The ocean floor has emerged as a new arena for competition among major powers, amidst escalating geopolitical conflicts beneath the seas.

The recent executive order by U.S. President Donald Trump aims to revitalize deep-sea mining activities, reflecting the current U.S. administration's efforts to enhance access to critical minerals, including nickel and copper.

This move is also seen as a partial response to China's strategic activities related to deep-sea mining.

The United States has indicated a strategic shift in its policy regarding the exploration of deep-sea minerals, stating that the ocean floor is no longer a dormant space, but a contentious area where fierce competition over resources, infrastructure security, and military capabilities is taking place.

Over the past two decades, rapid technological advancements have made deep-sea operations more feasible.

The use of remote-operated vehicles and autonomous underwater drones allows for precise and cost-effective tasks at virtually any ocean depth.

Technologies associated with this sector, such as dynamic positioning systems, have evolved into reliable industrial tools for deep-water drilling to obtain oil resources.

Concurrently, decades of coordinated governmental and scientific efforts have produced unprecedented mapping of the ocean floor’s geography.

The reality of undersea conflict is becoming increasingly tangible, potentially exacerbating rising instability above the surface.

In Europe and the Pacific, Russia and China are becoming leaders in this domain, preparing to refine power competition tactics for the future.

Retired Admiral James Stavridis noted the importance of considering challenges posed by China in the South China Sea while also examining the depths of the dark ocean floor.

Consequently, securing critical infrastructure on the ocean floor has emerged as a priority for NATO and the United States.

Among other measures, Trump's executive order controversially revives the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, originally enacted in 1980, which allows the U.S. to unilaterally mine essential minerals offshore, potentially conflicting with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The executive order emphasizes that these materials are vital for national defense and energy transition.

Significant types of resources on the ocean floor are driving insatiable national and global appetites for minerals.

The most readily available resources for development are polymetallic nodules in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, located between Hawaii and Mexico, far beyond U.S. jurisdiction.

These nodules lie at depths exceeding 4,000 meters below sea level and can supply nickel, cobalt, copper, and manganese, all critical for civilian and military uses.

This operational and legal precedent set by initial nodule mining will govern the extraction of other seabed resources, which also include essential rare earth elements, silver, gold, and platinum.

Under UNCLOS, governance of minerals located in areas beyond national jurisdiction falls to the International Seabed Authority (ISA).

The ISA has established a temporary system allowing member states to sponsor commercial entities for mineral exploration, having issued approximately 20 such contracts.

China holds more ISA exploration contracts than any other country, including those in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.

However, the ISA is lagging in establishing a regulatory framework that prevents commercial mining of seabed resources.

In the absence of an ISA framework, nations are now moving to capitalize on mining opportunities in their internal waters, often without international guidance on environmental standards.

The Cook Islands, for example, reached a strategic agreement with China earlier this year to jointly develop seabed resources, raising concerns in Washington.

The United States has not ratified UNCLOS due to the Senate's long-standing objections to certain treaty provisions concerning deep-sea mining.

Consequently, the U.S. cannot legally obtain a permit from the ISA for seabed exploitation, and the legal ambiguity has hindered the development of a domestic industry.

The new executive order regarding marine minerals alters this situation through several measures, which are largely uncontroversial.

First, it asserts that marine mineral extraction is vital for U.S. economic and national security interests, particularly for critical mineral security.

Second, it accelerates marine mineral development by streamlining permit issuance, fostering technological innovation, and supporting local processing and storage operations for minerals.

Finally, it counters China's dominance by expanding international partnerships and reinforcing U.S. leadership in global seabed mineral exploration and development.

Through focused investment, the executive order may position the United States as a significant player in energy and defense mineral supply chains within a decade.

A recent report revealed that deep-sea mining, led by the U.S., could produce sufficient nickel and cobalt to meet projected domestic demand by 2040.

However, the executive order implicitly reasserts U.S. authority to license mining in international waters under domestic law.

This would allow U.S. companies to bypass the ISA and controversially begin extracting nodules in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone within two years.

This shift toward mining in this area has generated significant debate.

The primary legal issue is whether the ISA constitutes applicable customary international law for the United States in the absence of official ratification of UNCLOS, with arguments both for and against such a proposal.

Many countries have already voiced concerns regarding the unilateral approach, which should not be overlooked.

Due diligence is vital to facilitate U.S. mining efforts on the ocean floor.

Ultimately, the ongoing discussion poses a legal dispute that threatens the integrity of maritime law.

Rather than escalating tensions, the U.S. might reaffirm its commitment to a transparent, cooperative approach, based on scientific standards that enhance seabed regulation while safeguarding American interests.

Diplomatic engagement and strategic partnerships to assist other nations in developing their local marine resources could bolster the U.S. position on maritime freedoms.

These efforts should clarify that the real threats to the established rules-based maritime order stem from Chinese and Russian expansion and the accelerating erosion of maritime standards by hostile state and non-state actors.

Security concerns regarding this emerging industry are significant.

The latest report indicates various essential security challenges facing this industry, including the protection of vessels conducting legal mining operations in the ocean floor and transporting American essential minerals from these sites, enforcing seabed mining claims and rights, and using deep-sea operations as cover for targeting submarines or cables, as some reports have suggested.

The ocean floor serves as the foundation of the global communications infrastructure and is increasingly viewed as a growing vulnerability.

More than 600 undersea communication cables (many owned by American tech firms) connect the majority of global internet traffic.

Governments are investigating the legal and operational ambiguities of the ocean floor to test the limits of response and achieve asymmetric advantages.

China has publicly celebrated a specialized cable-cutting device, presumably aimed at isolating the United States from its allies in the Pacific and encircling Taiwan during a potential Taiwanese emergency.

Similarly, Russian vessels possess comparable capabilities to sever strategic links.