Not yet. The United States is promoting seabed mineral development, and NOAA has advanced a company’s application to a public-comment stage. But that is not approval to mine, and the available evidence does not show that Pacific nodules can replace Chinese rare-earth exports or processing. The title’s “veto” framing should not be read as evidence that China has a literal legal veto over U.S. exports.
What is the U.S. trying to do?
An April 24, 2025, executive order says the United States has national-security and economic interests in seabed minerals and directs federal agencies to identify opportunities for exploration and development. That is a policy goal, not proof of production. The order names nickel, cobalt, copper, manganese, titanium and rare earth elements among the resources of interest. Read the White House order.
The proposal centers on polymetallic nodules on the Pacific seabed. NOAA lists manganese, nickel, cobalt, copper and rare earth elements among seabed resources. The presence of rare earth elements in seabed material, however, does not by itself establish that a project could supply the particular rare-earth products or refining capacity needed to compete with Chinese supply chains. NOAA explains the resources and U.S. regulatory framework.
What is the status of the proposed project?
NOAA administers U.S. authorizations under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA). In September 2026, the agency said The Metals Company USA, LLC’s consolidated application met the law’s information requirements and identified a 60-day public-comment period ending October 19, 2026. The proposed area is in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone of the central Pacific. Meeting information requirements and opening public comment are steps in review, not issuance of a commercial recovery permit. See NOAA’s announcement.
The Metals Company reported that its proposed USA-B area covers about 122,000 square kilometres and contains an estimated 1.02 billion tonnes of polymetallic nodules. These are company-reported estimates, not independently established recoverable reserves, a profitability finding or an environmental determination. The company’s notice describes the estimates.
Why the Pacific floor is not yet a rare-earth substitute
Mineral content is only one part of supply
A deposit estimate does not show how much material can be recovered, which products can be made from it, or whether the project can supply them consistently. For a rare-earth alternative, extraction would need to connect to processing and refining that produce usable materials. The sources available here do not quantify how much seabed output, if any, could displace Chinese mineral exports or processing.
Commercial processing remains an open question
In May 2026, the Associated Press reported that processing and refining questions remained and that the United States had not yet approved a commercial seabed-mining project. NOAA’s later September announcement records progress in application review, but does not establish that commercial production or a complete processing chain is in place. Read the Associated Press report.
Environmental and legal questions are not settled by the application step
NOAA’s process includes environmental review steps, but the agency’s application announcement is not a finding that environmental effects are acceptable. The sources cited here do not establish the scale, persistence or reversibility of ecological effects, so those questions cannot be answered with a reliable impact estimate on this record.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11NOAA distinguishes U.S. authorizations under DSHMRA from the International Seabed Authority’s role in regulating deep-seabed mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction for states that are parties to the Law of the Sea Convention. Those are distinct legal frameworks. The materials cited here do not resolve the legal consequences of U.S. authorizations for commercial recovery in areas beyond national jurisdiction. NOAA describes the two regulatory roles.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What would make this a credible supply-chain Plan B?
For households and businesses watching critical-mineral prices, the distinction is between a potential resource and a functioning source of supply. A credible alternative would need to demonstrate more than an application or a large estimated nodule inventory. The relevant evidence would include:
- Which specific minerals and saleable products a project can recover.
- Whether extraction, processing and refining can operate as a connected supply chain.
- What U.S. permits and other legal authorities apply, and how unresolved international-law questions are handled.
- Demonstrated production and costs, rather than projections alone.
- Environmental evidence sufficient to assess the effects and uncertainty of operations.
Until those elements are established, the Pacific seabed is best understood as a proposed additional source of several critical minerals—not a demonstrated replacement for China’s role in rare-earth supply.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
