President Donald Trump is contemplating opening over 113 million acres of Alaskan waters to seabed mining, a move that echoes similar proposals for the waters surrounding American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. This expansion of consideration for the nascent deep-sea mining industry in the United States brings significant cultural and environmental concerns to the forefront, particularly for the Indigenous peoples of Alaska who have deep ancestral connections to these marine environments.

Deep-sea mining, the process of extracting mineral deposits from the ocean floor for commercial use in products like electric vehicle batteries and advanced military technology, is not yet an established commercial venture. The industry’s development has been hampered by a lack of comprehensive international regulations governing permits in international waters and by growing apprehension over the potential environmental ramifications of disturbing mineral formations that have taken millennia to develop. Scientists have issued stark warnings that such practices could irrevocably damage vital fisheries and delicate ecosystems, potentially requiring thousands of years for any natural recovery. Furthermore, Indigenous communities worldwide have voiced strong opposition, citing the fundamental violation of their inherent rights, including the right to free, prior, and informed consent regarding any development in their ancestral territories.

However, President Trump has expressed robust support for the deep-sea mining sector, framing it as a strategic imperative for the United States to assert leadership in the production of critical minerals. His administration has actively promoted U.S. companies pursuing mining opportunities in international waters, often circumventing the ongoing global negotiations aimed at establishing robust regulatory frameworks for such activities.

Kate Finn, a citizen of the Osage Nation and the executive director of the Tallgrass Institute Center for Indigenous Economic Stewardship in Colorado, voiced her concerns that the seabed mining industry risks repeating the historical missteps of land-based mining operations. "The terrestrial mining industry has not gotten it right with regards to Indigenous peoples," Finn stated, emphasizing that "Indigenous peoples have the right to give and to withdraw consent. Mining companies themselves need to design their operations around that right." This perspective highlights a critical gap between the aspirations of the mining industry and the established rights and expectations of Indigenous communities.

The specific companies expressing interest in mining off Alaska remain unclear at this juncture. A spokesperson for The Metals Company, a prominent publicly traded entity within the deep-sea mining sector, indicated no current plans to expand operations into Alaskan waters. Similarly, Oliver Gunasekara, chief executive officer of Impossible Metals, a startup that has previously sought presidential approval for mining near American Samoa despite local opposition, stated that his company also has no immediate plans for Alaska. "We do not have current plans in Alaska, as we do not know what resources are in the ocean," Gunasekara commented, adding, "If there are good nodule resources, we would be very interested." This suggests that future interest may hinge on the identification and assessment of commercially viable mineral deposits.

The vast scale of the potential lease area under consideration is noteworthy, exceeding the size of California. Cooper Freeman, director of Alaska operations for the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, expressed alarm at the sheer scope of the proposal, which encompasses ecologically sensitive areas already protected from bottom trawling, a destructive fishing method involving 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, underscoring the ecological significance of the proposed mining zones.

In its official announcement, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the agency tasked with overseeing deep-sea mining activities, detailed that the proposed area includes abyssal plains in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska, reaching depths as low as 3.5 miles, and extending to depths exceeding 4 miles near the Aleutian Trench. BOEM indicated a particular focus on areas identified by the U.S. Geological Survey as being prospective for critical minerals and heavy mineral sands along the Seward Peninsula and the Bering Sea coast. This suggests a targeted approach driven by geological assessments of mineral potential.

The waters in question lie off the coast of 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, shared her apprehension about the potential impacts of this proposal on the seafood her community depends on. Her concerns were heightened by BOEM’s recent initiation of a 30-day public comment period on potential leases. "We eat beluga meat, we eat walrus, we eat seal, we eat whale," she stated, emphasizing the intimate connection between her community’s sustenance and the health of the ocean. "Whatever happens in the ocean, it really does affect our way of life." Monroe further expressed a profound sense of disenfranchisement, remarking, "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, an organization representing Indigenous peoples across Alaska, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the matter.

Monroe, who actively works on water quality issues with the nonprofit Alaska Community Action on Toxics, described feeling disempowered by what she perceived as a top-down decision-making process and the compressed timelines for public input. This sentiment is echoed by advocates who argue for more robust and inclusive consultation processes with Indigenous communities.

Kate Finn of the Tallgrass Institute reiterated that Indigenous peoples possess the right under international law to consent to activities within their territories. She cautioned that relying solely on U.S. federal regulations may prove insufficient for companies to meet international legal standards, particularly within a context of deregulation. "Companies will miss that if they’re only relying on the U.S. federal government for consultation," Finn warned, highlighting the potential for legal and ethical oversights.

Finn also pointed out that Indigenous nations have their own distinct economic and cultural priorities, and that some have successfully partnered 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, underscoring the diversity of approaches and outcomes within Indigenous-industry collaborations.

Monroe acknowledged the potential for seabed mining to supply minerals essential for technologies like electric vehicle batteries, drawing parallels to other mining proposals she has opposed in Alaska, including a graphite mine that posed risks of water pollution. However, she expressed skepticism about the direct benefits to her community, stating, "It really feels like another false solution." For Monroe and many others in Indigenous communities, the perceived environmental and cultural costs of deep-sea mining far outweigh any purported benefits, especially when those benefits do not directly translate to improved well-being or self-determination for their people. The pursuit of critical minerals for global markets, she suggests, should not come at the expense of irreplaceable ecosystems and the cultural heritage of those who have stewarded them for generations. The debate over Alaskan seabed mining thus crystallizes a broader global tension between resource extraction for technological advancement and the imperative to protect vulnerable environments and uphold the rights of Indigenous peoples.