Introduction
The recent article about former President Donald Trump’s executive order to fast-track deep-sea mining has raised important legal and environmental questions, particularly around the role of international law and the International Seabed Authority (ISA). Users specifically asked whether deep-sea mining companies will still be legally required to follow ISA regulations for activities in international waters. Our fact-check breaks this down clearly and verifies multiple claims made in the article.
Historical Context
Deep-sea mining has remained a controversial topic for decades. Created under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the International Seabed Authority (ISA) oversees mining activities in international waters, aiming to balance resource extraction with marine conservation. However, the United States has never ratified UNCLOS, complicating its legal obligations to the ISA despite its active participation as an observer. This backdrop is crucial to understanding the tensions discussed in the article.
Fact-Checking Key Claims
Claim #1: “The executive order allows mining permits to be expedited in areas beyond national jurisdiction.”
This claim is accurate. According to the executive order, the Trump administration directs the expedited review of seabed mining permits in regions “beyond national jurisdiction.” However, operating in international waters traditionally mandates compliance with ISA regulations. Although the U.S. can issue licenses under its domestic Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980, it does not change that ISA authorization is internationally recognized for deep-sea activities beyond sovereign waters. The U.S. bypassing ISA regulations would likely cause significant international disputes rather than setting a recognized precedent.
Source:
Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act,
International Seabed Authority Official Website
Claim #2: “The United States is not bound by ISA regulations because it did not ratify UNCLOS.”
This statement needs clarification. The article accurately notes that the U.S. has not ratified UNCLOS and thus is not legally bound as a party to its provisions, including mandatory ISA compliance. However, under customary international law, many principles of UNCLOS are considered binding norms. Moreover, deep-sea mining operations in “The Area” (seabed outside any national jurisdiction) are subject to ISA governance by international consensus. In practice, regardless of U.S. non-ratification, operating internationally outside ISA frameworks could expose U.S. companies to legal challenges and diplomatic pushback from other states.
Source:
U.S. State Department on UNCLOS,
International Seabed Authority
Claim #3: “Norway joined China, India, and Poland to oppose U.S. actions.”
This claim is accurate but oversimplified. Recent developments indicate that Norway aligned with countries like China, India, and Poland in expressing concerns over the U.S. approach to deep-sea mining. However, Norway’s stance has primarily focused on ensuring that any mining is governed by robust international regulations rather than on purely siding with China or openly opposing the United States. The nuances suggest Norway seeks regulated mining activities that prevent environmental degradation, aligning with broader international norms rather than specific political camps.
Source:
Reuters on Norway’s Positions,
International Seabed Authority
Claim #4: “Environmentalists claim deep-sea mining will cause ecosystem destruction and species extinction.”
This claim reflects strong scientific consensus. Studies published over the last decade confirm that deep-sea mining could cause long-lasting or irreversible damage to fragile marine ecosystems, many of which remain poorly understood. The lack of comprehensive baseline studies on seafloor biodiversity makes it difficult to predict full ecosystem impacts, but multiple expert bodies—including the Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)—have issued warnings about potential irreversible species loss and wide-scale habitat destruction.
Source:
IUCN Issues on Deep Sea Mining,
Nature Journal on Deep Sea Mining
Conclusion
In review, the CNBC article largely presents accurate information about Trump’s executive order on deep-sea mining, though it sometimes lacks deeper context crucial for readers’ full understanding. While it correctly highlights legal and environmental controversies, it simplifies nuanced issues like the U.S. relationship with the ISA and international response dynamics. Our fact-check finds that U.S. companies would still face significant international legal scrutiny if they bypass ISA regulations despite U.S. domestic actions. Thus, the user’s concern is valid: deep-sea mining companies will likely be pressured to comply with ISA standards for activities in international waters, or risk diplomatic and legal challenges.
Encourage Readers to Take Action
Tired of misinformation? Download the free DBUNK app today to empower yourself with truth, stay informed against fake news, and make confident, fact-based decisions. You can also follow us on Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter to join the fight for honest journalism!
