Why It Matters

The Trump administration is moving forward with plans to develop critical minerals from the ocean floor, with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management pursuing four potential mineral lease sales in federal waters. A recent CRS report examines seabed mining as a potential way to expand domestic supplies of minerals used in defense, manufacturing and energy technologies as the United States seeks to reduce reliance on foreign supply chains. CRS notes, however, that BOEM has not yet issued any leases for critical mineral activities.

The United States is dependent on foreign sources, particularly China, for critical minerals used in defense, manufacturing, and energy technologies. Supporters of seabed mining argue that developing offshore deposits could diversify U.S. mineral supplies and strengthen national security, while opponents and other stakeholders have raised concerns about potential environmental and societal effects. BOEM identifies nickel, cobalt, lithium, manganese and rare earth elements among the critical minerals that can occur offshore.

The issue has produced competing approaches in Congress. Some lawmakers have introduced legislation intended to codify or implement elements of President Donald Trump’s executive order accelerating offshore mineral development, while others have proposed prohibiting certain seabed mining activities on the Outer Continental Shelf.

The Big Picture

Trump issued Executive Order 14285, “Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources,” in April 2025. The order directed the secretary of the Interior to identify critical minerals that could be derived from seabed resources and called for expedited permitting and development of domestic seabed mineral resources.

BOEM, under the Department of the Interior, has authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to lease areas of the Outer Continental Shelf for non-energy mineral development. Five major types of offshore deposits may contain critical minerals: heavy mineral sands, phosphorites, polymetallic sulfides and hydrothermal deposits, ferromanganese crusts and polymetallic nodules.

In response to the executive order and under its existing statutory authority, BOEM initiated processes for four potential mineral lease sales offshore American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Virginia and Alaska. The agency has not issued any critical mineral leases to date.

The proposed lease areas contain different potential resources. The Virginia process focuses on heavy mineral sands and phosphorites, while the CNMI process involves potential ferromanganese crusts, polymetallic nodules and polymetallic sulfides. Alaska contains potential heavy mineral sands and ferromanganese crusts. The Alaska request-for-information area covers more than 113 million acres, an area larger than California.

The leasing processes are at different stages. BOEM has advanced the proposed American Samoa sale through environmental review and issued a proposed leasing notice July 16. A competitive lease sale would still require additional steps, including publication of a final leasing notice.

For Virginia, BOEM published a request for information and interest June 23. The agency subsequently extended the public comment period through Aug. 22 as it considers whether to advance to the next stage of the leasing process.

BOEM began the Alaska process with a request for information in January. CRS reported that BOEM anticipated potential lease sales for the CNMI in November, Alaska in December and Virginia in 2027, although those dates represent anticipated schedules rather than completed or guaranteed sales.

Congressional action reflects competing priorities. H.R. 3803 would give Executive Order 14285 the force and effect of law. H.R. 4018 would require federal agencies to take a series of steps to accelerate seabed mineral development, including identifying critical minerals available from seabed resources and expediting certain federal authorizations.

S. 2860, the Revitalizing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals Dominance Act, similarly would direct federal agencies to accelerate seabed mineral development and engage with U.S. allies and partners on exploration, extraction, processing and environmental monitoring. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining held a hearing on the legislation Feb. 12.

By contrast, H.R. 664, the American Seabed Protection Act, introduced by Rep. Ed Case (D-HI), would prohibit specified mining activities on the deep seabed and Outer Continental Shelf. The bill remains at the introduced stage.

The Bottom Line

The administration’s push for seabed mineral development represents an effort to expand domestic access to critical minerals as the United States seeks to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers. But BOEM has not yet issued a critical mineral lease, and the four potential lease sales remain at various stages of the federal review and leasing process.

Congress faces broader questions over how quickly the federal government should pursue seabed mining, whether existing environmental safeguards are adequate, how states and territories should participate in leasing decisions and whether offshore mineral development can meaningfully reduce U.S. dependence on foreign mineral processing and supply chains.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article