Deep Seabed Mining and the “America First” Agenda: National Security Gains vs. Environmental & Public Concerns

Deep seabed mining is a lucrative enterprise aimed at extracting nodules of valuable mineral deposits embedded in the ocean floor. (Sachi Mulkey, N.Y. Times). These nodules contain critical minerals, such as cobalt, manganese, copper, and nickel, which are essential to the manufacturing of modern batteries used in smartphones or electric vehicles. (Steven Barringer & Courtney Shephard, Greenberg Traurig, LLP; Sachi Mulkey, N.Y. Times). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) regulates the exploration and recovery of these critical minerals and issues permits for deep seabed mining. (15 C.F.R. 904.1). This post examines the (i) concerns of deep seabed mining; (ii) NOAA’s mandate and regulation focusing on the original two-step sequential process for exploration and recovery permits; (iii) the new "consolidated application process"; (iv) how the procedural shift fits into the “America First” agenda; (v) and the public concerns aligned with consequences of the accelerated application process.

Deep seabed mining raises serious environmental concerns because the proposed extraction method would strip away the sea floor’s topmost layer, killing organisms, destroying substrate habitats, and would affect how sediment settles on the ocean floor. (Mark Spalding, Ocean Foundation). This poses a grave risk to an already fragile ecosystem. (Rob Hutchins, Oceanographic). Critics contend that activities on the ocean floor can cascade up through the water column, with potential to disrupt massive food chains resulting in diminished biodiversity. Id. A comprehensive review period is essential to ensure that the full implications of deep seabed mining are thoroughly considered. Id.

NOAA is responsible for developing, protecting, and managing America’s oceanic and atmospheric resources. (33 U.S.C § 893). In furtherance of NOAA’s goals, the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (“DSHMRA”) was enacted in 1980, establishing a two-step process for obtaining exploration and recovery permits. (NOAA). First, applicants were required to obtain an exploration license from NOAA. Id. With that license secured, applicants then applied separately for a recovery permit. Id.  Applicants finally were required to prepare two environmental impact statements (“EIS”) for each phase—one for exploration and another for recovery. (Steven Barringer & Courtney Shephard, Greenberg Traurig, LLP). This original two-step process was incredibly cumbersome, commonly spanning multiple years for just the EIS process alone. (NOAA, Federal Register).

As of January 21, 2026, revisions to DSHMRA consolidated exploration and recovery permitting into a single, unified process, replacing the prior two-step approach. (Sachi Mulkey, N.Y. Times). Under the new regulatory framework, applicants may seek both exploration and recovery permits simultaneously, enabling a quicker, more streamlined review and evaluation process. Id. The updated procedure permits applicants to submit a single EIS in place of the two separate EISs previously required for each phase. (Steven Barringer & Courtney Shephard, Greenberg Traurig, LLP). The new consolidated process is expected to reduce the permitting timeline by approximately 100 days and generate roughly $2.4 million in annual savings for NOAA through decreased administrative burden. (NOAA, Federal Register). Additionally, this revised process aligns with broader “America First” policy objectives by enabling American companies to initiate operations sooner than their international counterparts. (NOAA).

The accelerated timeline is also framed by the current administration as a national security measure, aimed at bolstering economic resilience and reducing reliance on foreign supply chains. (David Vergun, Department of War). Policymakers from the Department of War have expressed concerns that other nations may weaponize access to critical minerals, threatening “to disrupt [the American] defense industrial base and compromise military readiness in a crisis.” Id. In response, the United States has prioritized reshoring the extraction and processing of these minerals to establish a reliable domestic supply. Id. Consistent with this objective, the revised process complements the U.S. Department of Energy’s mid-2025 initiative “to advance and scale mining, processing, and manufacturing technologies across key stages of the critical minerals and materials supply chains.” (Department of Energy).

Importantly, the revised application process raises significant public concerns. (Steven Barringer & Courtney Shephard, Greenberg Traurig, LLP). Critics argue that an overly streamlined process shortens public commenting periods, thereby limiting opportunities for individuals and environmental organizations to meaningfully assess and respond to potential impacts. (Mark Spalding, Ocean Foundation). A truncated review timeline, in turn, may prevent citizens from weighing in on proposed governmental agency policies. (Nigel Stintson, Legal Defense Fund). Public commenting periods play a critical role in democratic governance by promoting transparency and providing a structured avenue for civic engagement. Id.

Although the new consolidated application process is surely quicker, critics question whether quicker truly means better. On one hand, NOAA’s streamlined framework design will expedite permitting for recovery of critical minerals. which will bolster the American economy by establishing a sustainable and resilient domestic supply of critical minerals, while advancing national security objectives by reducing reliance on foreign sources — goals closely aligned with the “America First” agenda. (Sachi Mulkey, N.Y. Times; David Vergun, Department of War). On the other hand, the accelerated process raises concerns that efficiency may come at the expense of public participation. Critics argue that allowing a single EIS and shortening public commenting periods risks overlooking environmental consequences and limiting meaningful public input that could otherwise challenge or refine agency decision-making. (Steven Barringer & Courtney Shephard, Greenberg Traurig, LLP; Mark Spalding, Ocean Foundation).