A federal judge just hit the brakes on Trump's plan to fast track industrial fish farming in the Gulf
This coverage is made possible through a partnership between Grist and Verite News, a nonprofit news organization with a mission to produce in-depth journalism in underserved communities in the New Orleans area.
President Donald Trump's first-term push to open the Gulf of Mexico and other federal waters to fish farming has come to a halt in the early days of his second term.
A federal judge in Washington state ruled against a nationwide aquaculture permit the Trump administration sought in 2020. The wide-ranging permit would have allowed the first offshore farms in the Gulf and the likely expansion of the aquaculture industry into federally managed waters on the East and West coasts.
The ruling, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Kymberly K. Evanson on March 17, was applauded by several environmental groups.
'A nationwide permit isn't at all appropriate because our federal waters are so different,' said Marianne Cufone, executive director of the New Orleans-based Recirculating Farms Coalition, a group opposed to offshore aquaculture. 'Florida is not Maine. California is not Texas. And in just the Gulf of Mexico, there are significantly different habitats [and] different fish species that could be affected.'
Offshore aquaculture, which involves raising large quantities of fish in floating net pens, has been blamed for increased marine pollution and escapes that can harm wild fish populations. In the Gulf, there's particular concern about the 'dead zone,' a New Jersey-size area of low oxygen fueled by rising temperatures and nutrient-rich pollution from fertilizers, urban runoff and sewer plants. Adding millions of caged fish would generate even more waste and worsen the dead zone, Cufone said.
Fish farming is an 'existential threat' to the Gulf's fishing industry, said Ryan Bradley, executive director of the Mississippi Commercial Fisheries United. Besides the 'cascading negative impacts' on the environment, offshore aquaculture often undercuts the prices of wild-caught fish and shrimp, he said. The Gulf's fishers are already facing intense competition from foreign fish farms.
'Offshore aquaculture poses too much risk and not enough reward,' Bradley said.
The aquaculture industry says fish farming is the only way to meet surging demand for seafood, particularly high-value species like salmon and tuna. As wild fish stocks struggle under climate change, offshore farming could help the U.S. adapt, producing food in a managed environment less affected by ecological conditions, aquaculture advocates say.
Late last year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration identified five areas in the Gulf that the agency said are best suited for offshore aquaculture. The development of these 'aquaculture opportunity areas' near the coasts of Texas and Louisiana received a strong push during Trump's first term but slowed under President Joe Biden. Evanson's decision blocks what might have been a speedy approval process for fish farms in opportunity areas.
A cumbersome permitting process and opposition from environmentalists and catchers of wild seafood had long stymied plans for fish farms in the Gulf, which Trump recently renamed the Gulf of America. In 2020, the aquaculture industry got a big boost when Trump signed an executive order that directed federal agencies to 'identify and remove unnecessary regulatory barriers' restricting farming in federal waters.
Read Next
How Trump could bring fish farms to the Gulf of Mexico
Tristan Baurick
Trump's order led the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue the sweeping national permit to open nearly all federal ocean waters to aquaculture. The Center for Food Safety and other environmental groups sued, arguing that the permit failed to analyze fish farming's threats to water quality and marine life, including several species protected under the Endangered Species Act.
In October, an initial decision by Evanson, who was appointed by Biden, faulted the Corps for failing to acknowledge aquaculture's adverse environmental impacts. Evanson's latest decision vacates, or sets aside as unlawful, the nationwide permit.
The Corps declined to comment on the decision.
Federal courts have also struck down efforts to establish offshore aquaculture in the Gulf in 2018 and 2020.
The repeated legal setbacks should send a clear signal to the industry, said George Kimbrell, the Center for Food Safety's legal director.
'It has no place in U.S. ocean waters,' he said.
