BAN DEEP SEA MINING

U.S. Interest In Seabed Mining In International Waters: Background And Recent Developments – Analysis

Proposed Machinery and Technology for Collecting Seabed Minerals. Credit: CRS

April 14, 2026 
By Caitlin Keating-Bitonti
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) 

In 1980, Congress passed the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA; 30 U.S.C. §§1401 et seq.) as an interim measure to allow the United States to proceed with seabed mining activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) until an international regime was in place (i.e., the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS]). DSHMRA established a framework for authorizing U.S. citizens (e.g., individuals, corporations) to explore for and recover minerals from the seabed in ABNJ. In general, exploration means the at-sea observation, evaluation, and taking of seabed minerals as needed to design and test mining equipment, and commercial recovery means the actual at-sea mining and processing of seabed minerals for the primary purpose of commercial use (30 U.S.C. §1403).

On April 24, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14285, “Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources,” which directed certain federal agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to advance seabed mining activities as part of a broader national effort to secure reliable supplies of critical minerals. This In Focus discusses the actions of NOAA and U.S. companies related to seabed mining in ABNJ as well as congressional interest in the topic. The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and its regulation of mineral-related activities is beyond the scope of this In Focus.

UNCLOS and the International Seabed Authority

UNCLOS was adopted in 1982, establishing a comprehensive international legal framework to govern activities related to the global ocean, including seabed mining. In 1994, the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (commonly known as the 1994 Agreement) substantially modified the seabed mining provisions of UNCLOS to address concerns held by many industrialized nations. After the adoption of the 1994 Agreement, UNCLOS received the necessary number of signatories for UNCLOS to enter into force. The United States is not a party to UNCLOS or the 1994 Agreement.

UNCLOS also established the International Seabed Authority (ISA), an autonomous organization that regulates parties to UNCLOS conducting mineral-related activities in ABNJ. The ISA came into existence with the adoption of the 1994 Agreement and became fully operational in 1996. The United States participates as an observer state in the ISA but, as a nonparty, has no vote in ISA business and cannot apply for or obtain a contract for seabed mining exploration or exploitation through the ISA. To date, the ISA has issued 31 exploration contracts, of which 17 are located in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ). The CCZ is a 1.7-million-square-mile area of the seafloor in the Pacific Ocean that is estimated to contain more cobalt, manganese, and nickel—identified by the U.S. Geological Survey as critical minerals—than all known land deposits combined. The ISA is working toward finalizing exploitation regulations and has not issued any exploitation contracts (DSHMRA uses the term commercial recovery permits, which would serve a similar purpose to exploitation contracts issued by ISA).

Exploration Licenses Issued by NOAA

DSHMRA authorized the NOAA administrator to issue exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits to U.S. citizens for seabed mining activities in ABNJ (30 U.S.C. §1412). In 1984, NOAA issued exploration licenses for four sites located in the CCZ. NOAA issued exploration licenses to four U.S. mining consortia, three of which were multinational private sector consortia with participating American companies. NOAA issued the following:USA-1 to Ocean Minerals Company, comprising Cyprus Minerals and Lockheed Martin Corporation (American companies);
USA-2 to Ocean Management Inc., comprising Schlumberger Technology (an American company) and Canadian, German, and Japanese companies;
USA-3 to Ocean Mining Associates, comprising Essex Minerals Co. and Sun Ocean Ventures, Inc. (American companies) and Belgian and Italian companies; and
USA-4 to Kennecott Consortium, comprising Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation (an American company) and British, Canadian, and Japanese companies.

NOAA issued these licenses 10 years before UNCLOS entered into force and 12 years before the ISA became operational. NOAA has not issued exploration licenses since 1984. The agency has approved extension requests following the initial 10-year periods of the licenses. A license can be extended for five-year periods (30 U.S.C. §1417(a)). NOAA has not issued any commercial recovery permits.

Two of the four exploration licenses issued by NOAA (USA-2 and USA-3) were relinquished in the late 1990s (64 Federal Register [FR] 3563). USA-1 and USA-4 remain the only active exploration licenses issued by NOAA pursuant to DSHMRA. Lockheed Martin holds both licenses. It became the sole holder of the licenses by different means. In 1993, Kennecott Consortium relinquished USA-4 to NOAA (58 FR 33933). Ocean Minerals Company, the consortium including Lockheed Martin, applied for USA-4 (58 FR 34782), and NOAA issued the license in 1994 (59 FR 66942). In 1995, Cyprus Minerals withdrew from Ocean Minerals Company, leaving Lockheed Martin as the sole company overseeing USA-1 and USA-4.

