SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
national security
'Deep Deception': Report Details How Deep-Sea Mining Industry Exploits National Security Fears
"Mining the deep ocean in defiance of international consensus," said one retired defense official, "would erode U.S. credibility, fracture alliances, and set a dangerous precedent for unilateral resource exploitation."
Jul 22, 2025
As officials meet in Jamaica for a summit on the international seabed this week, a new report by the climate action group Greenpeace details how the deep-sea mining industry—failing to make a convincing case that its exploitation of the deep sea is necessary for a green energy transition—is trying a new strategy: lobbying Congress with the intent of classifying mining on the ocean floor as a national security priority.
In the Monday report, titled Deep Deception: How the Deep Sea Mining Industry is Manipulating Geopolitics to Profit from Ocean Destruction, Greenpeace describes how firms like the Metals Company (TMC), a Canada-based mining company, have spent years trying to convince policymakers around the world that mining in the deep ocean for minerals like copper, nickel, manganese, and cobalt is essential to manufacture electric vehicle batteries for a green transition.
But much of the key data underpinning that argument was produced by mining companies themselves or published by academic journals with financial interests in the industry, and support for the sector from electric carmakers has waned in recent years as the industry has failed to prove it can mine the ocean floor "in a way that ensures the effective protection of the marine environment," as one statement calling for a moratorium read.
Confronted with growing opposition to the notion that deep-sea mining—in which companies use equipment to comb the habitat of tens of thousands of species and potentially spread mining waste for miles—can serve as a key climate solution, Greenpeace said, "these fickle deep-sea entrepreneurs are jumping ship."
Now "they are eager to embrace politically opportunistic 'national security' storylines," reads the report.
"For TMC, the green transition was always a false narrative," said Arlo Hemphill, project lead for the Stop Deep-Sea Mining campaign at Greenpeace USA. "The numbers just didn't add up to justify opening the world's last unspoiled wilderness to mass-scale extractive exploitation. Now, the industry is repackaging itself as essential to national security and defense, exploiting real geopolitical tensions for personal profit. It's a dangerous and unnecessary strategy that could destroy the international seabed to enrich a few."
The report was released as the International Seabed Authority (ISA) convened in Kingston, Jamaica for its 30th Assembly, with governments under heavy pressure from the deep-sea mining industry to fast-track a Mining Code under which they could move forward with ramping up operations—even as 37 states and nearly 1,000 international scientists now support a moratorium on deep-sea mining.
As the ISA began its meeting on Monday, Pew Environment explained the risks carried by deep-sea mining—from noise and light pollution to the endangerment of species scientists haven't yet discovered.
"The deep sea is one of Earth's most pristine and fragile ecosystems," said Grace Evans, senior associate of ocean governance at Pew Charitable Trusts. "Once we damage it, we can't go back."
TMC began "targeting defense and industrial policy stakeholders" in 2022 as it was still pushing its green energy transition narrative.
The company spent nearly half a million dollars over two years to hire lobbying firms to influence votes on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in 2023 and 2024—and succeeded in pushing the Department of Defense (DOD) to deliver a report "assessing the processing of seabed resources of polymetallic nodules domestically."
TMC's lobbying push also convinced 31 Republican members of Congress to write to then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in 2023, asking him "to develop a plan to address the national security ramifications of [China's] interest and investment in seabed mining."
In March, TMC announced it would seek permits from the U.S. to mine the international deep sea under American authorization—a move that "brazenly" bypassed international treaties and consensus, said Greenpeace.
Greenpeace's report comes four months after that application and three months after President Donald Trump signed an executive order signaling the government's intent to "rapidly" develop and invest in U.S. capabilities to explore and collect seabed mineral resources through "streamlined permitting," with the White House asserting the U.S. "has a core national security and economic interest in maintaining leadership in deep-sea science and technology and seabed mineral resources."
"We will not stand by while a neocolonial deep-sea land grab takes place that will harm our communities, disrupt our cultural connection to the ocean, and endanger our livelihoods."
Under the order, the Trump administration signaled its "readiness to unilaterally authorize deep sea mining in both U.S. and international waters," reads the Greenpeace report—potentially violating the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the U.S. has not signed.
Days after the order was signed, TMC applied to the U.S. government for deep-sea mining exploration licenses and commercial mining permits. The Greenpeace report details how the Trump administration and companies including TMC are working together to once again promote a false narrative about the necessity of deep-sea mining—one that is actually meant to provide "a lifeline for an industry in crisis."
Global defense industries "likely represent only a tiny fraction of overall global consumption" of the metals found in polymetallic nodules in the deep sea, according to the report—meaning that as with the electric auto industry, the defense sector's true demand for deep-sea mining is much smaller than the industry and the Trump administration would have the public believe.
