As a candidate to the U.S. Congress seeking to represent the independent voice and the enduring future of the people of American Samoa, I bring forward the deep-seated concerns of our local community regarding the federal government's rapid timeline to issue commercial deep-sea mineral leases in our waters this coming August.

While the International Seabed Authority (ISA) continues to exercise extreme caution by restricting international waters to exploratory phases to compile independent data, the U.S. The Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Marine Minerals Administration (formerly BOEM) are moving directly toward a 20-year COMMERCIAL leasing framework within our Exclusive Economic Zone.

Our ocean is not an unpopulated testing ground, nor is it an isolated backyard from which resources can be extracted while our people watch from the sidelines. Our local community — especially our fishermen, families, and the veterans who have sacrificed heavily for the security of the United States — deserves direct, unvarnished, and fact-based transparency.

To ensure the public is fully informed, I formally and humbly request the coordinator of the newly established Deep-Sea Minerals Steering Committee provide clear, documented evidence from the DOI, Marine Minerals Administration (BOEM), NOAA, or NEPA to address the following three critical questions:

1. Projected Revenue & GDP Impact

Question: What is the precise, prospected revenue that will legally come directly to the Territory of American Samoa if commercial deep-sea mining is approved, and exactly how will it improve our local GDP?

●     Context for Clarification: The DOI's recent budget justifications suggest these projects will "diversify territorial economies." However, under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), federal leasing revenues often flow primarily to the U.S. Treasury unless specific revenue-sharing legislation is enacted by Congress.

●     What the Community Needs to See: Please provide the economic modeling or federal guarantees showing the exact percentage of royalties, lease fees, or taxes that will remain within our local treasury to fund our faltering educational infrastructure, community health services, and essential public resources, rather than benefiting off-shore corporations.

2. Job Creation in a Mechanized, Automated Industry

Question: How many actual, long-term employment opportunities will this highly mechanized, AI-operated, and automated industry created specifically for local residents of American Samoa?

●     Context for Clarification: Modern seabed extraction relies heavily on advanced robotics, remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), and specialized artificial intelligence.

Furthermore, there is no structural guarantee that the onshore infrastructure — such as heavy mineral processing plants or specialized maintenance hubs — will be built or operated within our territory.

●     What the Community Needs to See: What are the specific workforce data projections?

Of the jobs created, how many are entry-level vs. highly specialized roles that would require importing foreign or off-island technical experts? What concrete steps is the Workforce Development Subcommittee taking to guarantee that our youth are not left with short-term, low-wage support roles while the high-paying technical opportunities leave the island?

3. Community Representation & The "Backyard" Analogy

Question: How will deep-sea mining guarantee American Samoa a meaningful "seat at the table", when the federal government is moving forward with an August commercial lease sale despite overwhelming local public opposition?

If someone walked into a local family’s backyard and dug up their taro without their consent, it would be a violation of their rights; how is exploiting our seafloor without local consensus any different?

●     Context for Clarification: In May 2026, formal demands were raised noting that rushing this lease sale without a locally approved consistency determination directly triggers conflicts under federal mandates like the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), given that deep-sea toxic slurry plumes and heavy metal leaching could permanently degrade the marine environments and pelagic fish stocks within our 3-mile territorial zone.

●     What the Community Needs to See: How can the Steering Committee assure the public that local indigenous, cultural, and environmental perspectives are genuinely being integrated — and not just managed via post-leasing "outreach" — when the decision to open the backyard for exploitation has already been fast-tracked by federal executive mandates?

The seabed minerals in our waters have rested there for millennia; they are not going anywhere.

Rushing into a 20-year commitment without independent, multi-year ecological and health impact studies places our tuna industry, our food security, and our public health at catastrophic risk.

We look forward to a formal, evidence-backed response to these concerns so that the community we both serve can understand the true risks and promised returns of this monumental proposal.

Respectfully submitted,

(This Op-Ed was originally sent as a letter to Mr. Michael McDonald, Chairman of  Deep-Sea Minerals Steering Committee, and also Assistant Director/ Deputy Director, Department of Port Administration)