USA-1 and USA-4 are expected to remain in effect through June 2, 2027 (87 FR 52743). In 2021, the ISA designated an area of the CCZ that partially overlaps with USA-1 as an Area of Particular Environmental Interest. The designation precludes UNCLOS parties from seabed mining activities in the area. This action appears to question whether NOAA-issued exploration licenses have international recognition. Because the United States is not a party to UNCLOS, any future NOAA-issued licenses and permits that may (or may not) overlap with ISA designations could have similar uncertainty. According to a 2017 NOAA notice, “any rights a U.S. company may have domestically are not secured internationally.”

Lockheed Martin may submit an extension request to NOAA at least six months prior to June 2, 2027, to retain USA-1 and USA-4. If the licenses are not extended, U.S. entities can request NOAA transfer USA-1 and/or USA-4, pursuant to 15 C.F.R. §970.516.

Pending Applications to NOAA

E.O. 14285 directed NOAA, in consultation with the Departments of State and the Interior, to expedite the process for reviewing and issuing licenses and permits under DSHMRA, among other actions. NOAA reportedly has received “over 10 applications” since the E.O. was issued. Once NOAA determines an application to be fully compliant with DSHMRA, the agency will publish a notice in the Federal Register (15 C.F.R. §970.212 and 15 C.F.R. §971.212). As of the date of this publication, NOAA has determined that four applications are fully compliant with DSHMRA (90 FR 60064 and 91 FR 13822):
The Metal Company’s (TMC’s) U.S. subsidiary, TMC USA, submitted two exploration license applications (A and B). TMC, a Canadian company, has two other foreign subsidiaries: Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (NORI) and Tonga Offshore Mining Limited (TOML). Through sponsorships with Nauru and Tonga (both UNCLOS parties), NORI and TOML each hold one ISA exploration contract in the CCZ. TMC USA’s applications to NOAA overlap with portions of Nauru’s and Tonga’s respective ISA exploration contract areas.
American Metal Resources (AMR) submitted one exploration license application. It overlaps with some ISA-designated reserved areas in the CCZ as well as a portion of another company’s application to NOAA.
SeaX (a subsidiary of AMR) submitted one exploration license application. It overlaps with some ISA-designated reserved areas in the CCZ.

A fully compliant application does not mean an application will be certified and that a license or permit will be issued.

On January 21, 2026, NOAA issued a final rule that revised its seabed mining regulations to include a “consolidated license and permit application process in which applicants could meet both exploration license requirements, to establish priority of right, and permit requirements simultaneously” (91 FR 2642). The final rule is reflected in 15 C.F.R. §971.214. On January 22, 2026, TMC USA submitted a consolidated application, and on March 9, 2026, the company announced that NOAA determined the application to be in substantial compliance.

Some companies also have publicly announced applications that they have submitted to NOAA while awaiting NOAA’s determination, including Deep Sea Rare Mineralsand American Ocean Minerals Corporation.

Recent Congressional Interest

Congress may continue to consider seabed mining issues in the context of E.O. 14285 and U.S. industry interest in acquiring NOAA exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits for seabed mining in ABNJ. Some Members have introduced legislation in the 119th Congress that would codify E.O. 14285 (e.g., H.R. 3803) or mandate that certain federal entities act on aspects of the E.O. (e.g., H.R. 4018, S. 2860). These bills reiterate that “the United States faces unprecedented economic and national security challenges in securing reliable supplies of critical minerals independent of foreign adversary control” as stated in the E.O. Some Members have questioned how seabed mining could address these challenges given no commercial-scale processing facilities for seabed minerals exist. Some experts contend that “much more needs to be done before the seabed can help secure America’s supply chains.”

The three bills also would direct NOAA to expedite the authorization of U.S. seabed mining activities in ABNJ under DSHMRA. According to the ISA, however, authorization of seabed mining activities outside the UNCLOS framework (e.g., via DSHMRA) “may incur legal, diplomatic, economic, security, financial and reputational risks.” Congress may weigh in on the extent to which the issuance of new NOAA licenses and permits might present geopolitical disagreements. Views on the potential for such disagreements vary. While the four fully compliant applications overlap with ISA-designated areas, TMC, AMR, and SeaX each stated in their applications to NOAA that they do not anticipate any conflicts. In contrast, the Secretary-General of the ISA stated that “any unilateral action … sets a dangerous precedent that could destabilize the entire system of global ocean governance.”

U.S. accession to UNCLOS may reduce the potential for geopolitical disagreements, at the cost of replacing U.S. government decisionmaking with that of an international body. Weighing the advantages and disadvantages of giving U.S. entities access to ISA contracts through U.S. accession to UNCLOS is an ongoing issue for Congress. S.Res. 331 calls for the Senate to take up UNCLOS. Some experts argue the United States has the authority to mine ABNJ.