"The U.S. defense demand stands for a tiny percentage of our domestic consumption of critical metals. And to be honest, U.S. defense is not a big user of anything," Jack Lifton, executive director of the Critical Minerals Institute, told Greenpeace. "Given what the defense industry and the DOD and the different contractors are doing in terms of securing metals from elsewhere, friendshoring, reshoring, recycling, there is no need to mine the seabed for cobalt or nickel or rare earths."
While metals that can be accessed through deep-sea mining do have military uses, "the scale of this military use is relatively modest compared to global civilian demand—dwarfed by the commercial manufacturing sector," reads the report.
For example, the U.S. currently imports manganese ore from Gabon, South Africa, and Mexico, and "a substantial deep sea mining development could nearly double the global supply of manganese in its first year, resulting in an immediate oversupply" and a reduction in the value of the metal and the global mining operation. The U.S. also already has a stockpile of 322,000 tons of manganese in Arizona.
In a foreword to the Greenpeace report, retired U.S. Army Major General Randy Manner wrote that "the bedrock of national security" lies in "global stability, the rule of law, and ecological resilience"—not in accumulating new minerals and weaponry.
"Mining the deep ocean in defiance of international consensus would degrade all three. It would erode U.S. credibility, fracture alliances, and set a dangerous precedent for unilateral resource exploitation," said Manner.
In the Pacific region—where deep-sea mining companies aim to operate—several states and leaders have called for a ban. moratorium, or precautionary pause on the practice, with Pacific Island Heritage Coalition Chair Solomon P. Kaho'ohalahala warning that "the Pacific is not a sacrifice zone."
"We will not stand by while a neocolonial deep-sea land grab takes place that will harm our communities, disrupt our cultural connection to the ocean, and endanger our livelihoods," said Kaho'ohalahala. "This July, ISA member states must make it clear where they stand—for their foundational principles of equity, multilateralism, and environmental protection or unbounded corporate greed."
At the ISA meeting in Kingston, Greenpeace International campaigner Louisa Casson said governments around the world "have sent a clear signal that the deep-sea mining industry will not get international approval any time soon"—even amid industry pressure and the Trump administration's push.
TMC's application to the U.S. "shatters" the firm's credibility "and serves as a stark warning to others considering this reckless path."
"Governments have also reaffirmed that there should be no deep sea mining in the global oceans while major political and scientific questions remain unresolved," said Casson. "Deep sea mining is a dangerous gamble we cannot afford, and the only responsible way forward is a global moratorium."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Eases Pollution Rules for 100+ Facilities, Including Chemical and Coal Plants
"Trump is illegally delaying clean air laws from his desk because polluters make more money when they just dump their toxic chemicals in our air," said one critic.
Jul 18, 2025
Continuing a trend of prioritizing polluters over public health and the planet, U.S. President Donald Trump late Thursday signed a series of proclamations to provide what the Republican called "regulatory relief" to various industries.
While the names of Trump's four proclamations suggest they are intended to promote American "security" regarding energy, chemical manufacturing, iron ore processing, and sterile medical equipment, what they actually do is allow over 100 facilities across the country to not comply with rules put in place under Democratic former President Joe Biden.
A Trump White House fact sheet describes the rules from Biden's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as "burdensome." Meanwhile, environmental and health advocates blasted Trump over his new exemptions for coal-fired power plants, ethylene oxide commercial sterilizers, and facilities that manufacture chemicals and process taconite iron.
"If your family lives downwind of these plants, this is going to mean more toxic chemicals in the air you breathe."
Patrice Simms, vice president of litigation at Earthjustice's Healthy Communities Program, said in a Friday statement that "Trump is illegally delaying clean air laws from his desk because polluters make more money when they just dump their toxic chemicals in our air."
"Trump's action on behalf of big corporate polluters will cause more cancer, more birth defects, and more children to suffer [from] asthma," Simms warned. "The country deserves better."
The proclamation is not the first handout Trump has given the coal industry since returning to office in January. As Earthjustice noted:
In April 2025, the Trump administration exempted 68 coal-fired power plants from pollution limits set in the strengthened MATS rule, even though pollution controls are widely available and already in use. These came after EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin invited corporations to email the agency to request exemptions from clean air standards. Companies were told they could cite "national security" or "lack of available technology" as justification.
John Walke, clean air director for the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, told The Associated Press that Trump's claims about national security concerns and technology issues were "pretexts" to further enrich large corporations.
"President Trump just signed a literal free pass for polluters," Walke said of the new proclamations. "If your family lives downwind of these plants, this is going to mean more toxic chemicals in the air you breathe."
The AP reported that "in a related development, the EPA said Thursday it will give utility companies an additional year to inspect and report on contamination from toxic coal ash landfills across the country," which Zeldin also called "regulatory relief."
Earthjustice senior counsel Lisa Evans told The New York Times on Thursday that while it may not seem like a lengthy delay, "a year's time is not irrelevant when you are living next to a coal plant."
