The United States government has quietly approved a sweeping change to how companies can mine the deep ocean, igniting a fierce backlash from scientists, coastal communities, and environmental advocates. Critics warn that fast‑tracking industrial machines onto the seafloor could destabilize marine ecosystems and trigger economic losses measured in the tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars. They argue that at a moment when oceans are already under strain from climate change and rising seas, Washington is gambling with assets the country cannot afford to lose.
At the center of the storm is a new rule that would make it easier for corporations to scrape mineral‑rich rocks from the deep seabed, a frontier the world barely understands. Supporters frame the move as a pragmatic way to secure metals for batteries and national security, but opponents say the administration is repeating a familiar pattern: weakening safeguards for short‑term gain while coastal infrastructure, fisheries, and even military bases face mounting, ocean‑driven threats.
What the new seabed rule actually does
The controversy begins with a decision by federal ocean regulators to streamline permits for deep seabed mining in areas beyond traditional coastal waters. Under the change, applicants can consolidate what used to be separate license and permit processes into a single, faster track, a shift that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, framed as a way to give industry more certainty. Legal analysts note that the final rule, issued in Jan, explicitly aims to encourage exploration for polymetallic nodules, the potato‑sized rocks on the deep sea floor that contain cobalt, nickel, and other metals coveted by battery makers. By collapsing regulatory steps, the government has signaled that it wants to move from theory to practice on industrial‑scale extraction.
Environmental groups say that shift is premature and dangerous. One detailed account describes how the new U.S. rule would allow heavy machinery to scrape mineral‑rich rocks from the ocean floor, kicking up plumes of sediment and noise in places where life has evolved in near‑total darkness over millions of years. Scientists quoted in that reporting warn that the material disturbed on the seafloor does not stay put, but can drift through the water column, potentially smothering fragile corals and disrupting species that form the base of marine food webs. In their view, the government is opening the door to a high‑risk experiment before it fully understands what lies beneath, a concern echoed in coverage that says the stakes for the ocean are “really high.”
Why critics say the stakes run into the billions
Opponents of the seabed rule are not only worried about biodiversity, they are also focused on the balance sheet. The United States already depends on healthy oceans for a commercial and recreational fishing sector that experts told senators is worth $253 billion in economic activity. In that testimony, Sydney Dunlap relayed warnings that Climate change is already putting that industry at risk, from shifting fish stocks to ocean acidification. Layering deep sea mining on top of those pressures, critics argue, could further destabilize ecosystems that support jobs in coastal towns from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico. If fish populations decline or migrate away from U.S. waters because of noise, pollution, or habitat loss linked to seabed operations, the economic hit could be severe.
The financial exposure does not stop with fisheries. Separate analysis of federal facilities along the coast found that Rising Seas Imperil US Sites, Military Bases Worth $387 Billion, with Floods projected to increase yearly at hundreds of sites. That assessment warns that a lack of planning by Defense and other departments could leave critical infrastructure exposed. For opponents of the seabed rule, this is the context that makes the decision so alarming: at the very moment the country should be hardening bases, ports, and coastal cities against climate‑driven damage, it is greenlighting a new industrial activity that could further destabilize the ocean systems that buffer storms and support coastal economies.
A broader pattern of loosening water protections
The seabed mining rule is landing alongside other moves that, taken together, look to many like a systematic weakening of water safeguards. Earlier this month, the Environmental Protection Agency announced a proposal to revise a key section of the Clean Water Act, a change that tribal leaders and environmental advocates say would weaken states’ and tribes’ ability to protect their citizens from upstream pollution. A summary from the Rachel Carson Council notes that the Environmental Protection Agency move would narrow the scope of reviews for projects that could affect water quality, raising fears that industrial discharges and infrastructure projects will face less scrutiny. For communities that rely on rivers and estuaries that ultimately flow into the ocean, this looks like another step away from precaution.
Those concerns are echoed in a separate backlash to a proposal from The United States Environmental Protection agency that critics say could threaten drinking water supplies. In that case, attorney Kristin Boyles argued that regulators were trying to solve for a problem that does not exist, warning that the draft rule could undercut protections without delivering clear benefits. The report, attributed to Kristin Boyles and timestamped Mon in the PST time zone with a Photo Credit to iStock, underscores how legal experts see the proposal as part of a broader shift toward prioritizing the president’s economic agenda over environmental safeguards. When viewed alongside the seabed mining decision, these moves reinforce the perception that water protections, from headwaters to the deep ocean, are being steadily chipped away.
Offshore drilling fights show what is at risk for coasts
On land, coastal leaders are already battling another front in the administration’s ocean policy: the push to expand offshore oil and gas leasing. In WASHINGTON, DC, Today, Representative Zoe Lofgren joined Senators Alex Padilla and Cory Booker and more than 100 other lawmakers in demanding that President Donald Trump reverse a plan to open new offshore oil and gas leases. Their letter warned that expanded drilling would threaten coastal economies and weaken coastal infrastructure, arguing that spills and industrialization could devastate tourism, fisheries, and small businesses that depend on clean beaches and stable shorelines. For these lawmakers, the seabed mining rule looks like an extension of the same mindset that treats the ocean primarily as an extraction zone.
State and local officials are voicing similar alarm. In Florida, a video segment titled “We cannot risk it” captures how leaders are pushing back as offshore drilling proposals advance. The report notes that the clock is ticking on a consequential deadline that could influence a final decision on the Trump administration’s push to expand drilling, with opponents warning that a single major spill could wipe out decades of investment in coastal communities. The footage, available on YouTube, shows local officials warning that they “cannot risk” the damage. When I connect those dots, the pattern is clear: from drilling to seabed mining, coastal communities see Washington inviting new hazards into an already fragile environment.
The deep sea mining push behind the rule
To understand why the seabed rule is moving now, it helps to look at the political and corporate forces behind deep sea mining. Reporting on the Trump administration’s approach notes that NOAA has finalized a rule that will expedite the permit and license application process for deep sea mining even beyond U.S. boundaries, laid out in a 113‑page regulation issued on 21 January. That account, hosted by a scientific outlet and accessible through NOAA‑focused coverage, makes clear that the goal is to speed up permitting so companies can move quickly to secure claims and begin test operations. Industry advocates argue that the metals locked in polymetallic nodules are essential for electric vehicles, grid storage, and defense technologies, and that relying on terrestrial mines controlled by geopolitical rivals is a strategic vulnerability.
More from Morning Overview