US Deep-Sea Mining Regulations Called Bare Bones as Lease Sales Advance Without Adequate Oversight Framework

Legal experts and the former director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management have warned that the regulatory framework governing deep-sea mining in US federal waters is outdated, lacks critical environmental and financial safeguards, and is being weakened further by proposed administrative revisions. The warnings come as BOEM prepares to hold the world's first commercial seabed lease sales, starting in American Samoa in August 2026, under laws designed primarily for oil and gas development decades before deep-sea mining was a commercial prospect.

 

Regulatory Framework and Its Structural Weaknesses

 

The primary legal instrument governing deep-sea mineral extraction in US federal waters is the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, a 1953 law drafted with offshore oil and gas in mind rather than seabed mining. Elizabeth Klein, who served as BOEM director from 2023 to 2025 and is now a Washington attorney, has described the existing regulations as bare bones and a skeletal structure that focuses narrowly on the lease sale and permitting process without addressing what requirements should be imposed on companies actually engaged in deep-sea mining. The regulations lack provisions requiring companies to demonstrate fitness to operate, financial assurance obligations in the event of environmental damage or bankruptcy, and specificity around environmental protection. Klein has also expressed concern that BOEM lacks personnel with deep technical knowledge of deep-sea mining and that it is unclear what the agency is doing to build that expertise.

 

Proposed Revisions Weaken Rather Than Modernise

 

In February 2026, BOEM published proposed administrative revisions to the OCSLA regulatory framework, describing them as efforts to eliminate unnecessary provisions and facilitate timely leasing and operations. Klein has characterised many of the proposed changes as underwhelming procedural adjustments while drawing particular attention to the removal of an initial community notification step that provided an opportunity for public input on environmental impacts. Other proposed changes include shortening the review timeline for lease requests from 45 days to 28 days and deleting a provision requiring BOEM to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impact from prospecting activities. Environmental lawyer Bobbi-Jo Dobush has rejected BOEM's framing of these changes as administrative, characterising them instead as substantive policy shifts that remove underlying protections and checks and balances. Klein has stated directly that the changes are definitely not modernisation and that there is no indication the government is undertaking a process to strengthen the regulatory framework.

 

Read more: Indonesia's Lombok Fishers Revive Crab Stocks Through Community-Led Mangrove Silvofishery

 

Critical Minerals Framing and Environmental Law Exemption Risk

 

Robin Craig, a professor of ocean and coastal law at the University of Kansas, has identified an additional risk arising from the government's classification of seabed resources as critical minerals. A special cabinet committee known as the Endangered Species Committee, or the God Squad, recently granted an exemption from the Endangered Species Act for oil and gas development in the Gulf of Mexico on national security grounds, removing protections for the critically endangered Rice's whale, a species with fewer than 50 individuals. Craig has warned that classifying deep-sea mining operations as the search for critical minerals positions the industry to receive similar national security-based exemptions from environmental protections in the future. The moment critical minerals are invoked, she has argued, national security rationales become available, creating a pathway to bypass the environmental review requirements that would otherwise apply.

 

Lease Durability and Governance Opposition

 

Beyond the question of regulatory adequacy, Dobush has highlighted that a lease, once granted, is extremely difficult for the government to reclaim, particularly if future administrations seek to constrain the industry. She has pointed to the current Trump administration's efforts to cancel offshore wind leases as a precedent, noting that the US government is reimbursing companies nearly US$900 million in that process. If deep-sea mining leases proceed and a subsequent administration attempts to reverse course, taxpayers would similarly face significant financial liability. Territorial and local government opposition to the lease sales also remains substantial, with the governor of Guam signing legislation banning deep-sea mining in its nearshore waters and prohibiting the use of its port for seabed mining activities, adding to the moratorium previously enacted by American Samoa's governor on mining in its territorial waters.