The United States is advancing its own licensing route for deep-sea minerals, while the International Seabed Authority maintains that mining in international waters must follow its international framework. The dispute leaves companies facing legal, environmental and commercial uncertainty.
A Licensing Dispute With Global Implications
Deep-sea mining is moving into a new phase of regulatory uncertainty. The United States is advancing a domestic process for authorising the exploration and commercial recovery of mineral resources from the seabed beyond national jurisdiction. The International Seabed Authority (ISA), meanwhile, maintains that mineral exploitation in the international seabed area must be governed by the framework established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
The disagreement is no longer simply a debate about how to regulate a future industry. US applications are moving through a formal review process, environmental objections are emerging, and companies are considering how minerals recovered from the ocean floor could be processed and brought to market.
At the centre of the dispute is a fundamental question: can a country that is not a party to UNCLOS authorise its companies to pursue deep-sea mining in international waters through its own domestic law?
The answer has significant implications for mining companies, investors, governments and the future governance of the international seabed.
More Read
How the US Licensing Route Works
The United States regulates deep-seabed mineral activities through the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA). The law provides a domestic framework for issuing exploration licences and commercial recovery permits for certain mineral resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), part of the US Department of Commerce, administers the licensing and permitting process.
The US position is that domestic law can provide a route for American companies to pursue these activities, subject to the requirements of the US regulatory framework. The ISA takes a different view, arguing that commercial exploitation of the international seabed area must operate under the international regime established by UNCLOS and the ISA.
More Read
The United States has not ratified UNCLOS. That distinction is central to the dispute: the US government is relying on domestic legislation, while the ISA’s framework is rooted in an international treaty regime.
The disagreement should not be mistaken for a settled legal outcome. A US authorisation and an ISA approval are not interchangeable, and the international legal status of activities conducted under a unilateral national route remains contested.
In April 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the US government to accelerate the development of offshore critical-mineral resources, including deep-seabed resources. NOAA subsequently issued a final rule in January 2026 addressing application procedures under the domestic framework.
These actions have moved the US process forward, but they have not resolved the broader disagreement over international authority.
TMC USA’s Application: Progress, Not Approval
The Metals Company USA (TMC USA) is among the companies seeking to advance deep-sea mineral development through the US route.
NOAA announced on August 19, 2026, that TMC USA’s consolidated application for an exploration licence and a commercial recovery permit had met the agency’s information requirements. The application then entered the next stage of regulatory review, including public participation and environmental assessment.
The agency’s public notice established October 19, 2026, as the deadline for comments on the consolidated application. NOAA also scheduled a virtual public hearing for October 13.
Meeting information requirements is an important procedural milestone, but it is not the same as receiving a licence or permit. The application must still proceed through the applicable review process, and the agency’s public register did not list any commercial recovery permits as issued at the time of the latest review.
TMC USA has also pursued a separate exploration-only application. NOAA’s records show that the certification associated with one of the company’s exploration-only applications was completed on May 26, 2026. The agency subsequently announced its intention to prepare an environmental impact statement for that application.
These are distinct regulatory tracks. Progress on an exploration application does not automatically confer permission for commercial recovery, and the consolidated application should not be described as an approved mining permit.
Other companies are also seeking authorisations under the US system. NOAA’s public register listed applications from additional applicants, including a new exploration application from Eco Minerals, for which the agency published a notice on October 13, 2026.
The growing application pipeline indicates increasing interest in the US regulatory route. It does not, by itself, demonstrate that commercial deep-sea mining is ready to begin.
A Legal Challenge Adds to the Uncertainty
The US approach is also facing legal scrutiny.
On September 30, 2026, the Conservation Council for Hawaiʻi and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging NOAA’s certification of a TMC USA exploration-only application. The case seeks judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The challenge introduces another layer of uncertainty into an already contested regulatory process. Its implications will depend on the claims before the court, the government’s response and any subsequent judicial rulings.
The filing should not be treated as a court finding that the application is unlawful. A lawsuit initiates a legal challenge; it does not establish that the plaintiffs will prevail or that the agency’s action will be overturned.
Nevertheless, litigation can affect project timelines, compliance costs and investment decisions. Companies planning exploration or commercial recovery must consider not only the outcome of the administrative process but also the possibility that regulatory decisions may be challenged.