Other Members have introduced legislation (H.R. 664) to prohibit NOAA from authorizing seabed mining activities in ABNJ until more is known about its environmental impacts. Separately, H.R. 663 would instruct the President to call for an international seabed mining moratorium until the ISA adopts a regulatory framework. As of April 2026, 40 countries have announced their opposition to deep-seabed mining.

About the author: Caitlin Keating-Bitonti, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Source: This article was published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for nearly a century.

Switzerland Wants A Global Roadmap To Phase Out Fossil Fuels – Analysis

April 14, 2026 
SwissInfo
By Luigi Jorio

The Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels – scheduled April 24 to 29 in Santa Marta, Colombia – is the first-ever international summit dedicated solely to phasing out fossil fuels. The conference has taken on a new urgency as the conflict in the Middle East causes disruption in the oil and gas markets.

 
What is the goal of the conference on fossil fuels and who is taking part?

The conference, co-organised by Colombia and the Netherlands, aims to develop concrete solutions to accelerate the gradual elimination of fossil fuels, in line with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. The meeting seeks to define the legal tools, economic measures and social change needed to ensure a just and orderly transition.

Switzerland will take part in the conference and will be represented by the Ambassador for the Environment, Felix Wertli, the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) says. Another 45 countries, including fossil fuel producers such as Canada and Norway, have confirmed they will attend.

The Santa Marta summit represents a new space for dialogue and cooperation after fossil fuel discussions stalled at the most recent UN Climate Conference (COP30), held in Belém, Brazil. However, it does not intend to replace the formal UN climate negotiations (which some argue are overly influenced by oil lobbies). Its purpose is to create a complementary intergovernmental platform to support practical action by countries that wish to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels.

Why is there a conference on fossil fuel transition now?

Fossil fuels are responsible for 68% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Replacing them with cleaner alternatives such as solar and wind is essential to achieving climate goals.

At the 2023 COP in Dubai, for the first time in more than 30 years of climate negotiations, nearly 200 countries acknowledged the need to progressively reduce the consumption of oil, gas, and coal. However, no concrete progress has been made since then.

While investments in renewable energy have increased, global fossil fuel production is still projected to grow in the coming years.

Last year in Belém, more than 80 countries supported the Brazilian presidency’s idea of a global roadmap for the transition away from fossil fuels. However, the proposal did not make it into the conference’s final text. The blockage came mainly from large oil-producing states such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, as well as from China and India, which are reluctant to undertake a real and rapid shift.

To keep international pressure alive, a smaller group of countries led by Colombia and the Netherlands sought to open new diplomatic ground outside the COP negotiating process, giving rise to the Belém Declaration on a Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels. The document acknowledges that fossil fuel production, consumption, licensing, and subsidies are incompatible with international climate goals.

The Declaration – described as historic because it was also endorsed by fossil fuel producing nations such as Mexico and Australia – laid the groundwork for the Santa Marta conference.

What is Switzerland’s position on phasing out fossil fuels?

Switzerland supports the Brazilian initiative for an international roadmap to exit fossil fuels. The roadmap should identify concrete milestones for implementing the transition, FOEN says. Switzerland is also engaged in international initiatives aimed at eliminating the billions in subsidies granted to fossil fuels.

“The conference in Santa Marta will offer an initial space to exchange views on shared challenges. It marks the beginning of a discussion that is absolutely necessary but also complex,” FOEN writes in an email.

The transition away from fossil fuels is not only a climate issue. It also requires reflection on the implications for the economy, finance, energy security and, not least, the livelihoods of the millions of people working in the fossil fuel industry.

Domestically, Switzerland aims to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. The country has not adopted an explicit ban on fossil fuels. Rather, it plans to reduce their consumption mainly by encouraging the replacement of heating systems in buildings and supporting innovative and sustainable technologies in the industrial sector.

Léonore Hälg of the Swiss Energy Foundation argues that the switch from fossil fuels (and nuclear energy) to electricity and a decreased energy demand significantly reduce Switzerland’s dependence on supplies from geopolitically unstable regions. “The current conflict in the Middle East is a perfect showcase of how powerless oil-importing countries are in reaction to price surges,” she told Swissinfo.

What impact does the Middle East conflict have on the fossil fuel phaseout?

The energy crisis triggered by the US and Israel’s attack on Iran will strengthen the calls for a global phaseout of fossil fuels, Hälg says. However, she adds, “I am not sure it will have a direct effect on countries’ short-term willingness to commit to a clear and binding roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels.”

Paola Yanguas Parra, a policy advisor at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, argues that the current crisis shows that “fossil fuels are not delivering energy security — they are undermining it.” In this sense, she tells Swissinfo, it is likely that this moment will strengthen the case for a global phaseout.

