Saving Seafood

Trump Restores Commercial Fishing Access to Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument

“By reopening the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts to commercial fishing, fairness, transparency, and science-based governance has been restored to the affected fisheries.” — Bob Vanasse, Executive Director of Saving Seafood

February 6, 2026 — WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — Statement from Bob Vanasse, Executive Director of Saving Seafood, on President Trump’s Action to Restore Commercial Fishing Access to the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument:

This afternoon, President Trump revoked President Biden’s Proclamation 10287 and removed the restrictions on commercial fishing within the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument.

This decision reflects a clear understanding of a simple truth: commercial fishing in the United States is already governed by the most comprehensive, science-based, and publicly accountable regulatory system in the world. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, fishing activities in federal waters must meet strict sustainability standards, undergo rigorous scientific review, and follow a transparent process that includes stakeholder input and council oversight. Restoring access to the monument area under this framework reaffirms—not undermines—our commitment to conservation.

In stark contrast, President Obama’s 2016 designation of the monument excluded commercial fishermen from a region they had sustainably fished for generations. It was imposed unilaterally through executive order—without public hearings, without a cost-benefit analysis, and without input from those whose livelihoods were affected. It was a top-down decision that ignored the proven success of the fishery management system already in place. And in a striking display of hypocrisy, while working fishermen were forced out, the uber-wealthy with yachts large enough for spearfishing adventures 130 miles offshore were not banned.

President Trump restored the rights of fishermen once before in 2020. This followed both Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Interior Secretary David Bernhardt agreeing to meet with fishing groups in Boston, in meetings I had the honor to chair.

Unfortunately, President Biden repeated the undemocratic actions of President Obama in 2021, reimposing the ban on commercial fishing with no meaningful engagement. Our industry reached out to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland in good faith—we wrote letters, made phone calls, and requested meetings. We received no response.

All eight regional fishery management councils formally opposed the Biden administration’s reimposition of the ban. President Biden and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland actively disregarded the voices of the very councils and communities entrusted with managing our marine resources. Their closed-door approach and lack of transparency sent a message: facts and stakeholders were not welcome in their decision-making process. This is not how democratic governance or environmental policy should be conducted. But it is not surprising, as there is a history of monument creation via secretive alliance between certain environmentalists and sympathetic Administration staff, as described in this 2015 E&E News story.

We fully expect the usual environmental advocacy groups to respond as they did in 2020, with misleading rhetoric and predictions of catastrophic overfishing. So let’s be absolutely clear: any fishing that resumes in the monument will remain subject to the full force of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a law these same groups routinely hail as a global benchmark for sustainable fishery management.

Their objection is not about protecting the ocean—it is about controlling American commercial fishermen and pushing a broader, extremist agenda that seeks to deny citizens the ability to responsibly use our resources, regardless of science or sustainability.

The truth is that America’s commercial fishermen are among the world’s most responsible ocean stewards. Their work is tightly regulated, environmentally conscious, and vital to the economies and food security of coastal communities. When managed through the regional fishery management councils and NOAA Fisheries, commercial fishing supports biodiversity and conservation while feeding the nation.

Lawmakers seek to protect US fishermen from low-priced imports

December 31, 2025 — There may be good news on the horizon for U.S. fishermen if Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., can get legislation passed that would add “economic cause” as a trigger for economic relief for industries affected by low-priced imports.

Currently, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, fishermen affected by natural or manmade disasters like hurricanes or oil spills are eligible for federal relief. But American shrimp fishermen, whose industry has lost half its value since 2021 due to imports, according to the Southern Shrimp Alliance, have no protection as their livelihoods collapse.

If passed, Mace’s “Protect American Fisheries Act of 2025” would expand NOAA’s Fishery Resource Disaster Assistance Program and allow states to formally request a fishery resource disaster determination in cases such as the U.S. shrimp fishery.

Read the full article at the National Fisherman

Bill lets ‘economic harm’ trigger federal fishery disaster aid

December 29, 2025 — Commercial fishermen who experience unexpected losses from foreign competition would be eligible for federal assistance under a proposal to expand the current relief rules.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act currently provides aid to the seafood industry if is hurt by natural or manmade disasters such as hurricanes or oil spills. A bill from U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., would amend the law to include “economic cause” as an allowable trigger for a disaster declaration when that harm is tied to activities carried out by a foreign person or state.