The case also illustrates the wider tension between accelerating access to critical minerals and ensuring that decisions involving the deep ocean are supported by legally robust procedures and adequate environmental review.
Why the ISA Disagrees
The ISA was established under UNCLOS to organise and control mineral-related activities in the international seabed area, known as “the Area,” particularly with a view to administering its resources for the benefit of humankind as a whole.
The organisation’s framework includes exploration contracts, environmental responsibilities and the development of rules governing commercial exploitation. Countries and contractors operating within that framework are subject to its procedures and obligations.
The US domestic approach creates a different pathway for American companies. The US government argues that its legislation provides authority for domestic licensing, while the ISA maintains that mineral exploitation in the international seabed area must take place under the international regime.
The distinction matters because a domestic authorisation does not automatically resolve questions about recognition under international law, obligations owed by states, or the legal position of companies operating beyond national jurisdiction.
It is therefore important to distinguish between what US law may authorise domestically and what the international seabed regime recognises. The disagreement has not been conclusively settled by a judicial decision establishing that the two systems are equivalent.
For companies, the uncertainty is practical as well as legal. An authorisation under one system may not eliminate questions raised by governments, contractors, financiers or other stakeholders operating under the other.
The Mining Code Remains Unfinished
The ISA’s Mining Code is intended to establish the detailed rules for mineral exploitation in the international seabed area. Its development has involved negotiations over environmental protection, monitoring, compliance, financial arrangements and the distribution of benefits.
Negotiations continued during the ISA’s 31st session in 2026. The organisation reported progress and outlined further work ahead of its 32nd session, but the exploitation framework remained unfinished as of October 14, 2026.
The absence of a completed Mining Code has prolonged uncertainty over how commercial exploitation would operate under the ISA regime. Outstanding questions include the standards contractors must meet, how environmental impacts will be assessed and monitored, and how compliance will be enforced.
The unresolved rules are significant for investors. Mining projects typically require long planning horizons, substantial capital and confidence in the regulatory framework under which production will take place.
However, the unfinished code should not be interpreted as evidence that every form of deep-sea activity is prohibited or that no exploration can occur. Exploration contracts already exist under the ISA framework. The immediate regulatory gap concerns the detailed regime for commercial exploitation.
The US route is advancing while ISA negotiations continue, creating two different regulatory timelines rather than a single settled international pathway.
Processing Could Be the Commercial Bottleneck
Even if a company secures the necessary authorisations, recovering minerals from the seabed is only one part of the commercial challenge.
Polymetallic nodules contain metals such as manganese, nickel, cobalt and copper. Turning these nodules into saleable materials requires suitable processing facilities, investment, technical capability and reliable access to downstream customers.
The US has identified critical minerals as a strategic priority, but a domestic licensing pathway does not automatically create the industrial capacity required to process seabed resources at commercial scale.
Reporting on the sector has highlighted the gap between proposals for processing capacity and projects that have reached a firm investment decision. Companies have discussed potential facilities and commercial arrangements, but proposed capacity should not be confused with an operating plant or a fully financed project.
TMC has considered processing options in the United States, including a potential facility in Brownsville, Texas. The commercial outlook depends on several factors: the scale and timing of any authorised recovery, the economics of processing, the availability of government support, and the market value of the resulting metals.
The US law also generally requires processing of recovered resources to take place on land in the United States. It provides limited routes for exceptions. The NOAA Administrator may allow processing outside the country after an agency hearing opportunity if the outside processing is necessary for the economic viability of the permittee’s commercial recovery and assurances are provided that the resource, to the extent of the permittee’s ownership, will be returned to the United States for domestic use if the Administrator later determines that the national interest requires it. The statute also provides for a presidential determination where the domestic-processing restriction would contravene overriding national interests.
These provisions make processing location more than a logistical consideration. It is part of the legal and commercial structure of a potential US deep-sea mining project.
For investors, the key question is not simply whether a company can obtain a permit. It is whether the company can build a viable supply chain from seabed recovery to processing and final sale.
Environmental Evidence Will Matter
The deep ocean remains one of the least understood environments on Earth. Extracting polymetallic nodules can disturb the seabed, create sediment plumes and affect organisms that depend on deep-sea habitats.
