By Wyatt Greco

A seabed mining agreement with the island nation of Nauru would reduce China’s influence while establishing America as an industry authority

In an April 2025 executive order, President Trump affirmed that offshore critical minerals are key to creating supply chains that do not depend on adversaries like the People’s Republic of China. While US leadership on deep-sea mining directly serves the nation’s resource needs, it also brings mutually-beneficial partnerships with other nations. Such relationships would not only reduce China’s dominance over the minerals industry, but could also be leveraged to combat China’s expanding foothold in the Indo-Pacific.

In building the partnerships that will transform America into a leader on seabed mining, the Trump administration should make Nauru a priority.

Nauru is a small island nation located northeast of Australia and the Solomon Islands and south of the U.S.-aligned Marshall Islands and Federated States of Micronesia. The country’s efforts on deep-sea mining are focused beyond its territorial waters or exclusive economic zone, in an area of the Pacific Ocean known as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ). This region is known for its relatively rich deposits of valuable minerals like Nickel, Cobalt, Manganese, and rare earths. 

Unlike the United States, Nauru is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and pursues seabed mining under the oversight of an international organization called the International Seabed Authority (ISA). In 2021, Nauru made headlines by activating a two-year deadline for the ISA to agree on a set of rules for exploiting minerals on the ocean floor.

Four years have now passed, and the ISA has yet to finalize the regulations. Despite this failure, Nauru has remained faithful and has yet to begin commercial mining through its sponsored company. However, a November 2024 letter from Nauru’s government urged the ISA to either complete its regulations or review a future exploitation application in the absence of formalized rules.

Nauru demonstrates commendable resolve in the face of international red tape. Its continued determination to advance the seabed mining industry aligns with the stated vision of the Trump administration.

With a land area of just over eight square miles, Nauru currently offers little in the way of exports. Rich phosphate reserves once sustained the island’s inhabitants, but these deposits have long been depleted. Moreover, the phosphate extraction process proved environmentally devastating and left much of the country’s land infertile. This tiny nation is understandably desperate for a stable economic future, leaving it vulnerable to Beijing’s development enticements.

For now, Nauru thankfully remains within the Western security fold. Under a deal signed at the end of 2024, Nauru granted Australia veto power over any “security, banking and telecommunications” agreements with other countries. Given its longstanding ties to Nauru and concerns over Chinese power, Australia is the ideal country to take point on Nauru’s direct protection.

However, China could still undermine American and Australian interests in Nauru. Last year, Nauru switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China for the second time in the 21^st century, illustrating the impact that Beijing’s promises of development can have on Nauru’s foreign relations. China can pursue investment and cooperation in sectors beyond the purview of the recent Australia deal, such as seabed mining.

China already seeks agreements on deep-sea mining with several other Pacific nations. Despite its status of free association with New Zealand, the Cook Islands recently entered into a memorandum of understanding with China to collaborate on seabed mining surveys. Kiribati has signaled its willingness to partner with Beijing in the emerging industry. The United States must act fast to prevent yet additional sources of critical minerals from falling under Chinese control.

Both supporters and critics agree that President Trump’s April Executive Order introduces a path for mining in international waters. The Metals Company (TMC), the same business that partners with Nauru, responded to the policy change by applying for a seabed mining license from the US government in an unclaimed portion of the CCZ. TMC could serve as a useful point of contact between Nauru and the United States.

The Trump administration should negotiate a seabed resources agreement with Nauru that prevents China from gaining access to more critical minerals. Even if Nauru decides to wait on the ISA, a deal with the U.S. now would stymie any Chinese ambitions down the road. The fewer Pacific Islands nations that are economically aligned with China, the better.

Given the diplomatic uncertainties of deep-sea mining, a Nauru-U.S. deal could avert other future headaches. Many countries, including Nauru, claim mining rights in international waters through the ISA, but a non-member like the United States could theoretically consider those claims invalid. Disagreements could easily arise if the US government were to license a company to mine in waters assigned to another country by the ISA. Reaching minerals agreements with Nauru and other nations will help America to avoid these complications and stay on good terms with strategic islands in the Pacific.

The agreement specifics could take many forms. Washington might offer tariff relief or encourage private investment in Nauru in exchange for rights of first offer to purchase any extracted minerals. To address concerns about the potential environmental impact of seabed mining, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) could conduct transparent research on Nauru’s sector of the CCZ.

Pacific Islands partnerships should not stop with Nauru. Tonga and Kiribati have both shown interest in deep-sea mining. Even the February 2025 deal between China and the Cook Islands only pertains to seabed study and does not commit to commercial extraction. By offering government and private resources to Pacific Islands states, the United States can stop China from attaining an international leadership role over seabed mining. This collaboration would instead solidify American leadership in the industry, allowing the United States to guide seabed mining in a way that respects both the environment and national sovereignty.

President Trump’s executive order calls for research into a potential “international benefit-sharing mechanism for seabed mineral resource extraction and development that occurs in areas beyond the national jurisdiction of any country.” Including interested Pacific Islands nations as founding participants in such an arrangement would ensure that these small states can benefit from shared ocean resources that are developed by the United States. This mechanism would also strengthen America’s sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific.

Finally, the United States is severely lacking in its domestic capacity to produce and process critical minerals. While international agreements are important for eroding China’s chokehold over global supplies, Washington should also take steps to expand mining at home and to process any raw minerals that are acquired, regardless of their source. By cultivating American resources and securing international partners in the Pacific, the U.S. can gain an edge in the global competition with China.

Wyatt J. Greco is a Master of Public Policy Student at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy. He specializes in International Relations and National Security, with regional interests in the Pacific Islands and Europe.