Yanguas Parra identifies two opposing trends: while some governments are expanding fossil fuel production or infrastructure in the name of energy security, others are using the shock to accelerate the shift toward cleaner and more resilient systems. “When the right incentives and political will are in place, this transition [toward renewable energy] can happen quickly,” she says, citing Uruguay’s example of achieving a near-fully renewable power system in under a decade.

Fossil fuel-producing countries, for their part, could use high oil and gas prices as an opportunity to shift courses, Yanguas Parra argues. “If managed well, revenues from high-priced periods can also help some fossil fuel exporters invest in economic diversification, workforce transition and social protection — building long-term resilience instead of deeper dependence,” she says.

What can be expected from the conference on fossil fuels?

The conference will not produce any binding agreement. However, analysts predict that it may develop a shared document on a “just, orderly, and equitable” transition away from fossil fuels, including minimum objectives and more ambitious language than that seen at previous UN climate conferences. This could serve as an initial draft of a globally shared roadmap for a gradual phaseout.

The organising committee hopes that the initial group of “willing countries” behind the Belém Declaration will expand into a broader coalition of governments, international institutions, and companies determined to lay the groundwork for moving beyond fossil fuels.

SwissInfo

swissinfo is an enterprise of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (SBC). Its role is to inform Swiss living abroad about events in their homeland and to raise awareness of Switzerland in other countries. swissinfo achieves this through its nine-language internet news and information platform.

An Empire Without Liberty? – OpEd

April 14, 2026
By William J. Watkins, Jr.


Since the beginning of the war, President Donald Trump has touted dismantlement of the Iranian government as the American endgame. Even as U.S. officials negotiate with their Iranian counterparts to end the fighting and restore stability to world energy markets, Trump says he still wants to see a “very serious form of a regime change” in the ultimate peace deal.

This imperial hubris is unworthy of the president of a federal republic and would cause the Founding Fathers to cringe.

While Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries were often excited about continental prospects for the thirteen former British colonies, the “empire of liberty” as Jefferson called the American experiment was based on free and equal states and not a unitary nation-state with ambitions of directing the governments of the world.

The Founders, of course, were aware of the novelty of their experiment and that its success could provide hope for millions. In the Philadelphia Convention, James Madison asserted that “it was more than probable we are now digesting a plan which in its operation would decide for ever the fate of Republican Government.” Benjamin Franklin observed that if republican government failed in the United States, “mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.” In his first inaugural address, George Washington declared his belief that “preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”

The influence the Founders sought over other nations was influence by example. They believed that political societies across the globe would seek to emulate American principles of limited government, federalism, and the rule of law. They did not expect that the chief executive, without input from the legislative branch, would bomb foreign countries and demand that new regimes be erected.

Each day the United States looks less like an “empire of liberty” and more like a plain old empire in the mode of the Romans, Ottomans, and Mongols.

Depending on how one counts, the United States maintains upwards of 750 military bases overseas. Scholars estimate that these bases “constitute 95 percent of all the military bases any country in the world maintains on any other country’s territory.” Granted, some of these instillations are tiny with few personnel. Nonetheless, the 95% figure is shocking.

Over one hundred years ago, the stalwart anti-imperialist and Yale sociologist William Graham Sumner warned that American interventionism abroad would put our system of government at risk. Just as the United States was about to go to war against Spain, Sumner cautioned that by taking away Spanish possessions on the ground that Spain was failing in her colonial mission in Cuba, the United States would “shrivel up into the same vanity and self-conceit of which Spain now presents an example.” If the United States truly believed in liberty, then Sumner suggested that it should tend to its own affairs and leave other peoples “to live out their own lives in their own way.” What would be in store for the United States if it succumbed to the temptations of interventionism? According to Sumner, “war, debt, taxation, diplomacy, a grand governmental system, pomp, glory, a big army and navy, lavish expenditures, political jobbery—in a word, imperialism.”

Listening to President Trump’s bluster as he asks Congress for $200 billion to continue his war of regime change in Iran, it is hard to disagree with Sumner that we have traded our peaceful federal republic for an avaricious empire. Congress must deny this request. The United States should serve as an empire of liberty, in Jefferson’s words, and leave the vanity of imperialism for despotic powers.

This article was originally published by The Libertarian Institute


William J. Watkins, Jr.