Mace’s bill targets coastal states where fishermen say they have been undercut by cheap imports and alleged illegal practices abroad. Mace has framed the bill as a way to steer buyers toward domestic seafood and protect the commercial fishing way of life. The bill has eight other cosponsors and bipartisan support.

Read the full article at The Center Square

Judge rules NOAA must release bycatch photos from trawlers

November 4, 2025 — A federal judge in California has ordered NOAA to release photos, videos and other visual data documenting the catch of nontargeted species by the state’s halibut trawl fishery.

In a ruling, Judge Josephine Staton of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California told NOAA to release 77 photographs to the environmental group Oceana detailing the bycatch of fish and marine mammals caught up in nets used by bottom trawlers off the California coast.

Oceana had requested the photos in 2022 under a public records request, but NOAA declined to provide them, citing an exemption where the release of documents violates nondisclosure provisions in federal law. NOAA argued that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act prohibited the release of the photos because doing so could identify the identities of fisheries observers whose identities were to be kept private.

Read the full article at E&E News

Westerman-Golden Bipartisan SPEED Act draws backing from industry groups

October 28, 2025 — A bipartisan proposal to revise federal environmental review procedures is drawing support from technology companies, trade associations, local officials, and utilities, according to statements released by the House Natural Resources Committee.

H.R. 4776, the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act, was introduced by Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine). The measure targets the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a procedural statute that set the framework for assessing environmental impacts of major federal actions and created the Council on Environmental Quality. NEPA’s requirements apply broadly to federally linked activities, including construction of roads, bridges, highways, ports, irrigation systems, forest management projects, transmission lines, energy developments, broadband, and water infrastructure.

NEPA was enacted to ensure that federal agencies consider environmental consequences before taking major actions. Over time, the process has become increasingly complex, extending permitting timelines and increasing costs for public and private projects. Critics of the current system argue that it has evolved into a cumbersome process that special interest groups sometimes use to delay or block infrastructure projects through litigation. The SPEED Act seeks to address those concerns by streamlining review procedures and reducing the frequency of lawsuits while maintaining the requirement that environmental impacts be considered.

Supporters from sectors such as advanced computing and data centers point to power and transmission needs; energy producers and public power entities cite grid reliability and long planning horizons; construction and electrical contractors emphasize predictable schedules; and forestry and logging groups link delays to slower forest management and wildfire risk. Commercial space and conservation-policy organizations also register support, citing modernization and clearer processes.

Commercial fisheries are among the sectors affected by NEPA’s procedural requirements. Fishery management actions under the Magnuson–Stevens Act—such as plan amendments, quota specifications, and implementing regulations—are treated as major federal actions and typically require environmental assessments or impact statements. Standardizing timelines and simplifying documentation could reduce uncertainty in the council and agency decision process without altering the substantive conservation standards that govern federal fisheries.

Litigation is another recurring factor in fishery management. NEPA claims are often filed alongside Magnuson–Stevens Act claims when stakeholders challenge plan amendments or annual specifications. Even when agencies prevail, litigation risk can slow implementation and absorb staff resources. The SPEED Act’s provisions to clarify what constitutes a “major federal action,” set limits on judicial review periods, and streamline documentation are presented by supporters as measures that could help agencies move science-based fishery decisions to implementation more predictably.

 The SPEED Act would update NEPA by: 

– Shortening review timelines and reducing litigation frequency.

– Simplifying analyses required in NEPA documents to lessen agency workload.

– Clarifying when NEPA applies by refining the definition of “major federal action.”

– Setting judicial review limits for NEPA claims, including a 150-day filing deadline, a new standard of review, and constraints on procedural maneuvers that can halt projects.

Organizations listed as supporters include Google; OpenAI; the AI Supply Chain Alliance; the American Forest Resource Council; Associated General Contractors of America; Associated Oregon Loggers; the Commercial Space Federation; ConservAmerica; the Huerfano County (Colo.) Board of County Commissioners; the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association; Minnesota Forest Industries; Missouri River Energy Services (which also backs a related bill, H.R. 4503); the National Electrical Contractors Association and several of its regional chapters; and the Utah Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

Press release: https://naturalresources.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=BB6YBW3BL6RVCAERSA4FZWNLFQ

Judge discontinues commercial fishing in Pacific monument

August 11, 2025 — A Hawaii judge vacated an agency letter on Friday that allowed commercial fishing in a Pacific Ocean monument following a proclamation from President Donald Trump that walked back Obama-era environmental protections.

