
Trump-Era Pivot on Seabed Mining Draws Global Rebuke
Nearly 40 nations, big and small, have voiced opposition to a plan by a Wall Street-backed mining company to team up with the Trump administration to circumvent international law and start seabed mining in the Pacific Ocean with a U.S. permit.
The widespread furor reflected a rare alignment from countries as varied as China, Russia, India, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Indonesia, France, Argentina, Uganda and the small island nations of Mauritius and Fiji. The plan also brought to the fore a pitched clash over who regulates seabed mining in international waters.
The pushback emerged after The Metals Company, based in Vancouver, British Columbia, disclosed on Thursday that it would ask the Trump administration through a United States subsidiary to grant it approval for mining in international waters. Under an international treaty, the International Seabed Authority has jurisdiction over any mining on the so-called high seas.
'Any unilateral action would constitute a violation of international law and directly undermine the fundamental principles of multilateralism, the peaceful use of the oceans and the collective governance framework,' Leticia Carvalho, the secretary general of the seabed authority, said in a statement released Friday.
Diplomats backed up Ms. Carvalho, arguing that the surprise proposal threatened a global effort to share in the wealth from any metals buried on the seabed floor, which are expected to be used to build electric car batteries and other industrial products.
'It is the Authority that has the exclusive mandate to regulate the exploration and exploitation of mineral resources in the area,' said Carl Grainger, Ireland's representative.
The Metals Company turned to the Trump administration after growing increasingly frustrated with how long it has taken the Seabed Authority to complete environmental and financial regulations that will govern seabed mining. The agency has said that those standards are needed before issuing its first commercial mining permit.
Gerard Barron, the company's chairman, said that he wanted to start mining in international waters as soon as 2027 and that he was convinced the United States had the legal right to issue a permit on its own.
'The freedom to mine the deep seabed, like the freedom of navigation, is a high seas freedom enjoyed by all nations,' Mr. Barron said.
The Trump administration's Commerce Department, in a statement to The New York Times late Friday, confirmed that it disagreed with the Seabed Authority's interpretation of international law.
'Companies can apply for exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits for deep-sea mining in ocean areas beyond national jurisdiction,' Maureen O'Leary, a department spokeswoman said, citing a 1980 federal law, the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act. It has never previously been used to authorize industrial-scale ocean mining.
Ms. O'Leary added that the U.S. subsidiary of The Metals Company had started consulting with the Commerce Department over deep-sea mining plans.
'The process ensures a thorough environmental impact review, interagency consultations and opportunity for public comment,' Ms. O'Leary said, suggesting that the permit approval would not be automatic.
Each nation already controls its own coastal areas, which are considered to reach about 200 nautical miles from the shore, and certain countries such as Japan, Norway and the Cook Islands have recently considered allowing seabed mining in these national areas.
But the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which went into effect in 1994, established the International Seabed Authority and granted it the power to decide when and where seabed mining can take place in international waters, which cover nearly half the world's surface.
In the decades since, more than two dozen contracts have been granted by the agency for exploratory work, extracting small quantities of seabed rocks from the ocean floor, including to the Metals Company, which teamed up with the small island nations of Nauru and Tonga.
The company's contract sites are about 1,000 miles off the coast of Mexico, where the ocean is about 2.5 miles deep, in a region known as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. There the seabed floor is sprinkled with potato-size rocks that have large quantities of nickel, manganese, copper, zinc, cobalt and other minerals.
The Metals Company has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars doing exploratory work. But it has become clear that the rules will not be ready for at least several more years, and the company is running low on cash and even available borrowing authority.
'We believe we have sufficient knowledge to get started and prove we can manage environmental risks,' Mr. Barron said, adding that the company planned to ask the United States to approve mining in these same areas.
The Law of the Sea has been ratified by more than 165 nations, but one major exception is the United States. Dating back to the Reagan administration, there were concerns related to seabed mining provisions and how they might limit mining by American companies.
But the United States successfully negotiated changes to the treaty in the 1990s to try to address these concerns. In the decades since, the State Department has sent representatives to meetings at the Seabed Authority's headquarters in Kingston, Jamaica, creating the impression that the United States intends to honor the terms of the treaty, even though the Senate never formally ratified it.
President Trump has already shown a willingness to challenge international norms. He has proposed that the United States take over Greenland or even Canada to increase access to critical minerals needed to fuel manufacturing in the United States, and perhaps even the Panama Canal to more cheaply move American manufactured goods.
The Metals Company executives have confidentially been meeting with Trump White House and Commerce Department officials to prepare this plan.
