U.S. Oceans Policy and Blue Economy Opportunities: Strategic Infrastructure and Geopolitical Positioning in Maritime Trade

The United States' approach to oceans policy and the blue economy is increasingly shaped by a delicate balance between geopolitical strategy, infrastructure development, and the pursuit of resource sovereignty. As global maritime trade faces disruptions from geopolitical tensions, environmental imperatives, and technological shifts, the U.S. is recalibrating its investments in deep-sea technology, offshore energy, and maritime security. These efforts are deeply intertwined with the unresolved question of U.S. adherence to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a framework that could either bolster or constrain American influence in a rapidly evolving global order.

The UNCLOS Dilemma: Legal Frameworks and Geopolitical Leverage

The U.S. has long operated under the premise that many UNCLOS provisions reflect customary international law, yet its refusal to ratify the treaty has left it in a legal gray area. Proponents argue that ratification would strengthen U.S. claims to its vast EEZ and provide access to international bodies like the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) to validate territorial claims. Conversely, critics warn of potential constraints on military operations in EEZs and exposure to compulsory dispute resolution mechanisms, as seen in the South China Sea. This ambiguity has not deterred the U.S. from leveraging UNCLOS principles selectively, such as in its arguments over the Northwest Passage's status as an international strait according to analysis. However, the lack of formal ratification weakens its legal standing in contested waters, particularly as rivals like China assert UNCLOS-based claims to expand their maritime influence according to research.

Deep-Sea Technology: A Strategic Frontier

Recent executive actions under the Trump administration have accelerated investments in deep-sea technology and critical mineral extraction, driven by the need to secure supply chains for defense and energy sectors. Executive Order 14044, signed in April 2025, mandates the development of a "seabed-to-metal" supply chain for minerals like nickel, cobalt, and rare earth elements. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has streamlined permitting processes for deep-sea mining, allowing simultaneous applications for exploration and commercial recovery permits. These moves align with the Department of the Interior's expedited policies for offshore mineral leasing, including partnerships with companies like Impossible Metals near American Samoa according to reports.

However, the U.S. strategy faces pushback from international institutions and competitors. The Metals Company (TMC), a U.S.-based firm, has drawn criticism from the International Seabed Authority (ISA) and the European Union for bypassing ISA regulations. This unilateral approach risks isolating the U.S. in global governance frameworks while raising environmental concerns about deep-sea ecosystem impacts. Investors must weigh these geopolitical and ecological risks against the potential rewards of securing critical minerals essential for green technologies and defense systems.

Offshore Energy and Geopolitical Alliances

The U.S. is also pivoting toward offshore energy projects to reduce reliance on adversarial nations and strengthen alliances. The Department of Energy's $1 billion investment in critical mineral processing and manufacturing in August 2025 underscores this shift. Bilateral agreements with Australia ($8.5 billion in gallium refining) and Japan (grants and loans for mineral development) highlight the administration's focus on diversifying supply chains according to analysis. In the Middle East, a $49% equity stake in a Saudi rare earth refinery, co-funded with MP Materials and Maaden, signals a strategic alignment with regional partners to counter Chinese dominance in refining.

These investments are not without challenges. The U.S. Geological Survey's 2025 list of 60 critical minerals, including newly added boron and copper, reflects the expanding scope of resource competition. Meanwhile, geopolitical tensions in chokepoints like the Red Sea-where Houthi attacks have forced shipping reroutes- underscore the fragility of global trade networks. Offshore energy projects must therefore integrate robust security measures and contingency planning to mitigate disruptions.

Maritime Security: Contracts and Contested Waters

Maritime security has emerged as a cornerstone of U.S. geopolitical positioning, with contracts and operations expanding to address both traditional and emerging threats. In Q3–Q4 2025, the U.S. has intensified naval presence in the Red Sea through initiatives like Operation Prosperity Guardian, responding to Houthi attacks that disrupt 12% of global shipping. Simultaneously, sanctions on Russian maritime trade and GPS jamming incidents in key ports highlight the growing complexity of maritime security.

The absence of UNCLOS ratification complicates these efforts. For instance, the U.S. cannot formally challenge Canada's sovereignty claims over the Northwest Passage, a critical Arctic route according to analysis. This legal limbo contrasts with China's use of UNCLOS to justify its South China Sea claims, exposing a strategic inconsistency in U.S. maritime diplomacy. To address these gaps, the U.S. is investing in technologies like the Polar Security Cutter (PSC) and environmental modeling systems to enhance Arctic capabilities according to research. Investors in maritime security contracts should monitor how these initiatives evolve in tandem with broader geopolitical shifts.

Conclusion: Navigating the Blue Economy's Crossroads

The U.S. blue economy stands at a crossroads, where historical policy frameworks like UNCLOS intersect with emerging investment opportunities. While deep-sea mining and offshore energy projects promise significant returns, they are inextricably linked to geopolitical risks and legal uncertainties. Maritime security contracts, meanwhile, underscore the U.S.'s role in safeguarding global trade but highlight the limitations of its current legal standing. For investors, the key lies in aligning with strategies that balance innovation with multilateral cooperation, ensuring that the blue economy remains both resilient and equitable in an era of rising tensions.