William J. Watkins, Jr. is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute and author of the Independent books, Crossroads for Liberty: Recovering the Anti-Federalist Values of America’s First Constitution, Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy, and Patent Trolls: Predatory Litigation and the Smothering of Innovation. Full Biography and Recent Publications

SPACE/COSMOS

Artemis: NASA’s Ambitious Program To Return Humans To The Moon – Analysis

Artist’s concept of an Artemis astronaut deploying an instrument on the lunar surface.
Credits: NASA

April 14, 2026 
By Rachel Lindbergh
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) 


Between 1969 and 1972, the Apollo program of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) landed 12 American men on the Moon and returned them safely to Earth. Artemis, named for Apollo’s twin sister in ancient Greek mythology, is NASA’s program for a return to the Moon by American astronauts by 2028.
Orion and the Space Launch System

The Artemis program has evolved from plans initiated in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-267). The act established a statutory goal of “expand[ing] permanent human presence beyond low-Earth orbit” and mandated the development of a crew capsule and a heavy-lift rocket to accomplish that goal. The capsule, now known as Orion, and the rocket, known as the Space Launch System (SLS), have been in development since that time.

Each Orion capsule consists of a crew module with room for four to six astronauts, as well as storage space and a docking port; a service module (contributed by the European Space Agency) to provide power and propulsion; and a launch abort system. The crew module is designed to be reusable and is the only portion intended to return to Earth at the end of a mission.

SLS is an expendable rocket designed to carry Orion into space and set it on an initial trajectory to the Moon. SLS could also be used for other missions involving heavy payloads or requiring very high thrust. As required by P.L. 111-267, SLS was designed to accommodate future upgrades in phases (known as Block 1, Block 1B, and Block 2) to increase its thrust capacity. Similarly, NASA planned to upgrade SLS’s upper stages (i.e., in-space propulsion) by developing what is known as the Exploration Upper Stage.

The first launch of Orion on an SLS was in November 2022. This mission, known as Artemis I, was an uncrewed test flight near the Moon to certify safety for crewed flights. Artemis II, the first crewed test of Orion and SLS, occurred in April 2026. Orion and its crew of four traveled near the Moon before returning to Earth.

In February 2026, the NASA Administrator announced that, after Artemis II, NASA will use a single version of SLS in a “near Block 1 configuration,” rather than upgrading to the Block 1B and Block 2 variants for future missions, in order to reduce complexity and accelerate manufacturing. Rather than developing the Exploration Upper Stage, NASA selected the United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan Centaur V Upper Stage in March 2026. The agency intends to award a sole-source contract, without competition, as NASA determined existing alternatives “fail to meet the performance requirements” or would require significant modifications or development.

Human Landing System

The Orion capsule is not designed to land on the Moon. Instead, astronauts are to transfer to a separate spacecraft, known as a Human Landing System (HLS), for lunar descent and ascent (see Figure 1). NASA selected two HLS providers: SpaceX, using a version of its Starship, and Blue Origin, using its Blue Moon lander. Both systems are still in development. Through committee reports and explanatory statements accompanying appropriations, Congress has repeatedly encouraged NASA to use more than one commercial provider in order to ensure redundancy and bolster competition.

In February 2026, the NASA Administrator announced that the Artemis III mission, to occur in mid-2027, will demonstrate one or both HLSs in low Earth orbit. Next, Artemis IV is to be the first human landing on the Moon since 1972 and is planned to occur by 2028.

In a March 2026 report, the NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported that both HLS providers have faced schedule delays and technical challenges that “have the potential to further impact lander costs and delivery schedules,” particularly for a 2028 lunar landing. NASA is considering proposals from both providers to accelerate development in support of a 2028 lunar landing.

Other Elements

In addition to Orion, SLS, and HLS, NASA procures commercial space transportation services for small robotic missions through its Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program; the purpose of these missions is to demonstrate new technologies, explore potential landing sites, and conduct research. Other efforts include commercial procurement of spacesuits and development of lunar surface systems such as rovers.

Lunar Base

In December 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14369, “Ensuring American Space Superiority.” The priorities outlined in E.O. 14369 include “establishing initial elements of a permanent lunar outpost by 2030,” as well as developing a nuclear reactor for use on the lunar surface.

In March 2026, the NASA Administrator released the agency’s plan to fulfill E.O. 14369. To establish a lunar base, the agency intends to use a phased approach. Initially, an increased cadence of CLPS missions would deliver initial elements and support research and technology development. In the next phases, the agency intends to progress from recurring lunar astronaut operations to continuous human presence.


As part of this shift, the agency intends to pause development of the Gateway, a modular platform designed to operate in a permanent orbit around the Moon. Gateway was intended to serve as a depot for storing supplies, a platform for science experiments, a location where subsystems launched separately could be assembled and integrated, and a rendezvous point where astronauts could transfer between Orion and HLS. The space agencies of countries such as Canada and Japan had planned to contribute components. In its shift from Gateway to a lunar base, NASA intends to “repurpose applicable equipment and leverage international partner commitments.”

