logo
Trump's regulatory freeze throws U.S. fishing industry into chaos

Trump's regulatory freeze throws U.S. fishing industry into chaos

Japan Times24-03-2025

U.S. President Donald Trump's regulatory freeze has injected chaos and uncertainty into a number of lucrative American fisheries, raising the risk of a delayed start to the fishing season for some East Coast cod and haddock fleets and leading to overfishing of Atlantic bluefin tuna, according to interviews with industry groups and federal government employees.
America's $320 billion fishing industry relies on a branch of the federal government, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to manage coastal fisheries. Under a 1976 law, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service develops management plans for 45 fisheries, setting quotas and determining the start and close of fishing seasons, in consultation with federal government scientists and local fishermen.
Trump's Jan. 20 declaration of a 60-day freeze on regulations disrupted this process for several of those fisheries, delaying key meetings and causing confusion over the issuance of new rules, according to interviews.
The freeze allowed overfishing of Atlantic bluefin tuna in waters off North Carolina, which could mean reduced quotas for New York and New England fishermen when the fish migrate further north this summer, according to a Massachusetts lawmaker as well as industry groups and the federal government employees.
"There's just a lot of confusion right now, both internal and external," said Ben Martens, executive director of the Maine Coast Fishermen's Association, an industry group. "I'm getting calls from fishermen asking what's going to happen."
A sign marks the NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office in Point Judith, Rhode Island, on March 13. |
REUTERS
Some 163 probationary employees — or about 5% of the NOAA workforce dealing with fisheries — were fired last month including administrative support staff, fish biologists and fisheries management specialists, said a senior NOAA employee who was among those fired. Those roles are involved in the regulatory process, from monitoring the health of stocks to consulting on regulations for annual catch.
The agency confirmed the freeze in an email, but said that it would not respond to Reuters' requests for comment on management and personnel issues. "NOAA Fisheries is complying with the Presidential Memorandum 'Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,'" NOAA spokesperson Rachel Hager said.
The White House did not respond to requests for comment.
Even if new regulations can be issued once the freeze lifts, delays in openings can have an impact on the industry, especially fishermen who rely on migratory fish or operate smaller vessels.
'Make or break'
"It can make or break a fishery if the window of opportunity to go fishing is narrowed or shifts significantly,' said Noah Oppenheim, principal of Homarus Strategies, which advises commercial fishermen and organizations across the country.
Reuters spoke to two industry groups and 13 staff at NOAA, who described impacts from Alaska to the Atlantic because of regulatory delays and job cuts.
Twelve of the NOAA staff were fired and reinstated on March 17 in response to a court order, though they were placed on administrative leave.
The Trump administration has told all federal agencies to submit plans for further staff cuts.
The effects of the regulatory freeze on the fishing season and the scope of job cuts at NOAA's fisheries arm have not been previously reported.
The impact on the U.S. fishing fleet, which employs 39,000 commercial fishermen, is one example of how suspending federal government regulations and job cuts can impact broad swathes of the U.S. economy.
Bluefish tuna were overfished in the mid-Atlantic this month because NOAA did not issue the regulation to close the fishery after fishermen filled the quota in mid-January, according to two letters sent to NOAA from Bill Keating, a Democratic representative from Massachusetts.
Keating's initial attempt to reach NOAA's congressional liaison failed because that person had been fired, and his second attempt to warn the interim administrator went unanswered, his office said.
A drone view shows commercial fishing boats in Point Judith, Rhode Island, on March 13. |
REUTERS
NOAA eventually closed the mid-Atlantic fishery on Feb. 28 after 125% of the catch quota had been taken. But John McMurray, a bluefin fisherman in New York, says he is not sure how much of the prized fish will be available for him to catch when his season gets under way in June
"It's hard for me to believe we're not going to get punished up here in New York and New England for that,' he said.
Trump exempted fishing and hunting from a regulatory freeze during his first term, but no such exception has been announced during his current administration.
The White House has said that reducing regulation will help combat inflation and drive job growth.
'No fishery, no work'
John Ainsworth, a commercial fisherman who has been fishing squid and other fish off of Rhode Island since 1990, said he fears a chaotic approach to the catch could wipe out fishing stocks.
"The federal managers for the squid fishery are supposed to be slashed and without them, when do we know when the seasons open? When will they decide how much of the quota is caught?' he asked.
Some New England fisheries are expected to open late because of delays in the regulatory process, according to the New England Fishery Management Council, an advisory group.
The Northeast's $41 million groundfish fishery, which includes cod, haddock and flounder, is on track to miss its traditional May 1 opening date unless NOAA or the Secretary of Commerce take emergency action, said Martens from the Maine Coast Fishermen's Association.
A small fraction of New England's $400 million scallop industry also faces only a partial opening on April 1. At this point, publishing new regulations could take until late April, Martens said.
John Ainsworth, captain of the commercial fishing boat Hope and Sydney, in Point Judith, Rhode Island, on March 13 |
REUTERS
Delayed opening of fisheries means less fishing time for fishermen, less work for crews and less fish to send to markets, said Linda Behnken, executive director of the Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association.
"No fishery means no work," she said.
Alaska's black cod (or sablefish) and halibut fisheries will open on time on March 20, but only after Republican Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski spoke directly with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, she said on X. NOAA staff worked through the weekend to complete the rulemaking process so the season could open, said Behnken, who was involved in the effort.
Preparations for the Pacific coast salmon fishing season are also behind schedule, because of disruptions to the fishery management council meeting, one NOAA employee said.
Rebecca Howard, a fish biologist, was preparing population surveys of shellfish and pollock, cod and groundfish when she was fired from her job at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center on Feb. 27. The data helps to set fish and crab quotas to ensure a sustainable take.
Such stock assessments are essential to fishermen like Christopher Willi. Fishermen are not able to regulate on their own, he said.
"You need the federal government to do it,' said Willi, a charter fishing guide and restaurant owner on Block Island, off the coast of Rhode Island. "If these quotas aren't maintained and regulated and monitored with stock assessments by NOAA, it's going to become a free-for-all and you're gonna find existing stocks depleted.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Does U.S. law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
Does U.S. law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?

