A Canadian mining company wants Trump’s permission to mine the deep sea

The Verge - Apr 30th, 2025

The Metals Company has applied for a permit from the Trump administration to begin deep-sea mining in international waters, bypassing a multilateral process to establish guidelines for such activities. This move, supported by President Trump through an executive order aimed at countering China's control over mineral resources, has sparked widespread condemnation from governments and environmental groups. Critics, including Greenpeace, argue that this action disregards international law and scientific consensus, as the ecological impact of mining in these deep-sea regions remains largely unknown.

The situation underscores the tension between economic interests and environmental preservation, as the U.S. seeks to secure critical minerals like nickel, cobalt, and manganese for technological and defense purposes. The International Seabed Authority has yet to finalize regulations for seabed mining, missing a 2023 deadline due to unresolved issues. Meanwhile, over 30 countries advocate for a moratorium on deep-sea mining until proper regulations are in place. The Metals Company's aggressive pursuit of these resources highlights the complexities of balancing industrial advancement with sustainable environmental practices, as alternative solutions, such as recycling, are being explored to meet future mineral demands.

Donald Trump Environmental Impact The Metals Company Deep Sea Mining International Seabed Authority Nickel, Cobalt, Manganese Clarion Clipperton Zone

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the contentious issue of deep-sea mining, highlighting the legal and environmental debates surrounding The Metals Company's permit application. It effectively captures the complexity of the topic by presenting multiple perspectives, although it could benefit from a more balanced exploration of the economic arguments in favor of mining. The use of credible sources strengthens the article, but the lack of independent verification for some claims and the limited transparency about the basis for certain statements slightly undermine its reliability. Overall, the article is timely and relevant, engaging readers on a topic of significant public interest, though it could enhance its impact by offering a more nuanced analysis of the strategic and economic dimensions of deep-sea mining.

Accuracy

The article generally presents factual information regarding The Metals Company's application for a deep-sea mining permit and the associated legal and environmental controversies. The claim that TMC applied for a permit from the Trump administration aligns with reported facts and is corroborated by external sources. However, the story could benefit from more precise verification of TMC's resource estimates and the legal interpretations of U.S. authority over international waters. The article accurately reflects the opposition from environmental groups and other countries, but some claims, like the anecdote about the nodule on Trump’s desk, lack independent verification.

Balance

The article presents multiple perspectives, including those of The Metals Company, environmental groups, and international bodies. However, it leans towards highlighting the environmental and legal criticisms of deep-sea mining, with less emphasis on the potential economic benefits TMC claims. The inclusion of quotes from Greenpeace and the Chinese government provides a counterpoint to the U.S. and TMC's position, but the article could be more balanced by exploring the potential strategic interests and economic arguments in favor of mining.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow of information. It effectively outlines the main points of contention and provides a coherent narrative about the issue. However, some technical terms and legal references could be better explained for readers unfamiliar with international maritime law or deep-sea mining processes. The tone remains neutral, but some sections could benefit from additional context to enhance understanding.

Source quality

The article cites several credible sources, including statements from Greenpeace, TMC, and the Chinese foreign ministry. However, it lacks direct citations from legal experts or international law authorities that could provide a deeper understanding of the legal complexities involved. The reliance on statements from interested parties, such as TMC and environmental groups, without corroboration from independent experts, slightly undermines the source quality.

Transparency

The article provides some context about the ongoing international debate over deep-sea mining and the legal framework involved. However, it could be more transparent about the sources of certain claims, such as the legality of U.S. actions and the potential environmental impacts. The article does not disclose the methodology behind TMC's resource estimates or the basis for environmentalists' claims, which would enhance transparency.