President Donald Trump is exploring the possibility of opening over 113 million acres of Alaska’s offshore waters to seabed mining, a move that mirrors similar proposals in the Pacific over the past year, including areas near American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. This potential expansion of the nascent industry in Alaskan waters is igniting significant cultural and environmental concerns among Indigenous peoples who have deep ancestral ties to these marine environments.

Deep-sea mining, the process of extracting mineral deposits from the ocean floor for use in critical technologies such as electric vehicle batteries and advanced military hardware, has yet to establish itself as a commercial enterprise. Its development has been hampered by a lack of comprehensive regulations for international waters and widespread apprehension regarding the ecological ramifications of disturbing mineral formations that have taken millennia to develop. Scientific experts have issued stark warnings about the potential for irreversible damage to vital fisheries and delicate marine ecosystems, which could take thousands of years to recover, if they recover at all. Indigenous communities, in particular, have voiced strong opposition, citing the fundamental right to free, prior, and informed consent for any projects impacting their ancestral territories.

Despite these reservations, President Trump has publicly championed the deep-sea mining industry as a strategic initiative to position the United States as a global leader in the production of critical minerals. His administration has also actively pursued opportunities for U.S. companies to operate in international waters, bypassing the protracted global negotiations aimed at establishing regulatory frameworks for such activities.

Kate Finn, an enrolled citizen of the Osage Nation and the executive director of the Tallgrass Institute Center for Indigenous Economic Stewardship in Colorado, expressed her apprehension that the seabed mining industry might replicate the detrimental environmental and social impacts historically associated with land-based mining operations. "The terrestrial mining industry has not gotten it right with regards to Indigenous peoples," Finn stated, emphasizing that Indigenous communities possess the inherent right to grant or withhold consent for projects on their lands and waters. She stressed that mining companies must fundamentally integrate this right into the design and execution of their operations.

The specific companies interested in pursuing mining leases off the coast of Alaska remain unclear at this juncture. A representative from The Metals Company, a prominent publicly traded firm within the deep-sea mining sector, indicated that the company currently has no plans to expand its operations to Alaska. Similarly, Oliver Gunasekara, the chief executive officer of Impossible Metals, a startup that has previously urged the Trump administration to permit mining near American Samoa despite local opposition, stated that his company also has no immediate plans for Alaska. Gunasekara noted, "We do not have current plans in Alaska, as we do not know what resources are in the ocean. If there are good nodule resources, we would be very interested."

The sheer scale of the potential lease area being considered is staggering, encompassing a region larger than the state of California. Cooper Freeman, who directs Alaska operations for the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, highlighted that this expansive proposed area includes ecologically sensitive waters that are already off-limits to bottom trawling, a destructive fishing practice that involves dragging heavy nets across the seafloor. "A lot of these areas, particularly in the Aleutians, have been put off limits for bottom trawling because there are nurseries for commercially important fish and ecologically important species and habitat," Freeman explained.

In its official announcement, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the federal agency tasked with overseeing deep-sea mining activities, indicated that the proposed area extends to depths exceeding four miles near the Aleutian Trench and encompasses the abyssal plains of the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska, reaching depths as low as 3.5 miles. BOEM specifically expressed interest in regions identified by the U.S. Geological Survey as potentially rich in critical minerals and heavy mineral sands along the Seward Peninsula and the Bering Sea coast.

These waters are adjacent to a state that is home to more than 200 distinct Alaska Native nations. Jasmine Monroe, who identifies as Inupiaq, Yupik, and Cherokee and grew up in the village of Elim in Alaska’s Bering Strait region, voiced her growing concern about the potential impact of this proposal on the seafood her community relies upon for sustenance. She learned of BOEM’s opening of a 30-day public comment period on potential leases, a process that felt insufficient to address the profound implications for her people. "We eat beluga meat, we eat walrus, we eat seal, we eat whale," Monroe shared, underscoring the direct connection between ocean health and their traditional way of life. "Whatever happens in the ocean, it really does affect our way of life." She articulated a pervasive sense of disenfranchisement, stating, "It just feels like we don’t have any say on whether it happens or not. It just feels like the system is set up for failure for us."

The Alaska Federation of Natives, a prominent organization representing Indigenous peoples across Alaska, did not respond to requests for comment on the matter.

Monroe, who actively works on water quality initiatives with the nonprofit Alaska Community Action on Toxics, expressed feelings of disempowerment due to what she described as a top-down approach and the compressed timelines for public input. Kate Finn of the Tallgrass Institute reiterated that Indigenous peoples hold the right under international law to consent to activities within their territories and cautioned that U.S. federal regulations alone may not adequately meet international legal standards, particularly in an era of deregulation. "Companies will miss that if they’re only relying on the U.S. federal government for consultation," she warned. Finn also highlighted that Indigenous nations possess their own distinct economic and cultural priorities, and some have chosen to engage with mining companies under carefully negotiated conditions. "There are Indigenous peoples who work well with companies and invite mining into their territories, and there is a track record there as well," she noted.

While Monroe acknowledged that seabed mining could potentially supply minerals for technologies like electric vehicle batteries—similar to other mining proposals she has opposed in Alaska, including a graphite mine that threatened to pollute local waters—she questioned the relevance of these technologies to her community. She concluded that the potential environmental and cultural costs far outweigh any perceived benefits. "It really feels like another false solution," she stated, reflecting a deep skepticism about the promises of deep-sea mining.