Japan Times

timean hour ago

  • Japan Times

Does U.S. law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?

U.S. President Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops to California after days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible "form of rebellion' against the authority of the U.S. government. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday mobilized 700 active duty Marines as part of the government's response to the protests. California sued the Trump administration on Monday to end the "unlawful" deployment of troops in Los Angeles County and return the state National Guard to California Gov. Gavin Newsom's command. What laws did Trump cite to justify the deployment? Trump cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the U.S. Armed Forces, in his Saturday order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 — Section 12406 — allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the U.S. is invaded, there is a "rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' What are National Guard troops allowed to do under the law cited in Trump's order? An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the U.S. military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. What does California's lawsuit say? California's lawsuit said the deployment of troops in the state without the governor's consent violates federal law and the U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment, which protects states' rights. The state argues the deployment does not meet any of the requirements in Title 10 because there was no "rebellion,' no "invasion" and no situation that prevented the enforcement of U.S. laws in the state. Trump also did not consult with Newsom before deploying the National Guard, violating Section 12406's requirement that orders to deploy the National Guard "shall be issued through the governors of the States," according to the lawsuit. What is the lawsuit asking for? The lawsuit seeks a declaration from the court Trump's order is unlawful and an injunction blocking it from being enforced. How might a court view the dispute? There is little precedent for such a dispute. Section 12406 has only ever been invoked once before to deploy the National Guard, when President Richard Nixon called upon it to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service Strike, according to Bonta. Five legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organizations cast doubt on Trump's use of Title 10 in response to the immigration protests and called it inflammatory and reckless, especially without Newsom's support. The protests in California do not rise to the level of "rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Legal experts were split on whether a court would back Newsom's interpretation of the governor's role under Section 12406. Courts have traditionally given great weight to the word "shall' in interpreting other laws, which supports Newsom's position that governors must be involved in calling in the National Guard. But other experts said the law was written to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops. What other laws could Trump invoke to direct the National Guard or other U.S. military troops? Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. Senior White House officials, including Vice President JD Vance and senior White House aide Stephen Miller, have used the term "insurrection" when discussing the protests, but the administration has stopped short of invoking the act thus far. It has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the U.S. in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the trial of Los Angeles police officers who beat Black motorist Rodney King. But the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama. What about the Marines? Trump has more direct authority over the Marines than the National Guard, under Title 10 and in his constitutional role as commander in chief of the armed forces, legal experts said. But unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, the Marines are subject to legal restrictions that prevent them from taking part in "any search, seizure, arrest or other similar activity." The Defense Department said on Monday that the Marines were ready to support the National Guard's efforts to protect federal personnel and federal property in Los Angeles, emphasizing the relatively limited scope of their role at the moment.

