Executive Order 14285, signed by President Trump on April 24, 2025, is the policy lever behind the seabed mining thesis that newsletter publishers have been pitching all year. The order’s title is “Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources,” and it directs multiple federal agencies to accelerate seabed mineral exploration, permitting, and processing. For anyone trying to understand the regulatory context behind pitches like Dylan Jovine’s Hidden American Inheritance, the order is the primary source document.

What the Executive Order Actually Does

The order has four main components, each assigned to specific agencies with 60-day deadlines for initial reports.

NOAA expedited permitting (Section 3a): The Secretary of Commerce, acting through NOAA, was directed to expedite the process for reviewing and issuing seabed mineral exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The legal authority invoked is the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980, or DSHMRA. That law was passed during an earlier era when the United States was exploring unilateral seabed mining outside the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea framework. DSHMRA has been largely dormant for four decades. The executive order revives it.

Interior Department OCS leasing (Section 3b): The Secretary of the Interior was directed to establish an expedited process for reviewing and approving permits for prospecting and granting leases for seabed mineral resources within the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. This covers the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf — the 386,000 square miles of additional seabed territory the U.S. claimed through the ECS mapping project.

Defense Stockpile integration (Section 3d): The Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Energy were directed to evaluate using the National Defense Stockpile for storage of materials derived from seabed polymetallic nodules, and to enter offtake agreements for those materials. The Pentagon becomes a potential buyer of seabed-sourced nickel, cobalt, and manganese.

International partnerships (Section 3c): The order directs agencies to engage with allies and partners on seabed mineral development, and to produce a report on the feasibility of an international benefit-sharing mechanism for seabed mining in areas beyond any country’s national jurisdiction. That last provision is a response to the International Seabed Authority framework, which 169 countries have ratified through UNCLOS and which the U.S. has not joined.

The DSHMRA Pathway and Why It Matters

The Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act was passed in 1980 as part of a short-lived “Reciprocating States Regime” — a group of countries that agreed to recognize each other’s seabed mining claims outside the UNCLOS framework. The regime dissolved in the early 1990s after the Cold War ended and the UNCLOS system, run by the International Seabed Authority, became the dominant framework for seabed mining in international waters.

The executive order revives DSHMRA’s permitting authority for use in 2026. The American Society of International Law published an analysis in 2025 noting that the Reciprocating States Regime no longer exists, and that any company mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction under a NOAA-issued DSHMRA license is unlikely to have its mining rights recognized by other countries. The practical risk: extracted minerals may be difficult to sell on international markets, and financing for such operations could be constrained by legal uncertainty.

The ASIL analysis also noted, based on public reporting and the company’s own statements, that the paragraphs of EO 14285 concerning areas beyond national jurisdiction appear to have been inserted after a deep-sea mining company lobbied the administration. After the order was issued, the company’s US subsidiary applied to NOAA for exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.

The NOAA Permitting Timeline

The company’s application progression is documented in SEC filings:

  • January 22, 2026: The US subsidiary submitted a consolidated application to NOAA for a commercial recovery permit covering approximately 65,000 square kilometers in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.
  • April 28, 2026: NOAA determined the application was in full compliance with regulatory requirements.
  • May 1, 2026: NOAA publicly announced the full compliance determination.
  • May 28, 2026: NOAA certified a separate application covering approximately 122,000 square kilometers.

The remaining steps are a draft environmental impact statement, a public comment period, and a final permit decision. The company estimates the permit decision in Q1 2027. Full compliance means the application meets procedural requirements, not that the permit is granted. The environmental review and public comment period are where opposition from environmental organizations and international legal challenges will surface.

The International Law Conflict

The executive order operates on two legal tracks that pull in different directions.

The first track is the U.S. domestic framework. DSHMRA gives NOAA authority to issue seabed mining permits. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act gives the Interior Department authority to lease seabed minerals within the U.S. ECS. The executive order directs both agencies to expedite their processes. Domestically, the legal framework is straightforward.

The second track is international law. The Clarion-Clipperton Zone, where the company’s primary exploration areas sit, is in international waters beyond any country’s national jurisdiction. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea designates the seabed in those areas as the “common heritage of mankind,” managed by the International Seabed Authority. The U.S. has not ratified UNCLOS but has historically accepted its provisions as customary international law. EO 14285’s invocation of DSHMRA to unilaterally authorize mining in those areas puts the U.S. in direct conflict with the ISA framework that 169 countries support.

The ASIL analysis concluded that the legal position of states objecting to EO 14285 is strengthened by near-universal participation in UNCLOS and the ISA, alongside U.S. practice prior to the order. The practical outcome is that any minerals extracted under a DSHMRA license in international waters may face recognition and marketability problems in countries that follow the ISA framework.

The Domestic Pathway and the ECS

The executive order also directs the Interior Department to expedite leasing for seabed minerals within the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. That provision covers the 386,000 square miles of Extended Continental Shelf that the U.S. claimed through the ECS mapping project — the territory at the center of the Hidden American Inheritance thesis.

The domestic legal framework is more settled. The U.S. has clear sovereign rights over its continental shelf under international law, even as a non-party to UNCLOS. The general principle of coastal state rights over the extended shelf is not in dispute, though some countries have objected to specific boundary claims.

The practical question is whether the ECS seabed holds commercially viable mineral deposits. The richest polymetallic nodule fields are in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, in international waters. The U.S. ECS areas are less explored and may contain different mineral concentrations. The executive order directs mapping of priority areas within the OCS, which suggests the resource assessment is still in early stages.

Where This Leaves the Policy

Executive Order 14285 created a genuine policy shift. It revived a dormant domestic legal framework, directed multiple agencies to accelerate permitting, and integrated seabed minerals into the national defense stockpile strategy. The NOAA compliance determinations in April and May 2026 show the process is moving.

The unresolved questions are the ones that will determine whether seabed mining scales into a commercial industry or remains in the permitting phase. The international law conflict over mining in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone is live and will surface during the environmental review. The commercial viability of extraction at scale remains unproven. The Q1 2027 permit decision is the next concrete milestone. The executive order opened the door. What walks through it depends on what happens in the next two quarters.