Issues for Congress

As Congress oversees the progress of the Artemis program and acts on NASA authorization and appropriations legislation, it may consider issues such as the architecture of the program, the planned schedule for a 2028 Moon landing, cost concerns for the program as a whole, and the role of the commercial space sector. Congress may consider the potential effects of recently announced changes.
Budget

For FY2027, NASA requested $8.5 billion for Artemis systems, an increase of $731 million compared with FY2026 appropriations. In addition to regular appropriations, Congress provided $6.7 billion for Orion, Gateway, and SLS through the FY2025 reconciliation law (P.L. 119-21), available through FY2032.

Congress may continue to consider the budget of (1) the overall Artemis program, (2) the individual Artemis missions, and (3) the various projects and components within the program. For example, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated in a 2025 report that cost overruns for three major Artemis projects total $6.8 billion. GAO further noted that “growing complexity and scope of future Artemis projects” could negatively impact the agency’s future cost performance, particularly as these projects are interdependent and complex. Thus, Congress may contemplate whether adjustments to the provided funding levels may be necessary (e.g., shift funds from Gateway to the proposed lunar base) or whether to keep funding levels as they are.

Moon to Mars Architecture

Per the NASA Authorization Acts of 2022 and 2017 (P.L. 117-167, Title VII; P.L. 115-10), the Artemis program is a stepping stone for future Mars missions. P.L. 117-167directed the agency to establish a Moon to Mars Office to oversee that approach. Policymakers continue to discuss NASA’s Moon to Mars architecture. Topics of debate include whether the United States should pursue a sustained presence on the Moon; whether future Artemis missions should use SLS and Orion or whether the private sector could provide an alternative; the viability of the agency’s various Artemis components, particularly HLS and SLS; and NASA’s overarching Moon to Mars strategy and its implementation. Congress may also assess the Trump Administration’s announced changes to this architecture.

During the 119th Congress, both the House and Senate have considered NASA authorization bills with differing perspectives on the Artemis architecture. In the House, H.R. 7273, as ordered to be reported, would direct the agency to continue developing major Artemis components and would reemphasize existing statutory requirements. (The markup of H.R. 7273 predated the Administrator’s February 2026 announcement.) In the Senate, S. 933, as ordered to be reported, would permit the Administrator greater flexibility in changing the Artemis architecture.

Role of the Commercial Space Sector

In recent years, NASA has placed growing emphasis on procuring services from the commercial space industry. HLS, CLPS, and other Artemis elements are to be provided as a commercial service. The Trump Administration has supported expanding such efforts in future missions, such as by replacing SLS with commercial transportation services after Artemis V, as proposed in the President’s FY2027 budget request.

In its continued oversight, Congress may assess NASA’s acquisition approaches and the status of these commercial programs, particularly for HLS, which is a key component for future lunar landings. In its 2025 annual report, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP)—an independent panel that reports to NASA and Congress on the agency’s safety and management—expressed concern that HLS’s complexity and delays “cast doubt” on the timeline and feasibility of the Artemis crewed lunar landing mission.

More broadly, Congress may assess NASA’s use of commercial programs. NASA posits that the use of commercial services will encourage innovation, support the U.S. space industry, and reduce costs for the agency, assuming that commercial providers are able to attract non-NASA investment and customers. Other stakeholders have contended that limited or uncertain markets may hinder the effectiveness of such programs or of certain acquisition approaches. For instance, in its 2024 assessment of CLPS, the NASA OIG found that the agency relied on “overly optimistic” market assessments in selecting contracting approaches and schedules, leading to “cost increases and schedule delays” due to technical difficulties and “continuing market uncertainty.”

About the author: Rachel Lindbergh, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy

Source: This article was published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS)

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for nearly a century.

Starquakes and the archaeology of stellar magnetism

ISTA team presents theoretical evidence for ‘fossilized’ magnetism in stars

Institute of Science and Technology Austria

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

How the evolution of a star changes the shape of a magnetic field. Rather than being centered at one point, the ISTA team’s simulations suggest that magnetic fields can form shell‑like structures (pink field lines). 

view more 

Credit: © Lukas Einramhof | ISTA

New theoretical models, published in Astronomy & Astrophysics, connect, for the first time, the magnetism at the surface of long-dead stellar remnants (white dwarfs) with recent evidence of magnetism at the cores of their dying progenitors (red giants). The team, led by astrophysicists at the Institute of Science and Technology Austria (ISTA), argues that these magnetic fields might originate early in the stars’ lives, and survive their entire evolution, emerging as ‘fossil fields’ at the surfaces of older remnants.  A better understanding of these processes can also help to better understand our own Sun’s future.

For thousands of years, human civilizations have looked to the stars with a blend of curiosity and reverence. From a human perspective, these twinkling dots in the sky seem to shine eternally. However, while stars live for billions of years, their evolution is also marked by major events. While some die in a spectacular display of cosmic fireworks called supernovae, others retreat and cool down quietly, leaving behind a dead remnant called a white dwarf.

