US strategy to challenge China's rare earth dominance: a deep dive into the pacific ocean
In the past few years, world powers have upped their game in securing necessary resources. One hot spot in this race is the market for rare earth elements and other key minerals, where China has built an impressive lead. As of April 22, 2025, the US rolled out a plan to take on that lead by searching for new supplies—especially by venturing into the mysterious depths of the Pacific Ocean.
China’s commanding position
Right now, China holds about 70% of the global market for rare earth elements and other important minerals, similar to how the US is exploring lithium deposits to boost its own resource independence. These materials are indispensable for modern tech—from smartphones and computers to renewable energy gear. China’s huge stake in these resources throws a wrench in the works for other countries that depend on them for tech progress and national safety (it’s a bit like putting all your eggs in one basket).
Every part of our daily tech, from electric vehicle batteries and wind turbine components to everyday electronics and military gear, relies on these metals. Any hiccup in their supply could send shockwaves through multiple industries.
Exploring the pacific: America’s plan b
To avoid the risks that come with relying too much on China’s export policies, the US is eyeing deep-sea mining in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ) of the Pacific Ocean. This enormous expanse of seabed is loaded with polymetallic nodules rich in metals such as nickel, cobalt, copper, manganese, and even traces of rare earth elements.
This shift toward ocean mining is a proactive move to keep the supply chain humming even if China decides to limit exports. (The US is not only chasing permits to kick off deep-sea mining but is also mulling over the idea of setting up a national strategic reserve of these key resources.)
Navigating legal and diplomatic waters
Diving into deep-sea mining isn’t a stroll in the park when it comes to legal issues. The International Seabed Authority (ISA) is the global referee for mining operations in international waters. Things get even trickier since the US hasn’t ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which throws up legal hurdles for officially sanctioned mining operations (imagine trying to play a game without agreeing on the rules beforehand).
Big players like The Metals Company are eager to jump on board with these projects. Yet, there’s plenty of debate over whether the ISA’s mandate covers everything needed to regulate these ventures. Some international legal experts warn that any one country going it alone might ruffle feathers and unsettle established international agreements.
Balancing ecological concerns with economic needs
Even though deep-sea mining might help secure supplies, it comes with a load of environmental worries. The unique, fragile ecosystems hidden in the abyss could be permanently altered by habitat loss and disturbances to marine life (think of it like pulling a piece out of a finely balanced puzzle).
Because of these ecological concerns, a number of nations and scientists are calling for a pause on deep-sea mining until the ISA sets up a rock-solid regulatory framework that protects the environment while letting us harvest these materials.
Geopolitical tensions and environmental dilemmas
The Pacific Ocean is more than just a treasure trove of resources—it’s also a natural gem. While China is busy securing its stake in the region (with exploration contracts in the CCZ and investments in new research facilities, like a lab in the South China Sea), the US’s push for ocean mining brings geopolitical rivalries into sharp focus.
This whole scenario lays bare the tricky balancing act between meeting our growing resource needs and keeping our natural world intact, all while maneuvering through a labyrinth of international rules. The US move toward deep-sea mining not only highlights the increasing competition with China but also sparks a bigger debate on how to satisfy resource demands without sacrificing our natural heritage—a conversation that’s bound to shape policy debates for years to come.