Mr. Barron, in an interview and statement he prepared for The Times, said he believed that the Seabed Authority has been constrained by environmental groups like Greenpeace. Such organizations, he said, 'see deep-sea mining industry as their 'last green trophy' and have worked tirelessly to continuously delay the adoption of the exploitation regulations with the explicit intent of killing commercial industry.'
He also argued that the authority's delay in finishing the seabed mining rules had violated the terms of the international agreement.
Such arguments have not been well received by the Seabed Authority and its member states: More than 30 nations have argued that there still is not enough evidence that seabed mining can take place without causing unacceptable harm to the environment.
Even nations like China, India, Poland and Norway — which have been more supportive of moving more quickly to start industrial-scale mining in international waters — have joined to object to the proposal by The Metals Company.
A license granted by the Trump administration to The Metals Company could give the company a head start on these nations, potentially flooding the marketplace with metals like nickel and copper and undermining plans by these other nations to mine the ocean on their own.
'At this critical moment in history, it is more important for us to be united in continuing to demonstrate the effectiveness and vitality of the seabed regime,' a Chinese government official said in a statement read at a Seabed Authority meeting on Friday.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Politico
13 minutes ago
- Politico
Bondi says violent LA protesters will face federal charges
At least nine people are facing federal charges for their involvement in protests against immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, Attorney General Pam Bondi said Monday. Demonstrators face charges for attacking police with Molotov cocktails, looting and spitting on law enforcement, Bondi said in a TV interview. 'We are going to prosecute them federally,' she said in an interview on Fox News. 'If California won't protect their law enforcement, we will protect the LAPD and the sheriff's office out there.' Sporadic but at times raucous protests broke out in several parts of the Los Angeles area in recent days, prompting President Donald Trump to deploy National Guard troops and Marines despite the fact that Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said the additional forces were not needed. Bondi said the Trump administration planned to take a hard line against demonstrators. 'You spit on a federal law enforcement officer no more,' she said. 'As President Trump said, you spit. we hit. Get ready. If you spit on a federal law enforcement officer, we are going to charge you with a crime federally. You are looking at up to five years maximum in prison.' Those charged already include David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union California, who was injured and arrested while protesting the arrest of workers in downtown Los Angeles. He was released Monday from federal custody on a $50,000 bond. The Trump administration's decisive treatment of demonstrators — and the president's focus on punishing those who assault police officers — stands in contrast to his sweeping pardons for roughly 1,500 people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, seeking to overturn the election. Trump has deployed up to 4,000 soldiers from the California National Guard to help quell the demonstrations over the protests of Newsom and Bass — who say the moves are worsening tensions. The state has sued to reverse the deployments. The White House also ordered 700 Marines to join the National Guard, though it's unclear exactly what role they will play. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Monday evening that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to direct military forces to arrest 'lawbreakers.' DHS did not immediately respond to request for comment from POLITICO, and the Department of Defense declined to comment on the story. 'You can run, you can't hide,' Bondi told Fox. 'We are coming after you federally. If you assault a police officer, if you rob a store, if you loot, if you spit on a police officer, we are coming after you.'

Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more
Jun. 9—Families hoping to send money to loved ones in other countries may be hit with additional fees from a tax and spending bill proposed by the Trump administration that would slap a 3.5% tax on remittances sent by anyone who is not a U.S. citizen. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed through the House in May and is now being debated by the Senate. The budget bill has several proposed tax changes, which include taxing money sent from an estimated 40 million non-US citizens — including green card holders, temporary workers and undocumented immigrants — to family and friends in other countries. The bill had a 5% tax but was reduced to 3.5%. The bill is another way the Trump administration is hoping to dissuade immigrants, both documented and undocumented, from coming into the country and moving money out of the U.S. economy. Republicans believe the bill would increase the average take-home pay of U.S. citizens, while Democrats believe the bill and increased taxes are "a transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich," said Daniel Garcia, spokesperson for the Democratic Party of New Mexico. What is a remittance? Remittances refer to sending money from one person to another and is typically done between family members from one country to another. A person living and working in the U.S. would send money to family members typically living in a developing country, where this money is a source of income that contributes to the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Payments are typically sent using an electronic payment service or a money transfer app. Banks, credit unions and money transfer services charge a fee for processing remittances, and fees average 10%, according to the International Monetary Fund. Cryptocurrency exchanges are not as heavily regulated and can be a way to avoid additional taxes and surcharges. "Taxing remittances would amount to a