This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

In the article “Climate Change: How Heatwaves are Affecting Power Grids,” Sustainability Magazine (SM) claims that human-caused climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of heat waves, which are allegedly placing growing strain on power grids worldwide. This claim is at best, highly misleading, and at worst, outright false. Data does not support the notion that heat waves are increasing in frequency or intensity on a global scale. Evidence instead suggests that localized temperature increases, especially in urban areas where power grids are concentrated, are primarily driven by the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect—not global climate change. Evidence also strongly suggests that to the extent power grids are being stretched to the limits it is due to the addition of intermittent power in the form of industrial wind and solar facilities to the grid.

“Human-caused climate change has increased the frequency and intensity of heatwaves since the 1950s and is set to continue to do so according to the World Meteorological Organisation,” says SM. “As temperatures continue to stay hot, power grids and markets are facing strain.”

The narrative pushed by SM is belied by the fact that there is no long-term upward trend in heat wave frequency or intensity when global datasets are correctly adjusted for the UHI effect. For example, Climate Realism carefully analyzed heat wave claims in several articles, here, here, and here, which explain that despite fluctuations year to year, the occurrence of heat waves over the last century has not trended upward globally. In fact, the hottest years in U.S. history for sustained heat waves remain in the 1930s, a period with significantly lower atmospheric carbon dioxide levels than today.

It is critical to emphasize that heat waves are driven by weather patterns, particularly persistent high-pressure systems that block cooler air from moving into a region. These atmospheric blocking patterns are not new, nor are they caused by minor increases in the global average temperature. The distinction between weather and climate is often blurred in popular reporting, but they are fundamentally different. Weather is immediate and local; climate is long-term and regional or global. Heat waves are, and always have been, weather events.

The UHI effect is a well-documented phenomenon where cities experience significantly higher temperatures than surrounding rural areas due to heat retention by concrete, asphalt, and other man-made surfaces. This effect can elevate temperatures at the very locations where electrical infrastructure resides, potentially exacerbating stress on those systems. However, this localized warming is often misinterpreted as evidence of widespread, climate-driven heat wave intensification. In reality, it is a localized artifact of urbanization and poor siting of weather stations, not a signal of planetary-scale change.

The article’s claim that 2025 has already seen heat waves striking China, the United States, Canada, France, and the United Kingdom is presented as though this constitutes evidence of a crisis. Yet the historical record shows that heat waves have periodically occurred in these regions, throughout history, long before the modern industrial era, sometimes simultaneously. There is currently no sound data to support the idea that simultaneous heat waves in multiple countries are exclusively a modern phenomenon caused by fossil fuels. Heat waves are episodic weather events, not unprecedented crises.

Furthermore, the suggestion that the power grid is under exceptional strain due to climate-induced heat waves is a deflection from the real problem: energy policy failures. As covered in detail on Watts Up With That in the articles “Media Chases ‘Climate Enhanced’ Heat Waves, Misses Data Showing They are Less Frequent” and “The Grid Speaks,” power grids in the U.S. and Europe are increasingly fragile because reliable baseload generation from coal and nuclear plants has been intentionally phased out in favor of intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar. These renewable sources often underperform during peak demand events, including heat waves, exacerbating grid instability. Solar panels, for example, lose efficiency, meaning the power they generate declines, during periods of high heat.

SM acknowledges that solar panel efficiency drops by up to 25% during heat waves without a hint of irony. If hot weather undermines solar power output during periods of peak electricity demand, that is a glaring indictment of our growing dependence on solar energy, not a call to double down on it. This vulnerability to heat is a well-known design flaw of solar panels, yet the article glosses over it in favor of advocating more renewable energy.

Also, extended heatwaves are regularly accompanied by no or low wind currents, one reason heat domes or heat waves linger over multiple days. When that occurs wind turbines aren’t generating power, either.

In “Powering through the heat: how 2024 heatwaves reshaped electricity demand, “ Ember’s analyst claims that higher air conditioning use is causing grid stress, this conveniently ignores that robust grids with sufficient dispatchable power have historically handled peak loads without widespread blackouts. The problem is not ramped up air conditioner use—it’s that grid operators in most western countries have been forced, by politicians, to heavily rely on solar and wind power sources that can’t always deliver power when it’s most needed, as seen in the figure below:

SM’s mention of power plants reducing output due to warm cooling water is also framed as though it’s a new, climate-driven problem. In reality, power plants have always had to manage cooling limitations during hot weather, and operational procedures to address this have been in place for decades. This is not a new vulnerability, nor does it signify an accelerating climate crisis.

Heat waves are not a novel threat, nor are they becoming more dangerous due to a minor uptick in average global temperatures. They are part of natural weather variability and have occurred throughout history, including during periods when global temperatures were cooler than today. For example, Climate Realism shows that heat waves in the 1930s were both longer and more severe than anything experienced in recent decades, even as carbon dioxide levels were far lower.

Blackouts during heat waves are dangerous, but blaming such failures on climate change instead of on poorly managed energy policies and fragile grids dominated by weather-dependent renewables is a complete abdication of responsibility.

In closing, Sustainability Magazine should be ashamed of this sloppy, one-sided piece that parrots climate alarm talking points without the slightest attempt to critically examine the underlying data or consider alternative explanations increasingly stressed power grids. This article reads less like journalism and more like advocacy masquerading as science. It is precisely this sort of lazy, echo-chamber reporting that erodes public trust and undermines rational discourse on energy and climate. If Sustainability Magazine wants to be taken seriously, it would do well to start by doing its homework.

Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.

Originally posted at ClimateRealism