Using a theoretical model, an international team—led by PhD student Lukas Einramhof and Assistant Professor Lisa Bugnet at the Institute of Science and Technology Austria (ISTA)—links independent observations collected at different stages of stellar evolution. For the first time, they connect the evidence of magnetic fields reaching the surface of older white dwarfs to recent findings of magnetism in the cores of red giants—the dying progenitors of those remnants. Central to their model is the idea that magnetic fields formed early in a star’s life can persist through all later stages, emerging at the surfaces of white dwarfs as “fossil fields” billions of years later. By incorporating recent asteroseismic data—measurements of stellar oscillations or “starquakes”—the team revisits the fossil field theory as a possible explanation for stellar magnetism.

Long-dead, and suddenly magnetic?

Magnetic fields at the surface of white dwarfs provide astrophysicists with valuable information about the remnants’ past. “The magnetic field in a star is important for how the star works on the inside and how long it lives and evolves. Generally, more of the older white dwarfs tend to be more magnetic than younger white dwarfs,” says Einramhof. Therefore, to explain where the magnetic fields at the surface of older white dwarfs—dead several million years earlier—come from, scientists must dig deeper into the remnants’ past lives.

So far, several teams of researchers have been examining the magnetic fields of stars at different points of their stellar evolution. The ISTA team now seeks to connect these dots to clarify the processes underlying the evolution of the stars and their remnants. “As a theoretical astrophysics group, we develop theories to explain observations,” Bugnet underlines.

Starquakes uncover buried magnetic fields

With asteroseismology—the study of starquakes—astronomers have only recently been able to probe the depths of red giants, the progenitors of white dwarfs. Similar to earthquakes, starquakes are natural phenomena that allow scientists to obtain measurements of the insides of stars.

The observations, carried out independently by different groups, show contrasting pictures. On the one hand, magnetic fields have been detected at the surface of older white dwarfs, suggesting that these might eventually reach the surface from within as the remnant evolves. On the other hand, observations on the ‘dying’ red giants using asteroseismology have provided evidence of the presence of magnetic fields at the cores of these progenitors of white dwarfs, several million years earlier in a star’s evolutionary path. Using these observations to constrain their theoretical model, the ISTA team demonstrates that these two time points in a star’s lifetime can be connected using a theory that had fallen out of fashion over the past decade in the white dwarf community: the fossil field scenario.

Einramhof explains, “Because a white dwarf is the exposed core of a red giant that has shed its outer layers, these different observations essentially examine the same region of a star’s interior at different evolutionary stages.” Therefore, after a red giant sheds its outer layers, its white dwarf remnant will display distinctive properties at its surface.

He adds, “If the magnetic field observed during the red giant phase is the same as the one that evolves to be observed at the surface of the white dwarf, then the fossil field theory can explain and connect the observations.” However, the team argues that this magnetic field must originate even earlier, before the red giant phase.

Magneto-archaeology: digging into the stars’ past

By revisiting the fossil field scenario with new insights, the team made several key findings about the archaeology of magnetism in stars. First, they showed that the extent of magnetism within the core of the red giant progenitor is key. “To connect the magnetic fields observed at the surface of older white dwarfs with the ones found at the core of their red giant progenitors, a larger fraction of the star must be magnetized,” says Einramhof. “However, this doesn’t mean the stars are more strongly magnetized, only that the magnetic fields must already reach a larger portion of their core.”

Furthermore, their methodology allowed them to uncover how the evolution of a star changes the shape of a magnetic field. Rather than being centered at one point, their simulations suggest that magnetic fields can form shell‑like structures—resembling the surface of a basketball—where the field is strongest near the shell rather than at the core.

Blind at the core: what if the Sun’s core is also magnetic?

Ultimately, the team’s goal is to better understand how the Sun will evolve. As a 4.6-billion-year-old main-sequence star, the Sun is midway through its expected lifetime in this phase before evolving into a red giant and likely engulfing Earth. “We still don’t know whether the Sun’s core is magnetic. Even though it’s our own star, we’re practically blind to what happens at its center,” says Einramhof. “Current predictions assume that the Sun’s core is not magnetic. But if it turns out to be, this information would change everything we know and all the models we’ve based our work on.”

During their longest-lived phase, called the main sequence, stars remain stable until they run out of core hydrogen ‘fuel’ and can no longer sustain the fusion process. When this internal mechanism fails, they puff up and evolve into red giants. “If the Sun can somehow bring hydrogen from its outer layers into its core, it would be able to live longer. One way to do this would be through strong magnetic fields,” says Einramhof. However, the magnetic fields might also lead to a very different outcome. “We know that magnetic fields can significantly affect a star’s evolution. But we still don’t know exactly how they influence stellar evolution or how strong their effects are.”

