Plumbing the Depths: The U.S. Deep-Sea Mining Gambit Against China's Mineral Supremacy

The U.S. has launched a bold strategic maneuver to secure its position in the global race for critical minerals. On April 24, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) titled Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources, aiming to fast-track seabed mining and counter China’s dominance in critical mineral supply chains. This policy signals a pivotal shift toward leveraging deep-sea resources to bolster national security, economic resilience, and technological leadership.

The Mineral Lode Beneath the Waves

The seabed holds staggering reserves of critical minerals, including nickel, cobalt, and rare earth elements—key components for batteries, renewable energy systems, and advanced defense technologies. The CCZ alone contains 21.1 billion tons of polymetallic nodules, with ore grades of 31% manganese, 1.4% nickel, and 0.2% cobalt. These deposits rival terrestrial reserves, but their extraction remains unproven at scale.

The U.S. is racing to capitalize. The EO mandates accelerated seabed mapping and permits for exploration, prioritizing areas like its Outer Continental Shelf, where over 50% of waters remain unmapped. However, the lack of domestic processing infrastructure poses a hurdle. Only one company has produced battery-grade materials (cobalt and nickel sulfate) from nodules in bench-scale tests, underscoring the need for massive capital investments.

This data highlights investor interest in battery-tech supply chains, a sector directly tied to deep-sea mineral demand.

Policy Pillars: Speed, Tech, and Alliances

The EO’s core strategy hinges on three pillars:
1. Expedited Permitting: The Department of Commerce and Interior must fast-track licenses for exploration and extraction, streamlining environmental reviews without compromising standards.
2. Technological Supremacy: Investments in seabed-mapping drones, autonomous mining systems, and processing tech aim to ensure U.S. leadership.
3. Counter-China Alliances: The U.S. will partner with nations like Japan and the Cook Islands to counter China’s lead in seabed claims. Beijing currently holds five exploration licenses in the CCZ—more than any other nation—and has invested heavily in dual-use maritime tech.

The Risks: Environmental Backlash and Legal Quagmires

Despite its ambition, the policy faces formidable headwinds. Over 30 countries, including Canada and Germany, have called for a moratorium on seabed mining until environmental impacts are understood. Deep-sea ecosystems, home to undiscovered species, could be irreparably damaged by mining operations.

Legally, the U.S. is skating on thin ice. The EO bypasses the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which governs international waters under UNCLOS—a treaty the U.S. has never ratified. By invoking the outdated Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA), the U.S. risks clashes with nations holding ISA-issued licenses. China has already condemned the move as a violation of international law, raising geopolitical tensions.

Investment Implications: Winners and Losers

For investors, the EO opens opportunities—and risks—in three key areas:

1. Technology Providers: Firms developing seabed-mapping drones (e.g., Boeing’s autonomous systems division) or mineral-processing tech could see demand surge.
2. Critical Mineral ETFs: The reflect investor focus on minerals vital for green tech and defense.
3. Processing Infrastructure: The EO’s reliance on the Defense Production Act (DPA) to fund facilities faces limitations—its $50 million per project cap may deter large-scale investments.

However, environmental lawsuits and regulatory delays could derail projects. Companies like Lockheed Martin (LMT), with expertise in seabed robotics, face both upside and reputational risks.

Conclusion: A High-Stakes Gamble with Long Odds

The U.S. is wagering that deep-sea mining can secure its technological and military edge. With the CCZ’s nodules offering 1.4% nickel content—comparable to top terrestrial deposits—the prize is immense. Yet, the path is fraught. Environmental opposition, legal disputes, and the $50 million DPA funding ceiling create barriers to scaling infrastructure.

Investors should weigh these factors carefully. While ETFs like LIT and REMX offer exposure to the theme, direct investments in seabed-mining firms carry high execution risk. The U.S. may yet succeed, but the depths of this ambition could also lead to uncharted pitfalls.

As the race for seabed resources intensifies, one truth remains clear: whoever masters the minerals beneath the waves will shape the technologies—and conflicts—of the 21st century.