U.S. District Court Judge Micah Smith, a Joe Biden appointee, ruled that the letter — issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service — violated the Magnuson-Stevens Act and Administrative Procedure Act when it opened up protected water of the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument.

Environmentalists had claimed that the government didn’t engage in any notification or comment process before issuing the letter on April 25, a week after Trump’s proclamation.

“Whether plaintiffs are right to contend that they are entitled to participate in a notice and comment procedure — the government has chosen to concede that they are,” Smith wrote, noting the government had opted not to argue the letter was an interpretive rule instead of a legislative one.

Read the full article at Courthouse News Service

LOUISIANA: Amendment seeks aid for Louisiana’s wild-caught crawfishermen

August 4, 2025 — Two Louisiana congressmen, Cleo Fields and Clay Higgins, have introduced an amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to support the state’s wild-caught crawfishermen during disaster relief.

The proposed amendment seeks to expand fishery disaster relief programs to include wild-caught crawfish, which currently do not qualify for disaster assistance under existing U.S. Department of Agriculture or Magnuson-Stevens Act provisions. This change would allow the Secretary of Commerce to declare a fishery disaster for red swamp crawfish and white river crawfish, providing relief in the event of natural or man-made disasters.

Read the full article at CenLANow.com

Louisiana lawmakers introduce bill to expand disaster relief for crawfishermen

August 1, 2025 — Louisiana lawmakers have introduced new bipartisan legislation aimed at providing federal disaster relief to crawfish fisheries,

Currently, wild-caught crawfish are not eligible for disaster relief through the U.S. Department of Agriculture or under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which governs most federal fishery management.

The Fisheries Modernization Act (H.R. 4800), introduced by Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., and Cleo Fields, D-La., would modify the legislation to specifically include red swamp crawfish and white river crawfish — two species central to Louisiana’s wild-caught industry. If passed, the measure would allow the Commerce Secretary to declare a fishery disaster for these species in the event of environmental catastrophes, infrastructure failures, or other crises that lead to significant drops in population or revenue.

Read the full article at the National Fisherman

LOUISIANA: Louisiana representatives want to make crawfish eligible for federal disaster relief funds

July 31, 2025 — U.S. federal lawmakers from the state of Louisiana have introduced a bill that would make wild-caught crawfish eligible for the Department of Commerce’s fishery disaster relief program.

“Louisiana’s crawfish harvesters are a vital part of our state’s economy and heritage. This legislation not only recognizes that legacy, but it also ensures that when future disasters hit, they won’t be left behind. Including wild-caught crawfish under the Magnuson-Stevens Act is a simple yet practical way to give this industry the federal support it deserves,” U.S. Representative Cleo Fields (D-Louisiana) said in a statement.

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

Justice Department in Talks to Settle Loper Bright

July 21, 2025 — Sometimes, a little sunlight does some good. As I reported last month, even while Pam Bondi’s Justice Department has been treating Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo as a victory for conservative and MAGA critics of the administrative state, career lawyers at the DOJ were continuing to defend the very Commerce Department fishing-monitor regulation at issue in Loper Bright and its companion case, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled in favor of the government in Relentless, concluding that the Commerce Department could saddle fishing boats with the cost of monitors even without any authorization in the statutory text for charging them such a fee: “The default norm, manifest without express statement in literally hundreds of regulations, is that the government does not reimburse regulated entities for the cost of complying with properly enacted regulations, at least short of a taking.” Never mind that this isn’t a matter of the boats bearing the costs of their own compliance with rules, but of paying a regulatory agent for the government. The judge also found that, because the Magnuson-Stevens Act gives the agency “necessary and appropriate” powers, this “in no uncertain terms, delegates . . . a large degree of discretionary authority.” Actually, a term could hardly be more uncertain, and the whole point of Loper Bright is that agency discretion is about policy — not the interpretation of the law.

Read the full article at the National Review