The ISTA team’s findings help reestablish the fossil field theory as a plausible mechanism for the evolution of stellar magnetic fields. However, other questions remain unanswered. “Given how little we know at this stage, our work suggests that stars are most likely all magnetic. But we can’t always detect this magnetism,” Einramhof concludes.

---

Journal

Astronomy and Astrophysics

DOI

10.1051/0004-6361/202659069 

Method of Research

Computational simulation/modeling

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Magneto-Archeology of White Dwarfs. Revisiting the fossil field scenario with observational constraints during the red giant branch.

Article Publication Date

14-Apr-2026

Rice researchers find sulfur-rich Mercury magmas behave differently than Earth’s

Sulfur reshapes interior evolution and crust formation on Mercury

Rice University

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

A sample of Mercury rock created in the lab

view more 

Credit: Jared Jones/Rice University

Mercury is a small, rocky planet about which researchers know relatively little. Two missions, taking readings as they passed over the planet, have revealed that Mercury is covered by an iron-poor and sulfur-rich crust. It is also reduced, a chemical state in which the substances have gained electrons. In fact, it’s the most reduced planet in the solar system.

“Mercury’s surface looks completely different than Earth’s,” said Rajdeep Dasgupta, the Maurice Ewing Professor in Earth Systems Science and director of the Rice Space Institute Center for Planetary Origins to Habitability. “We couldn’t study its magmatic evolution using assumptions built off our understanding of Earth, and missions data are difficult to interpret. We had to find ways to bring the planet closer to our lab — specifically, through the meteorite Indarch.” 

Indarch, a meteorite that landed in Azerbaijan in 1891, looks very similar to the chemical makeup of Mercury. The researchers realized they could use Indarch to study how Mercury’s unique chemical makeup had shaped the planet, sharing their results in a recent publication.

“Indarch chemically is as reduced as rocks on Mercury,” said Yishen Zhang, a postdoctoral researcher in Dasgupta’s lab and first author on the paper. “It is believed to be a possible building block of the planet,” 

Zhang used a model melt composition of Indarch to cook his own Mercury rocks in a high-pressure, high-temperature facility. The process was fairly simple: mix Indarch’s chemical ingredients together in a small glass vial, change the settings in the facility to match the conditions on Mercury, add in the chemicals and cook. 

“This process of cooking a rock can show us what happened chemically inside of Mercury,” Zhang said. “By using the temperature, pressure and chemical constraints derived from spacecraft observations and models, we recreate Mercurylike conditions to understand how magmas form and evolve there — even without direct samples from the planet.” 

What Zhang found is that sulfur lowers the temperature at which these reduced melted rocks begin to crystallize. That means sulfur-rich magmas on Mercury may stay molten at lower temperatures than similar magmas on Earth. The reason for this significantly decreased crystallization temperature, Zhang found, is because of Mercury’s unique chemical composition: low iron, high sulfur and the chemically reduced state. 

Sulfur is a promiscuous element — it likes to be bound to other elements, usually iron. Iron-rich planets like Mars and Earth have most of their sulfur bound to iron. Mercury’s low iron content, however, meant that its sulfur was looking for new binding partners. Specifically, it could bind to major rock-forming elements like magnesium and calcium. 

On Earth, these rock-forming elements would typically bind to oxygen, resulting in a stable structure called a silicate network made up of silicon, oxygen and rock-forming elements. When sulfur replaces oxygen, however, that network becomes weaker and crystalizes at a lower temperature. 

“As Indarch may represent Mercury’s proto-planet state,” Zhang said, “these experiments show that Mercury likely formed with sulfur occupying a structural position that on Earth belongs to oxygen. This fundamentally changes how the planet’s mantle solidified.” 

“This is a fascinating glimpse of how Mercury may have evolved as a planet to its unique current-day surface chemistry,” Dasgupta said. “More importantly, it provides a way for us to think about planets not based on how Earth was formed, but based on their own unique chemistry and magmatic processes under vastly different conditions. What water or carbon does to magmatic evolution of Earth, sulfur does on Mercury.”  

This work was supported by NASA grants (80NSSC18K0828 and 80NSSC24K0988) and by the Rice Space Institute Center for Planetary Origins to Habitability.

The chemical mixture cooked to create Mercury rocks

Credit

Jared Jones/Rice University

Journal

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta

DOI

10.1016/j.gca.2026.02.034 

Method of Research

Experimental study

Article Title

The effects of sulfur on near-liquidus phase relations of highly reduced basaltic melts with implications for magmatism in Mercury