US once again selects strategic nuclear base for talks with Japan
US once again selects strategic nuclear base for talks with Japan

Nikkei Asia

timean hour ago

  • Nikkei Asia

US once again selects strategic nuclear base for talks with Japan

WASHINGTON -- In an annual display of nuclear muscle, U.S. government officials showed their Japanese counterparts a fleet of B-52 strategic bombers on an Air Force base in Louisiana. The first Extended Deterrence Dialogue of President Donald Trump's second administration was held last Thursday and Friday at Barksdale Air Force Base, home of Air Force Global Strike Command. Photos of the visit were released on Monday.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom Says Trump Is Stepping toward Authoritarianism
California Gov. Gavin Newsom Says Trump Is Stepping toward Authoritarianism

Yomiuri Shimbun

timean hour ago

  • Yomiuri Shimbun

California Gov. Gavin Newsom Says Trump Is Stepping toward Authoritarianism

Joshua Lott/The Washington Post National Guard soldiers stand in front of a federal building as protests continue on Monday following raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. LOS ANGELES – The relationship between the leader of the United States and the country's most populous state reached a near-breaking point Monday, as President Donald Trump said that he thought California Gov. Gavin Newsom should be arrested, a claim that Newsom described as an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism. The back-and-forth came as Trump stepped up the military's presence on the streets of Los Angeles, against Newsom's will, as the two men traded recriminations. Trump repeatedly ridiculed Newsom, a Democrat, saying that he is 'grossly incompetent' and had done 'a terrible job.' Asked about a threat made by his border czar Tom Homan to arrest the governor, Trump said, 'I would do it if I were Tom.' 'I think it's great,' Trump added, without specifying any alleged criminal wrongdoing or charges. 'Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing.' 'That's an American president in 2025, threatening a political opponent who happens to be a sitting governor,' Newsom said in an interview Monday. 'That's not with precedent in modern times. That's what we see around the globe in authoritarian regimes.' Newsom's comments reflected a broader frustration for Democratic leaders, who have been unable to counter what they see as an escalation of Trump's antidemocratic actions in his emboldened second term. Newsom has tried all methods: He was a face of the resistance in the first term and a welcoming greeter during Trump's initial visit to California in his second term. All the while, he continued suing Trump, while keeping up a cordial back-channel relationship. On Monday, he sounded like he was at his end with Trump, calling him 'unrestrained' and 'unhinged.' 'Trump is a very different president than his first foray in office,' Newsom said Monday. 'You've seen that as it relates to how he has completely obliterated any oversight from Congress; how he seeks to obliterate oversight from the judicial branch by threatening impeachment of judges and running up to the edge as it relates to court orders.' The newest break in the historically tumultuous relationship between Newsom and Trump unfolded over a chaotic 72-hour period that began with raids by federal immigration officials in Los Angeles on Friday that led to the arrests of 44 people, including two people whom state officials believe to be minors. Trump, who had arrived at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, for the weekend, left a message for Newsom on his cellphone Friday night. The two had spoken intermittently since Trump's inauguration, including during a meeting in the Oval Office in February as Newsom sought tens of billions of dollars in federal funding to help L.A. rebuild after the January wildfires. While they sparred publicly, their interactions in private during both Trump terms were more productive. On Friday, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests had triggered protests, with the Los Angeles Police Department reporting that agitators had hurled chunks of concrete at law enforcement officers. The Democratic governor assumed that was why Trump was calling. He was hoping to reassure him when they spoke after 1:30 a.m. Eastern time that state and local officials had protests under control. But he could scarcely get in a word. Trump talked about trivial subjects, according to people familiar with the call who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss details of a private conversation. Newsom unsuccessfully tried to steer the president toward serious subjects, including reports that the administration was preparing to terminate California's federal funding. In an interview Monday, Newsom said Trump was 'gracious' but never warned that he was about to federalize the National Guard, as the president later claimed, and never asked about the law enforcement response to that night's protests. Risking complaints