The U.S. depends heavily on foreign sources—particularly China—for critical minerals essential to defense, manufacturing, and energy technologies. Now the government is considering whether to tap the ocean floor to reduce that dependence.

Critical minerals like nickel, cobalt, and lithium power the batteries in your phone, electric car, and the renewable energy systems that store solar and wind power. Rare earth elements run wind turbines and electric motors. China's control of most global supplies means American manufacturers and consumers depend on a geopolitical rival for essential goods. This could create a vulnerability if supply chains break or prices spike.

Developing domestic sources may mean cheaper minerals, lower manufacturing costs, and American jobs. But seabed mining also carries environmental trade-offs: the proposed lease areas include Alaska, Virginia, and U.S. territories where mining could affect fishing, tourism, ocean health, and potentially food and water quality.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) began an Alaska lease process in January, examining an area larger than California for potential heavy mineral sands and ferromanganese crusts. The agency has identified nickel, cobalt, lithium, manganese, and rare earth elements as critical minerals that can occur offshore.

The core question is whether the U.S. should reduce its dependence on foreign minerals by tapping domestic ocean resources, or whether environmental concerns should take priority. BOEM has legal authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to lease areas 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.

Supporters of seabed mining argue it would strengthen domestic supply chains and reduce reliance on adversaries. Opponents worry about damage to deep-ocean ecosystems, which remain poorly understood.

Congress is split on the issue with two competing bills put forward. The Senate has not yet moved on any of the bills, and disagreement over environmental protections versus supply chain security will likely determine which approach gains traction.

---

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article