Potential impacts extend beyond the immediate path of a mining machine. Scientists and regulators must consider how disturbed sediment may spread, how noise and operational activity affect marine life, and whether ecological damage can be measured or reversed over meaningful timescales.
These uncertainties are especially important because deep-sea ecosystems may recover slowly, and some species and ecological relationships remain poorly documented.
Environmental review is therefore not simply a procedural obstacle. It is central to determining whether projects can operate within acceptable limits and whether monitoring systems can detect harm before it becomes extensive.
The US process, including the preparation of environmental impact documentation for relevant applications, will need to address the effects of proposed activities and the evidence supporting mitigation measures. The ISA framework also places environmental protection at the centre of its regulatory work.
Different permitting routes do not remove the underlying scientific questions. Any project seeking long-term commercial viability will need credible baseline data, transparent monitoring and a defensible approach to managing environmental risks.
India Offers a Different Regulatory Route
India provides a useful contrast because it is pursuing deep-sea mineral exploration through the ISA framework.
As of December 2025, India’s Ministry of Earth Sciences reported three ISA exploration contracts. These include a polymetallic nodule contract in the Central Indian Ocean Basin, signed in 2002, and two polymetallic sulphide contracts: one in the Central and South-West Indian Ridge region, signed in 2016, and another in the Carlsberg Ridge, signed on September 15, 2025.
The contracts cover different mineral resources and areas, reflecting India’s continuing interest in seabed exploration and its potential role in securing strategic mineral supplies.
India’s approach does not settle the dispute between the United States and the ISA. It does, however, demonstrate a pathway in which exploration is pursued through contracts within the international framework.
For governments and companies, the comparison highlights a central strategic choice: whether to proceed through the established ISA system or to rely on a national authorisation pathway whose relationship with that system remains contested.
The long-term consequences will depend on how the legal dispute develops, whether international rules are completed and how governments respond to activities authorised through different systems.
What Mining Companies and Investors Should Watch
Several developments will determine whether the current regulatory momentum translates into commercially viable projects.
First, the US application process. Companies and investors should distinguish between an application being received, an application meeting information requirements, completion of environmental review and final issuance of an authorisation. Each is a separate milestone.
Second, litigation and legal interpretation. The September 30 challenge to NOAA’s certification could provide further clarity on the scope and application of US administrative requirements. The case’s progress and any rulings should be monitored rather than anticipated.
Third, ISA negotiations. The progress of the Mining Code will shape the rules under which commercial exploitation could proceed within the international framework. Negotiations may influence investor expectations even for companies pursuing a different route.
Fourth, processing and financing. A project will need more than access to mineral resources. It requires processing capacity, capital commitments, credible cost estimates and a market for the recovered materials. Announced plans should be assessed against financing and construction milestones.
Finally, environmental evidence. Baseline studies, impact assessments, monitoring methods and enforceable safeguards will be central to regulatory decisions and public acceptance. Weak evidence could expose projects to delays, litigation and reputational risks.
Taken together, these factors suggest that regulatory authorisation is only one part of the investment case. The viability of deep-sea mining will depend on the interaction between law, science, industrial capacity and commodity economics.
The Permit Is Only the Beginning
The dispute between the United States and the ISA is a test of how the international community will govern mineral resources beyond national jurisdiction.
The US domestic system is creating a route for companies to seek exploration and commercial recovery authorisations. The ISA, meanwhile, continues to develop its international exploitation rules and maintains that commercial mining in the international seabed area must follow its framework.
Neither an application milestone nor a domestic authorisation alone resolves the broader disagreement. The legal challenge, the unfinished Mining Code, environmental questions and the lack of established processing capacity all remain relevant to the industry’s prospects.
For mining companies, the next phase will require careful attention to regulatory developments and realistic assessments of technical and commercial readiness. For investors, the distinction between a proposed project, a permit under review and a fully viable operation will be essential.
The central question is no longer only who wants to mine the deep ocean. It is which regulatory route can withstand legal scrutiny, meet environmental obligations and support a commercially credible operation.
Until those questions are answered, deep-sea mining remains an emerging opportunity shaped as much by law and uncertainty as by the minerals on the ocean floor.