from some Democrats that he had been too accommodating, the California governor had been restrained in the months since inauguration, avoiding personal attacks. But by Sunday, when Newsom arrived in Los Angeles, crowds of protesters in the city's downtown had swelled to thousands. California Highway Patrol officers under Newsom's command were arresting people who had blocked the southbound lanes of the 101 Freeway, a major artery through the city, and throwing objects at local law enforcement officers as several Waymo vehicles were set on fire. The gripping and chaotic scene in a Democratic-run city was, in Newsom's view, the kind of made-for-television crisis that Trump had always hoped to manufacture. Newsom, who blamed Trump for the escalation, said Sunday on social media that Trump's actions had diverged into those of 'a dictator, not a President.' 'This is an act of recklessness that quite literally puts people's lives at risk,' Newsom said of Trump's decision to federalize the National Guard. From Trump's perspective, the situation in Los Angeles County had gotten out of control – leaving him no choice but to step in. A White House official briefed on the administration's response to the protests, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly, said that the president had hoped that calling Newsom would compel him to take more aggressive law enforcement action – something Trump stressed in the phone call, the official insisted. Throughout Saturday, according to White House officials, the president and his advisers were being briefed about what was happening on the ground – and watching provocative images on social media and television. They saw images of agents with lacerations, and of rocks being thrown at law enforcement vehicles. By around 9 p.m., Trump had signed a memorandum authorizing the National Guard. That decision was announced in the early evening in Los Angeles, a time that a White House official said was designed to deter further protests that evening. 'You watch the same clips as I did. Cars burning all over the place, people rioting,' Trump said on Monday afternoon. He cast himself as the savior of the state, and said he had no choice but to intervene, mocking those who disagreed as 'politically correct.' 'If we didn't do the job, that place would be burning down, just like the houses burned down,' he said, comparing it to other protests like those in Minneapolis in the aftermath of George Floyd's killing. 'There's so many different places where we let it burn. We want to be politically correct. We want it to be nice. We want to be nice to the criminal. And what you're doing is destroying the fabric of our life in this country.' He said that he should be credited. 'And I think Gavin, in his own way, is probably happy I got involved,' Trump said. Later on Monday, a senior administration official said that about 700 active-duty U.S. Marines would be deployed from Camp Pendleton to Los Angeles on Monday night 'in light of increased threats to federal officers and federal buildings.' Newsom called the act 'un-American.' 'U.S. Marines have served honorably across multiple wars in defense of democracy. They are heroes,' Newsom wrote on X. 'They shouldn't be deployed on American soil facing their own countrymen to fulfill the deranged fantasy of a dictatorial President.' While Trump expressed support for arresting Newsom, he did not have an explanation for what crime he thinks the governor committed. 'I think his primary crime is running for governor, because he's done such a bad job,' he said. 'What he's done to that state is like what [Joe] Biden did to this country. And, that's pretty bad.' White House officials later suggested that Trump was serious about his threats to have Newsom arrested. 'No one, regardless of status as elected official is above the law,' a White House official said. 'If Gavin Newsom is obstructing federal law enforcement, he may face consequences.' The relationship between Newsom and Trump, never strong, has long seemed headed this way, according to observers. 'This is a symbiotic relationship right now,' said David Axelrod, a former adviser to Barack Obama, noting that both Trump and Newsom are 'improvisational politicians who are habitually trying to read the room.' 'But at the end of the day, Newsom clearly wants to run for president. And to be president, he has to be the Democratic nominee,' Axelrod said. 'And when this kind of provocation takes place – when the president of the United States is sending Marines to L.A. – yeah, you damn well better have something to say.' Newsom said he would have a hard time keeping up the cordiality. 'He just threatened my arrest. One would assume, or presume, that's the point of no return,' Newsom said. 'I'm constitutionally capable of working with people, even those that call for my arrest. So I remain resolved in that respect, as I remain resolved to have the backs of kids, whose lives are being threatened by his authoritarian tendencies.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store