"It's one more year of hazardous contaminants getting into the groundwater," Evans said. "And the more chemicals that get into the groundwater, the more difficult and expensive it is to remediate."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Film Insiders Say Trump's Proposed Hollywood Tariffs Would 'Destroy' Entertainment Industry
"We won't be able to make movies for the same budgets, actors won't get paid the same fees, and the list goes on," said one film professional. "Simply, it would destroy the independent sector."
May 05, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement via social media Sunday evening that he would "begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff" on films produced in foreign countries was met with confusion and shock in the U.S. entertainment industry and abroad, with filmmakers cautioning that such extreme levies would render many productions impossible and do nothing to save what the president called the "dying" movie industry.
On his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump took issue with "incentives" that have pushed filmmakers to shoot projects outside of the U.S., not only saying that the industry centered in Hollywood is "being devastated" but also suggesting that simply traveling to other countries to produce films leads to foreign "propaganda" being embedded in the final products.
"This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat," said Trump. "It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!"
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick suggested the administration is moving to implement the president's plan, writing, "We're on it" in his own social media post.
While the vast majority of U.S. films are already produced mainly in the U.S.—providing jobs to actors, editors, and other production staff—many major studios including streaming giants Amazon and Netflix have brought their production shoots to cities like Toronto and Dublin, where local leaders have offered large tax breaks.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, is currently addressing the effects those foreign tax incentives have had on working film professionals in Southern California—including makeup artists, camera operators, electricians, and other middle-class workers—by pushing for a tax credit for studios to film locally. The state Legislature is currently considering that proposal.
"Putting a tariff on movies shot outside the U.S. will increase the cost of shooting and the studios will lobby the exhibitors to raise ticket prices and then the audience will skip the theater and then... well you see where this is going."
But by "instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands," film industry veterans said Trump would not succeed in bringing production jobs back to the United States—but would rather make all but the biggest budget films impossible to produce.
"This is NOT the effect this is going to have," one industry professional told Deadline. "It will make low- and mid-level productions completely unproducable, hence destroying many jobs from producer assistants to writers to post-production. Further, it will lessen the amount of big budget content created because the studios won't be able to make as much because the cost of production will be more."
An official at a top U.S. film company that produces movies both domestically and internationally told Deadline that international film distributors will be less likely to buy U.S. films under Trump's new tariff plan.
"It affects domestic distribution deals but it also impacts equity players who have money in movies because their films will suddenly be worth less money," they said. "We won't be able to make movies for the same budgets, actors won't get paid the same fees, and the list goes on. Simply, it would destroy the independent sector."
Exactly how the proposed policy would be implemented was unclear from Trump's social media post, but U.K.-based producer told Deadline that "leading independent distributors would all be out of business if it's them" who have to pay the tariffs.
A source close to the White House told Politico that the tariff policy originated with actor Jon Voight, a strong supporter of Trump who—along with Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone—has been named one of Trump's "special ambassadors" to Hollywood.
Deadline reported last week that Voight was meeting with studios and union representatives in Hollywood to discuss a plan to revive the film industry, with "a federal tax incentive" expected to be a main component.
Voight's fellow ambassador, Gibson, is one Hollywood player who could be directly impacted by Trump's proposed tariffs; his film, a sequel to The Passion of the Christ, is scheduled to begin filming in Italy this summer.
"Putting a tariff on movies shot outside the U.S. will increase the cost of shooting and the studios will lobby the exhibitors to raise ticket prices and then the audience will skip the theater and then... well you see where this is going," wrote producer Randy Greenberg in a post on LinkedIn after Trump announced his plan.
The Washington Post reported that Trump could rely on a provision of a 1962 trade law that he has used in the past to impose tariffs on goods; the law gives the Commerce Department 270 days to complete an investigation into alleged national security threats created by certain imports.
"Other nations have stolen our movie industry," Trump told reporters on Sunday. "If they're not willing to make a movie inside the United States, we should have a tariff on movies that come in."
At The Guardian, film editor Andrew Pulver wrote that Trump's plan appears aimed at destroying "the international film industry":
The effect of any tariff is likely to be dramatic. Recent figures from the British Film Institute (BFI) show that in 2024 £4.8 billion ($6.37 billion) of production spend on film and high-end TV in the U.K. came from international sources, 86% of the total spent on film and TV made in Britain. In Australia, the film industry stands to lose up to AUS $767 million. A program of studio building in the U.K., designed to increase capacity and therefore revenue, is likely to feel the chill almost immediately. And the effect on the domestic industry in the U.S. is forecast to be adverse, as production costs rise without the injection of overseas tax incentives, with mid-level projects potentially wiped out.
Despite Trump's claim that the industry is "dying," according to the Motion Picture Association's latest economic impact report, the U.S. film industry had a $15.3 billion trade surplus in 2023 and $22.6 billion in exports.
An executive at a U.S. distribution company expressed hope to Deadline that Trump's threat would encourage "desperately needed increases in U.S. state tax incentives being implemented ASAP."
"Can't see his target here," they said, "other than confusion and distraction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular