelerate domestic capabilities for seabed mineral exploration and processing;

• streamline permitting processes while maintaining environmental and transparency standards;

• invest in deep sea science, mapping and technology;

• coordinate federal agencies to support seabed mineral development;

• advance US leadership in responsible seabed mining practices globally;

• create a robust domestic supply chain for critical minerals derived from the deep seabed; and

• strengthen partnerships with allies and industry in respect of developing seabed mineral resources.

In essence, the Executive Order is a policy statement designed to inject federal resources into the deep seabed mining industry to support and encourage investment by US entities, positioning it as a strategic priority for US national security and economic independence.

For the purpose of implementing this policy, the Executive Order directs, among other things, the US Secretary of Commerce, through NOAA, to expedite the process for reviewing and issuing exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits under DSHMRA and identify private sector interest and opportunities for seabed mineral resource exploration and processing capacity.

Following the issuance of E.O. 14285 and TMC USA’s applications for exploration licenses and a commercial recovery permit, NOAA has proposed a rule to amend DSHMRA’s implementing regulations to provide for an expedited, consolidated license and permit application review process. A consolidated application review process had been conceived by US legislators when DSHMRA was introduced in 1980 but included as a placeholder, there being no legal or practical need for a consolidated review process at the time.

Implications of DSHMRA and E.O. 14285

As global demand for critical minerals continues to rise, particularly in the push for the clean energy transition and global supply chain resilience, E.O. 14285 presents a significant opportunity for private companies to pursue deep seabed exploration and mining through the US DSHMRA regime.

DSHMRA offers a clear regulatory framework to apply for exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits in the ABNJ, while E.O. 14285 ensures that any applications received by NOAA are reviewed and processed in an efficient and expeditious manner.

For legal advisers working with corporates, investors or states that may be affected by the resurgence of deep-sea mining initiatives under US law and beyond, the rapidly evolving legal landscape raises multiple strategic, compliance, and risk-management imperatives:

Understand the International Law Context and Conflicts with UNCLOS

The regulatory backdrop for seabed mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction (“ABNJ”) is rooted in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”), which establishes the International Seabed Authority (ISA) as the body responsible for regulating seabed activities for the “common heritage of mankind.” Exploration and exploitation activities in these international waters traditionally require ISA contracts and compliance with its rules and procedures, including environmental safeguards.

The United States has not ratified UNCLOS, however, and proponents of unilateral programmes argue that customary international law does not bind non-party states in the same way — a position that remains contested in legal scholarship and multilateral fora.

Implications for lawyers: Advisers must be fluent in both UNCLOS/ISA regulatory mechanisms and the legal arguments used by non-party states — particularly where commercial activity could conflict with established international frameworks. This is critical for risk assessment, contractual protections and compliance advice, and may affect choice of law and dispute resolution forums.

Monitor Regulatory Developments and Environmental Obligations

The ISA is still finalising its mining code to govern deep-sea exploitation, and more than 30 countries, supported by environmental groups, are calling for moratoria or precautionary approaches pending robust scientific and legal frameworks.

Environmental considerations are central to international obligations under UNCLOS and the emerging High Seas Treaty on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, which came into force in January 2026 and adds a layer of binding environmental commitment for states party to that treaty.

Implications for lawyers: Corporate counsel should incorporate environmental due diligence and regulatory forecasting into client advice, particularly for firms involved in critical minerals, energy and infrastructure. Legal teams should evaluate how environmental standards and monitoring obligations may affect licensing conditions, civil liability, and investor confidence.

Assess Risks Around Unilateral Approaches and Diplomatic Backlash

The Solicitors Journal audience should note that pursuing seabed mining outside the consensus ISA regime — for example, under unilateral national statutes like the US Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act — carries geopolitical, reputational and legal risks. Various states and multilateral actors argue that such approaches could violate international law or undermine the ISA’s mandate, with potential diplomatic consequences and commercial uncertainty.

Implications for lawyers: Legal teams advising multinational clients should incorporate country risk, treaty obligations, and multilateral relations into risk matrices. Contract clauses and investment agreements may need bespoke language addressing governance gaps, competing jurisdictions, and dispute mechanisms.

Prepare Contractual and Commercial Strategies

As the regulatory picture crystallises — whether under ISA rules, national frameworks like DSHMRA, or a hybrid regime — lawyers should ensure that commercial contracts for deep-sea activities include:

• Clear allocation of legal responsibilities for environmental compliance and remediation;

• Robust dispute-resolution provisions that take account of conflicting jurisdictional claims;

• Force majeure and regulatory change provisions to address potential shifts in international law or treaty commitments;

• Insurance and indemnity clauses that reflect both conventional mining risks and novel maritime liabilities.

These contractual tools will be essential for clients seeking finance, partners or insurers wary of legal uncertainty in deep-sea projects.

Stay Ahead of Litigation and Liability Questions

Emerging legal commentary highlights gaps in liability regimes for deep-sea mining activities, particularly given the novelty of the environment and uncertain legal standards for harm and compensation.

Implications for lawyers: Counsel should advise clients on potential future litigation — both civil and international — that could arise from environmental damage, treaty compliance disputes, or claims brought under domestic law by affected third parties. Proactive risk assessments and scenario planning may mitigate exposure.

Copyright & permissions