Earlier this year, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a slew of executive actions that could set the country back decades on ocean protection—reopening the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument to commercial fishing and undoing all the progress that has been made to end overfishing and rebuild fish stocks and the United States’ fisheries. Going further than any previous administration, he also issued an executive order in April that seeks to fast-track the launch of deep-sea mining in domestic and international waters.
Yet Trump’s retreat from international forums and multilateral institutions has created a vacuum that other countries have been quick to fill. For instance, the third United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC) last month delivered real progress and momentum on several critical issues at a pivotal time.
It’s tempting to be cynical about the impact of slow-moving U.N. bodies, and UNOC was by no means perfect. But its celebration of multilateralism offered a clear-headed rebuke to the approach being taken by the Trump administration, which didn’t bother to show up at all—at least, not officially. And as the world prepares for the final round of negotiations for the Global Plastics Treaty in August in Geneva, there’s another opportunity for countries to push forward with or without the cooperation of the United States.
Let’s be clear: Trump’s executive orders on the environment pose a real problem—and not just for those who care about protecting the ocean, one of our planet’s last remaining global commons.
Prioritizing corporate profit over the long-term health of this vital resource may appease shortsighted lobbyists, but deregulation will ultimately destroy the ocean that we all depend on for a livable planet. That’s also, incidentally, bad for business. Trump’s attempt to circumvent international law may not be shocking from someone who pulled the United States out of the 2015 Paris Agreement on his first day back in office, but it is yet another attempt to pander to his base that will ultimately undermine U.S. interests and standing.
At the top of the agenda at UNOC was the issue of deep-sea mining. While the United States’ absence was certainly noted, it was Trump’s April executive order on deep-sea mining that appalled nearly everyone present. The meeting proved to be a big moment for efforts to counteract this action, with Slovenia, the Marshall Islands, Cyprus, and Latvia joining a growing list of countries publicly calling for a moratorium or precautionary pause on such mining.
As attention shifts to the International Seabed Authority (ISA) meeting now underway in Jamaica, states will consider adopting a moratorium or some sort of precautionary pause on deep-sea mining in the high seas. The approach recently announced by Trump will definitely be a part of the conversations—but the fact that there are now 37 states on record opposed to rushing ahead with a new code that would permit such mining makes it very unlikely that it will be allowed in international waters any time soon. In a world that is reeling from the combined impacts of climate change, plastic pollution, industrial fisheries, deforestation, and war, this is not the time to optionally launch a new destructive and unnecessary industry.
It’s also not clear how feasible Trump’s deep-sea mining executive order even is in practice. On April 24, the president had ordered the secretary of commerce to “expedite the process for reviewing and issuing seabed mineral exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits in areas beyond national jurisdiction under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act.” Using this act—a 1980 law intended to be a stopgap measure until the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea entered into force—as a vehicle to bypass international law is likely to prompt multiple lawsuits if any mining is actually permitted or ever takes place.
In the absence of an ISA framework, any minerals obtained from areas beyond national jurisdiction under Trump’s executive order would likely be illegal to export for sale or processing. This would significantly limit their potential value, adding even greater challenges for a venture that already appears likely to be too expensive to be commercially viable without major public subsidies.
Bypassing the ISA, which was established by the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), could have far-reaching consequences for the United States. Despite failing to ratify UNCLOS, the United States benefits from the treaty in many ways. From shipping and commerce to science and military uses, UNCLOS provides a global framework for how states operate on 71 percent of the earth’s surface.
UNCLOS has territorial implications as well, both designating areas up to 200 nautical miles from land as states’ exclusive economic zones and providing a means to expand these areas through extended continental shelf claims. Trump’s deep-sea mining executive order has already drawn strong criticism from several states, and it may well lead to more significant problems for U.S. interests on the high seas.
Beyond the ISA, the international community is looking to negotiations on the Global Plastics Treaty. A lot is at stake, as plastics are now understood not just to be a serious threat to marine life but also to biodiversity, human health, and environmental justice. While it is not clear if and how the United States will participate in these negotiations, all signs point to Washington retreating from global leadership in these spaces as well.
Even so, with 19 new countries ratifying the Global Ocean Treaty at UNOC, it is likely that we will reach the necessary 60 in time for the U.N. General Assembly in September.
Ultimately, Trump’s brand of isolationism and exceptionalism will be outlasted by the multilateral agreements made in the coming months—which will present new opportunities for leadership from China, India, and Brazil, as well as regional blocs such as the European Union, Pacific Small Island Developing States, and the African Group.
It is important for the international community to make decisions that are in line with what the best available science tells us is necessary—and in line with what justice demands. This is no time to allow outliers to drive unacceptable compromises or unending delays that prevent the majority of governments from doing the urgent work of protecting people and our planet. The United States and other holdouts will catch up eventually.