Introduction
The article published by CNBC was flagged for fact-checking after users raised questions about the legality of U.S.-authorized deep-sea mining ventures in international waters. More specifically, concerns about adherence to International Seabed Authority (ISA) regulations made this fact-check necessary. Given the increasing strategic interest in critical minerals and the tensions surrounding global resource governance, ensuring accurate information on this topic is crucial.
Historical Context
Deep-sea mining has been a topic of growing international interest since the discovery of mineral-rich nodules on the ocean floor. Efforts to regulate activities beyond national jurisdictions began with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the subsequent creation of the International Seabed Authority (ISA). Although the U.S. played a significant role in shaping UNCLOS, it has notably never ratified the treaty, complicating its relationship with ISA regulations and obligations regarding international waters.
Fact-Check Specific Claims
Claim #1: The U.S. will expedite deep-sea mining permits in international waters independently of international regulations.
The executive order referenced in the article instructs U.S. agencies to expedite permitting, including “in areas beyond national jurisdiction.” However, the article correctly notes that the U.S. has not ratified UNCLOS, which means it is technically not bound by ISA regulations. Nevertheless, companies operating in international waters without ISA contracts would risk serious international backlash and may not obtain legal rights to their mining operations under international law. Therefore, while legally possible under current U.S. law, operating without ISA authorization would be highly controversial and legally insecure globally. Thus, the article’s framing is generally accurate but would benefit from emphasizing the practical difficulties deep-sea miners would face.
Source:
Council on Foreign Relations – Deep-Sea Mining
Claim #2: The United States intends to bypass established UN processes regarding deep-sea mining regulation.
The article quotes critics stating that the executive order seeks to bypass the UN process. Analysis of the executive order’s language shows explicit mention of bolstering partnerships but does not suggest formal withdrawal or disregard of international cooperation norms. The executive action focuses on speeding domestic permits while encouraging “responsible development” but glosses over compliance with ISA rules. Thus, the claim that the U.S. plans to bypass UN processes is largely accurate concerning operational expediency but could mislead readers into thinking an outright rejection of international norms is underway. Diplomatically, nuances remain.
Source:
Reuters – Deep-Sea Mining Regulations
Claim #3: Companies will not be legally required to comply with ISA regulations in international waters.
To answer the user’s specific question: Compliance with ISA regulations is not mandated by U.S. law because the United States has not ratified UNCLOS. However, per international law, activities on the international seabed—the “common heritage of mankind”—must be authorized by the ISA. Without ISA approval, U.S. companies risk facing sanctions, lack of recognition of their mining rights, and potential legal disputes at the international level. Therefore, under international law, ISA compliance is necessary for legitimate operations in international waters, but no U.S. national law compels it.
This is a crucial distinction: companies would operate at significant legal and reputational risk if they proceed without ISA approval, even if it is not a mandated requirement under U.S. jurisdiction.
Source:
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Overview
Claim #4: Norway has aligned with China, India, and Poland to oppose U.S. actions on deep-sea mining.
The article states that “Norway, which had previously considered seabed mining within its national waters, has now aligned with China, India, and Poland” against U.S. actions. Available evidence shows that while Norway’s Parliament paused national deep-sea mining projects citing environmental concerns, there is no formal diplomatic coalition between Norway and China, India, and Poland opposing U.S. mining efforts as characterized. These nations share some critical views but no formal alliance against the U.S. has been established. This significantly overstates Norway’s position, leading to a misrepresentation.
Source:
Reuters – Norway Deep-Sea Mining Policy
Conclusion
The CNBC article presents a generally accurate view of President Trump’s executive order and its implications for deep-sea mining. However, it occasionally lacks full context regarding legal realities, particularly the challenges companies would face operating without ISA approval. Furthermore, while much criticism is valid, some geopolitical claims, like Norway’s “alignment” with China and others, are overstated and could mislead readers. Overall, the article shows a slight bias toward highlighting criticisms of U.S. policy without fully unpacking nuanced legal aspects, although it remains largely factual.
Encourage Readers to Take Action
Stay empowered to spot misinformation and get the full truth faster. Download the DBUNK app today or connect with us on social media to join the fact-checking movement!
