Hegemony and Ecocide:

Trump's EOs betrays Ocean Governance

From outrage to action, we have options. Subscribe to onibaba.substack

Unleashing America's Offshore Critical Minerals: A Doctrine of Deep Sea Unilateralism: (see previous work on Executive Actions)

The recent Executive Order titled "Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources" marks a definitive rupture in the United States’ approach to global ocean governance. It is not merely a domestic administrative action—it may as well be a declaration of war. This Executive Order signals that the U.S. government is prepared to bypass international agreements, challenge multilateralism, and unilaterally pursue deep seabed mining (DSM) in areas designated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as the “common heritage of mankind.” By aligning state power with corporate ambition, this order effectively formalizes what had previously been speculative or tentative behavior—most notably, The Metals Company’s attempt to exploit legal ambiguity—and transforms it into a doctrine of sovereign overreach.

Deep Seabed Mining is a Blue Peril

In 2022, the Deepsea Mining Campaign released the Blue Peril video alongside a scientific study, exposing the alarming risks posed by The Metals Company’s (TMC) deep-sea mining ambitions in the Clarion Clipperton Zone (CCZ) of the Pacific Ocean. Through rigorous simulation, it reveals how vast sediment plumes—both from seabed disturbance (benthic plumes) and midwater waste discharge—could spread across fragile ocean ecosystems, far beyond the immediate mining sites licensed by Nauru and Tonga.

Using state-of-the-art ocean current models, the study tracks virtual sediment particles as they drift through deep ocean currents. These simulations are not speculative—they are grounded in the best scientific tools available. Yet, they deliver a stark warning: while we can predict the direction and speed of horizontal currents with confidence, we are operating in dangerous uncertainty when it comes to how much sediment will be released and how far it will spread.

Settling rates for these sediments—critical for understanding how long particles will remain suspended and how wide the damage will extend—vary by two orders of magnitude in existing scientific literature. This means that what might be dismissed as a localized impact could, in reality, suffocate marine ecosystems across tens of thousands of square kilometers. A single mining vehicle, moving across the seabed for a year, could generate an annual sediment footprint exceeding 10,000 km². And these are conservative estimates—full-scale operations will deploy larger machines, potentially in tandem, compounding the harm.

Key factors such as turbulence and increased mining activity threaten to expand these plumes even further, with impacts on deep-sea biodiversity, much of which remains undiscovered and poorly understood. The deep ocean is not an empty expanse—it is a living system, intricately balanced and vulnerable to disruption. Yet, mining companies, managed by the likes of Gerard Barron are pushing forward like corporate psychopaths ignoring all precautionary warnings over the irreversible damage they will cause, simply for financial gain.

Over 50 controlled simulation experiments confirm that once sediment is released, its spread becomes largely uncontrollable, indifferent to the minor adjustments in mining technique or discharge geometry. The current models—though advanced—are built on limited deep-sea data. In vast regions like the CCZ, there may not be a single deep-ocean current meter feeding real-time data into these global models. We are navigating blind.

The public must recognize the gravity of this moment. Decisions made in boardrooms and regulatory bodies today could devastate ocean ecosystems for centuries. This is not just a scientific issue—it is a moral one. Ignoring them could mean silencing the deep ocean before we even understand the life it holds.

Codifying U.S. Unilateralism in International Waters

At the heart of the order lies the reactivation of the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA), a stone-age relic of Cold War-era legislation crafted to allow the U.S. to authorize deep-sea mining licenses outside of UNCLOS, which it has never ratified. The EO empowers U.S. agencies to issue exploration and extraction permits in international waters—territory explicitly under the regulatory jurisdiction of the International Seabed Authority (ISA). This is not a hypothetical loophole. It is a deliberate affront to the rule-based international order, signaling that the United States will interpret global commons through its own legal framework and issue licenses in defiance of a globally mandated governance structure. What had previously been maneuvered through proxies and private legal fictions has now been elevated into federal policy.

Weaponizing "Energy Dominance"

The creation of the so-called National Energy Dominance Council—another Executive Order— reveals the deeper strategy at play. This is not simply about minerals. The EO embeds seabed mining into a matrix of national security and industrial policy, elevating DSM to the same strategic plane as oil, rare earths, and semiconductors. By invoking the specter of Chinese influence over mineral supply chains, the U.S. positions the seabed as a theater of competition, using energy dominance as both rationale and pretext. The result is a transformation of deep-sea governance from a question of environmental stewardship into one of geopolitical escalation. Resource extraction becomes a proxy for maintaining unipolar supremacy.

As a rebuke, China’s Foreign Minister Guo Jiakun had this to say:

The international seabed area covered by the U.S. executive order goes beyond the limit of national jurisdiction. According to international law, the international seabed area and its resources are the common heritage of mankind. The exploration and exploitation of minerals in the international seabed area must be carried out in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and under the framework of the International Seabed Authority (ISA). The legal status and the exploitation and exploration regime of the international seabed are universally recognized and followed through in international practice. No country should circumvent the ISA and international law and privately authorize any exploitation and exploration activities in the international seabed area at the expense of the common interests of the international community.”