form of double taxation, since migrants already pay taxes in the country where they work," Esteban Moctezuma Barragán, Mexican Ambassador, wrote in a statement. "Imposing a tax on these transfers would disproportionately affect those with the least, without accounting for their ability to pay," Barragán added. However, some believe the 3.5% tax fee would give financial support to public services and is the most "pro-worker, pro-family and pro-American legislation we've seen in decades," said Amy Barela, chairwoman of the Republican Party of New Mexico. "Let's be clear, this measure is not about targeting individuals," she wrote in a statement to the Journal. "It's about ensuring the 3.5% fee, although modest, would also have a very meaningful impact in helping offset costs associated with public services, border security, and community infrastructure — relieving some of the financial pressure on hardworking New Mexicans who continue to bear the burden of an imbalanced system." Crucial source of revenue Mexico is the second-largest receiver of personally wired money behind India, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 2024, Latin America received $160.9 billion, with the U.S. accounting for 96.6% of all remittances to Mexico. They also make up 20-30% of GDP in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. "Remittance is a very important source of revenue in our government," said Patricia Pinzón, consul of Mexico. "This would affect Mexican families and the economy in general, but I would say the basic needs of Mexican families is the most worrying thing." However, "whatever happens in one economy will affect the other," said Pinzón. "Our economies are so interrelated that everything that happens here has a consequence in Mexico," she said. "Mexicans will not stop sending money; they'll just look for alternative ways to send it." Mexican migrant workers sent 16.7% of their labor income back to their families, and more than 80% of the income remains in the U.S. economy. The average amount of remittance sent to Mexico is roughly $350 every one to two months, which "could seem like nothing for the U.S., but it's money that a whole family lives on and covers their basics in Mexico," Pinzón said.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Smithsonian rejects Trump's attempt to fire National Portrait Gallery director
The Smithsonian Institution asserted its independence Monday evening in a statement that could be read as a rejection of President Trump's late-May firing of National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sajet. The Smithsonian's statement said the organization's secretary, Lonnie G. Bunch, "has the support of the Board of Regents in his authority and management of the Smithsonian." The statement suggested that all personnel decisions will be made by Bunch, not Trump. The announcement came after a much-anticipated Board of Regents meeting to discuss the fate of Sajet. The Washington Post had reported that Sajet quietly continued to show up for work each day after Trump's social media post, which said he was firing Sajet for being 'a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI.' The Smithsonian's statement Monday did not explicitly state that Sajet would remain in her position, and the institution did not respond to a Times question on that subject. But the text of the statement is clear in its intent, beginning: "In 1846, the Smithsonian was established by Congress as an independent entity." It continues: "Throughout its history, the Smithsonian has been governed and administered by a Board of Regents and a Secretary. The board is entrusted with the governance and independence of the Institution, and the board appoints a Secretary to manage the Institution." The Smithsonian's move comes shortly after the White House proposed a 12% reduction in funding to the Smithsonian in the 2026 budget — including the elimination of funding for the National Museum of the American Latino, which is in the development stages and aims to open on or near the National Mall; and the Anacostia Community Museum, which opened in 1967 and honors Black culture. The Smithsonian became a target for Trump beginning March 27, when he issued an executive order titled "Restoring truth and sanity to American history." That order demanded an end to federal funding for exhibitions and programs based on racial themes that 'divide Americans.' "Once widely respected as a symbol of American excellence and a global icon of cultural achievement, the Smithsonian Institution has, in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology," the order read. It also instructed Vice President JD Vance to remove 'improper ideology' from the Smithsonian's 21 museums and the National Zoo in Washington. The order followed Trump's ongoing attempts to reshape federal cultural institutions, including his February takeover of the Kennedy Center. One major difference between the Kennedy Center and the Smithsonian: The Kennedy Center's board is appointed by the president, but the Smithsonian's board consists of officials representing all three branches of government. Vance is on the Smithsonian's Board of Regents, as is Chief Justice John G. Roberts. "Since its inception, the Smithsonian has set out to be a nonpartisan institution," the statement Monday read. "As the nation's museum, the Smithsonian must be a welcoming place of knowledge and discovery for all Americans. The Board of Regents is committed to ensuring that the Smithsonian is a beacon of scholarship free from political or partisan influence, and we recognize that our institution can and must do more to further these foundational values. "To reinforce our nonpartisan stature, the Board of Regents has directed the Secretary to articulate specific expectations to museum directors and staff regarding content in Smithsonian museums, give directors reasonable time to make any needed changes to ensure unbiased content, and to report back to the Board on progress and any needed personnel changes based on success or lack thereof in making the needed changes." Get notified when the biggest stories in Hollywood, culture and entertainment go live. Sign up for L.A. Times entertainment alerts. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.