U.S. Marine Policy and Blue Economy Prospects: Key Infrastructure and Geostrategic Roles in Oceanic Commerce

U.S. Oceans Policy and the Blue Economy: Balancing Strategy, Resources, and Global Influence

The United States is redefining its approach to ocean governance and the blue economy, navigating a complex landscape shaped by strategic interests, infrastructure priorities, and the quest for control over vital resources. As international maritime trade faces mounting challenges from shifting geopolitics, environmental demands, and rapid technological change, the U.S. is redirecting its focus toward advancements in deep-sea exploration, offshore energy, and maritime defense. Central to these efforts is the unresolved issue of whether the U.S. will formally join the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)—a decision that could either enhance or limit American sway in the evolving global maritime order.

The UNCLOS Debate: Legal Ambiguity and Strategic Considerations

Although the U.S. recognizes many UNCLOS principles as customary international law, its ongoing refusal to ratify the treaty leaves it in a position of legal uncertainty. Supporters of ratification contend that joining UNCLOS would reinforce U.S. claims over its extensive Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and grant access to international mechanisms such as the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) to legitimize territorial claims. On the other hand, opponents caution that ratification could restrict military activities within EEZs and subject the U.S. to binding dispute resolution processes, as demonstrated in the South China Sea. Despite this ambiguity, the U.S. continues to selectively invoke UNCLOS provisions, for example, in asserting that the Northwest Passage qualifies as an international strait. However, without formal ratification, the U.S. faces weakened legal authority in contested waters, especially as nations like China leverage UNCLOS to bolster their maritime ambitions.

Deep-Sea Technology: Securing Strategic Resources

Recent policy initiatives, particularly during the Trump administration, have accelerated U.S. investment in deep-sea technologies and the extraction of critical minerals. Executive Order 14044, issued in April 2025, calls for the creation of a comprehensive supply chain for minerals such as nickel, cobalt, and rare earth elements. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has simplified the permitting process for deep-sea mining, enabling companies to apply for exploration and commercial recovery simultaneously. These measures complement the Department of the Interior’s expedited approach to offshore mineral leasing, including collaborations with firms like Impossible Metals near American Samoa.

Nevertheless, this assertive strategy has drawn criticism from international organizations and competitors. The Metals Company (TMC), a U.S.-based enterprise, has faced opposition from the International Seabed Authority (ISA) and the European Union for circumventing ISA regulations. Such unilateral actions risk isolating the U.S. within global governance structures and raise significant environmental concerns regarding the impact on deep-sea ecosystems. Investors must carefully consider these geopolitical and ecological risks when evaluating opportunities in the critical minerals sector, which is essential for both green technologies and national defense.

Offshore Energy Initiatives and International Partnerships

The U.S. is increasingly turning to offshore energy projects to reduce dependence on rival nations and strengthen global alliances. In August 2025, the Department of Energy committed $1 billion to the processing and manufacturing of critical minerals, signaling a strategic pivot. Notable bilateral deals, such as an $8.5 billion investment in gallium refining with Australia and financial support for mineral development in Japan, reflect a concerted effort to diversify supply chains. In the Middle East, the U.S. has taken a 49% stake in a Saudi rare earth refinery, partnering with MP Materials and Maaden, to counterbalance China’s dominance in mineral refining.

These ventures are not without obstacles. The U.S. Geological Survey’s 2025 list of 60 critical minerals—including new additions like boron and copper—illustrates the widening scope of resource competition. Meanwhile, instability in key maritime routes, such as the Red Sea where Houthi attacks have disrupted shipping, highlights the vulnerability of global trade. As a result, offshore energy projects must incorporate robust security protocols and contingency strategies to address potential disruptions.

Maritime Security: Expanding Operations Amid Uncertainty

Maritime security has become a central pillar of U.S. strategic policy, with expanded contracts and operations aimed at countering both traditional and emerging threats. In the latter half of 2025, the U.S. increased its naval presence in the Red Sea through initiatives like Operation Prosperity Guardian, responding to attacks that have affected a significant portion of global shipping. Concurrently, sanctions on Russian maritime trade and incidents of GPS interference at major ports underscore the growing complexity of maritime security challenges.

The lack of UNCLOS ratification complicates these efforts. For example, the U.S. is unable to formally dispute Canada’s claims over the Northwest Passage, a vital Arctic shipping route. This legal uncertainty stands in contrast to China’s use of UNCLOS to justify its claims in the South China Sea, revealing inconsistencies in U.S. maritime policy. To address these challenges, the U.S. is investing in advanced technologies such as the Polar Security Cutter and sophisticated environmental modeling systems to enhance its Arctic capabilities. Investors in maritime security should closely monitor how these initiatives adapt to shifting geopolitical dynamics.

Conclusion: Charting a Course for the Blue Economy

The United States faces a pivotal moment in shaping its blue economy, where longstanding legal frameworks intersect with new investment frontiers. While ventures in deep-sea mining and offshore energy offer substantial opportunities, they are closely linked to geopolitical risks and unresolved legal questions. Expanding maritime security operations highlights America’s commitment to protecting global trade, but also exposes the limitations of its current legal position. For investors, the path forward lies in supporting strategies that foster innovation while promoting international cooperation, ensuring that the blue economy remains robust and fair amid increasing global tensions.