Streamlining Exploitation, Sidestepping Environmental Governance

Although the order makes passing reference to environmental and transparency standards, its substance lies in the directive to streamline and expedite permitting. There is no serious commitment to precautionary principles, to Indigenous or regional consultation, or to the scientific moratorium widely called for by Pacific Island nations, environmental coalitions, and even UN-affiliated agencies. Instead, the imperative is speed—removing friction for corporate actors, clearing regulatory pathways, and ensuring that environmental governance does not obstruct extraction. In this context, the invocation of “responsibility” becomes a public relations tool, masking the rapid unraveling of ecological due diligence.

Private Sector Mobilization and Legislative Capture

The EO makes it explicit that multiple federal agencies are tasked with identifying and promoting private sector opportunities in seabed mineral exploration, extraction, and processing. It calls on U.S. development and export credit agencies, including the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation and the Export-Import Bank, to explore financial tools that will subsidize and underwrite deep-sea mining operations. In doing so, public institutions are conscripted into a project of legislative capture—one in which government infrastructure is retooled to serve the expansion of extractive industries. The alignment of federal financing with corporate actors like The Metals Company reflects the deep entanglement of Washington’s America First policy with transnational capital (2025).

International Partnerships as a Smokescreen

While the order gestures toward "working with allies" in their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), this is a deliberate deflection. The central thrust of the EO is not toward multilateral collaboration, but toward unilateral action in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The vague mention of a benefit-sharing mechanism is non-binding and noncommittal—language designed to appear cooperative while maintaining full U.S. control over licensing, processing, and strategic value chains. There is no mention of the International Seabed Authority, no reference to FPIC, and no indication that the U.S. will honor its de facto compliance with UNCLOS protocols.

This opens the door to Department of Defense involvement in DSM operations, potentially shielding extractive activities from environmental litigation and international diplomatic pushback. Under this logic, opposition to DSM can be reframed as opposition to national security. Once a domain of environmental science and global cooperation, the deep sea is now treated as a militarized frontier.

Defense and Stockpiling: Militarizing the Seabed

By explicitly invoking the Defense Production Act and linking DSM to the Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpile (2025), the EO militarizes seabed mining. The implication is clear: resources extracted from the deep ocean are now part of national defense planning. This opens the door to Department of Defense involvement in DSM operations, shielding extractive activities from environmental litigation and international diplomatic pushback. Under this logic, opposition to DSM can be reframed as opposition to national security. Once a domain of environmental science and global cooperation, the deep sea is now treated as a militarized frontier.

Evidence of U.S. Intent to Ignore the ISA

The Executive Order is not vague or suggestive—it is direct. It activates DSHMRA as a legal basis for granting permits in international waters. There is no reference to the ISA, no stated intention to operate within existing UNCLOS frameworks, and no indication of coordination with international partners beyond economic alliances. By framing DSM as a national security interest and a sovereign economic right, the EO immunizes corporate actors from global legal oversight. The message is clear: the United States will authorize its own licenses in areas governed by international law, and it will do so with full executive authority.

Global Repercussions: Scenarios and Risks

This move introduces a number of potential global flashpoints. First, the decision sets a precedent for deregulation, encouraging other nations and corporations to abandon ISA protocols and begin unilateral exploration. This could quickly lead to a collapse in the ISA’s authority, creating an unregulated rush to exploit the deep sea. Second, companies like The Metals Company may reflag or reincorporate to exploit favorable U.S. laws, while Canada distances itself from responsibility. Third, nations such as China, the African Group, and Pacific Island countries may respond through the UN General Assembly, issuing condemnations and symbolic resolutions. Although such resolutions lack enforcement power, they reflect growing diplomatic isolation.

Fourth, the environmental consequences would be irreversible. Fifth, legal challenges could be mounted at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or the International Court of Justice. However, these efforts may arrive only after the damage is done, highlighting the inadequacy of international legal instruments to constrain hegemonic states in real time.

Beyond War: Ecocide is Genocide

The United Nations Security Council, theoretically tasked with maintaining international peace and security, has long been paralyzed by the veto power wielded by its permanent members—none more so than the United States. As witnessed in its unwavering protection of Israel amid ongoing genocide, even in the face of International Criminal Court (ICC) rulings and widespread global condemnation, the Security Council has become a stage where international law is subordinated to geopolitical interests. In the case of deep seabed mining, the worst-case scenario is not merely that the Council remains inert—it is that it becomes complicit through silence, allowing the U.S. to cloak ecocide beneath the rhetoric of sovereignty and security. Just as legal mechanisms have failed to halt crimes against humanity when confronted with hegemonic defiance, they are equally ill-equipped to prevent crimes against nature when the perpetrator is a superpower currently immune to sanction. The systematic destruction of the abyssal plains, the destabilization of marine biodiversity, and the transboundary collapse of oceanic ecosystems constitute ecocide—yet without binding enforcement, international law risks becoming a hollow promise. In this vacuum, corporate and state actors can proceed with impunity, knowing that the institutions designed to safeguard humanity and the planet will falter when confronted by power unchecked.

Calling Ecocide by Its Name: Toward Binding International Law and Accountability

In 1973, Richard Falk’s Environmental Warfare and Ecocide offered a prescient framework, declaring ecocide—whether in war or peace—a crime under international law, defined by acts intended to disrupt or destroy human ecosystems through militarized violence and environmental manipulation. From the deployment of weapons of mass destruction and chemical defoliants to weather modification and forced displacements for industrial or military gain, Falk articulated ecocide as an assault not only on nature but on the very conditions of human and ecological coexistence. Nearly half a century later, on February 29, 2020, scholars and practitioners gathered at UCLA’s Promise Institute for Human Rights, recognizing both the enduring relevance and insufficiency of existing legal instruments to confront escalating environmental harm and climate destabilization. Confronted with the limitations of current international criminal law, this assembly sought to revive and advance Falk’s vision—deliberating on how to codify ecocide as a new international crime fit for contemporary crises. Their commitment to refining legal definitions and confronting political and practical challenges reflects a continuity of purpose: to transform ecological devastation from a collateral consequence of power into a punishable violation of global justice.

The recognition of ecocide as a potential fifth international crime under the International Criminal Court (ICC) marks a critical turning point in confronting large-scale environmental destruction. As corporations like The Metals Company (TMC) accelerate deep-sea mining in fragile ocean ecosystems, they do so under mounting legal and moral scrutiny. This is no longer a debate about sustainability pledges or voluntary guidelines—ecological devastation is being redefined as a crime, positioning corporate executives, board members, and critically, their financial backers within reach of prosecution. The era of treating ecosystem collapse as an externality is ending; the extraction of profit at the expense of planetary systems is increasingly viewed as an assault on the very foundations of life.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also underscored how courts and citizens are mobilizing legal frameworks to hold both states and corporations accountable, but this accountability must extend beyond the visible actors. Behind every destructive enterprise stands a network of asset managers, hedge funds, and institutional investors—entities like BlackRock, Vanguard, and others—whose capital fuels ecocidal ventures with anti-ESG rhetoric. These financial giants are enablers of environmental crimes, profiting from the systematic degradation of global commons. Emerging legal doctrines must pierce the veil of financial abstraction and expose those who bankroll ecological harm to the same consequences faced by corporate polluters, regardless of what US federal agencies are mobilized.

In this urgent context, states must act decisively to operationalize international legal mechanisms that hold both corporations and their financiers accountable. If sanity, precaution, and respect for life fail to restrain industries like deep-sea mining, then the United Nations and its member states must ensure that the codification of ecocide comes with enforceable teeth—punishing not only companies like TMC but also the asset managers and hedge funds complicit in underwriting planetary destruction. Justice demands that those orchestrating and financing ecocide—whether in boardrooms or investment portfolios—face the full weight of international law. Without such resolve, the deep ocean, and countless other ecosystems, will fall victim to the unchecked greed of capital. But with swift action, the global community can transform environmental law from a shield into a sword, defending the Earth by holding power to account where it truly resides.

Open Season on the Global Commons

This Executive Order represents a decisive pivot from international cooperation to unilateral exploitation. It rewrites the rules of seabed governance not through legislation or treaty but through executive fiat, collapsing the distinction between corporate interest and national policy. It formalizes a mode of extraction that is inherently anti-democratic, ecologically devastating, and geopolitically destabilizing. The abyssal plains—long regarded as part of the planetary commons—are being transformed into a zone of conquest.

The international community must not underestimate the significance of this moment. What the U.S. is attempting is not merely regulatory capture—it is the systematic dismantling of multilateral stewardship in favor of a privatized, militarized order of ocean governance. If this is allowed to proceed unchallenged, the result will not be prosperity or security. It will be irreparable loss. This is a planetary assault—and if we are to protect what remains, resistance must be immediate, coordinated, and unyielding.

Consider Decolonizing Accounting Systems

While this article has focused primarily on the emerging legal frameworks to confront ecocide, I continually maintain that law is but one arm of defense against environmental destruction. The second—and perhaps more foundational—is how we measure value within our national accounts. It is within these ledgers, quietly dictating the logic of growth and profit, where the seeds of ecocide are sown. As long as colonial-era national accounting systems valorize extraction, production, and consumption while rendering invisible the depletion of ecosystems, no amount of legal reform will suffice. The law may punish after the fact, but accounting defines what is permissible, what is profitable, and ultimately, what is pursued. Consider decolonizing accounting frameworks and intemerate.earth

Because what can be done, once done, may never be undone.