The aquaculture industry isn't giving up. Paul Zajicek, executive director of the National Aquaculture Association, said expanding U.S. fish farming is critical for meeting the growing American appetite for seafood. He noted that the U.S. consumed nearly 7 billion pounds of seafood in 2022, the most recent year data was available. About 83 percent of the seafood was imported, contributing to a trade deficit of about $24 billion, Zajicek said.
'The heavy reliance on imports for a foodstuff critical to people's health not only creates a massive trade imbalance, it also creates food security and food safety issues for our country,' he wrote in an email.
Tilting the balance of international trade is a keen interest for Trump, who on Wednesday announced far-reaching and expensive tariffs that the president says will help U.S. producers and boost the country's economy.
Read Next
The world is farming more seafood than it catches. Is that a good thing?
Frida Garza
The U.S. has a robust land-based aquaculture industry, producing pond-raised catfish, trout and other fish. No fish are raised commercially in federal waters, and fish farming operations are increasingly rare in state-managed marine waters. Washington state once had a large salmon farming industry, but large-scale escapes of non-native Atlantic salmon and concerns about pollution and the spread of disease led to a halt on fish farm leases in 2022 and a full ban in January. Hawaii's state waters host the only offshore fish farm in the U.S.
Other countries have embraced offshore aquaculture on a large scale. China accounts for more than half of global aquaculture production, according to NOAA. Asian countries and Ecuador supply most of the shrimp consumed in the U.S., while farms in Canada, Norway and Chile produce two-thirds of the salmon Americans eat.
Companies have tried to open the Gulf to aquaculture for more than a decade, yet none of the proposals for floating pens filled with redfish, amberjack and other high-value species have managed to take hold. In 2017, the federal government helped fund a pilot project that would have placed a floating farm about 45 miles from Sarasota, Fla. The project was derailed after regulators received nearly 45,000 public comments opposing it, according to Zajicek.
Proposed farms face 'a permitting system that is too lengthy, too costly, and too subject to legal challenges from groups opposed to commercial aquaculture,' he said.
Last month's court decision means companies may now narrow their focus and seek permits for individual projects, Zajicek said.
That approach also won't be easy, Cufone warned. The process for permitting each project will likely be slower and more deliberative, giving more consideration to a proposed farm's impacts on the surrounding environment and nearby communities.
'Claiming one size fits all doesn't seem realistic, and the court agreed,' she said. 'Now they can't use one big permit to speed these things through.'
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A federal judge just hit the brakes on Trump's plan to fast track industrial fish farming in the Gulf on Apr 4, 2025.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With troops in Los Angeles, echoes of the Kent State massacre
Ohio National Guard members with gas masks and rifles advance toward Kent State University students during an anti-war protest on May 4, 1970. More than a dozen students were killed or injured when the guard opened fire. (.) This article was originally published by The Trace. Earlier in June, President Donald Trump deployed thousands of National Guard troops and Marines to quell anti-deportation protests and secure federal buildings in downtown Los Angeles. The move, some historians say, harks back 55 years to May 4, 1970, when Ohio's Republican governor summoned the National Guard to deal with students demonstrating against the Vietnam War at Kent State University. Guard members were ordered to fire over the students' heads to disperse the crowd, but some couldn't hear because they were wearing gas masks. The troops fired at the students instead, killing four and wounding another nine. The shooting served as a cautionary tale about turning the military on civilians. 'Dispatching California National Guard troops against civilian protesters in Los Angeles chillingly echoes decisions and actions that led to the tragic Kent State shooting,' Brian VanDeMark, author of the book 'Kent State: An American Tragedy,' wrote this week for The Conversation. We asked VanDeMark, a history professor at the United States Naval Academy, more about the parallels between 1970 and today. His interview has been edited for length and clarity. After the Kent State shooting, it became taboo for presidents or governors to even consider authorizing military use of force against civilians. Is the shadow of Kent State looming over Los Angeles? VanDeMark: For young people today, 55 years ago seems like a very long time. For the generation that came of age during the '60s and were in college during that period, Kent State is a defining event, shaping their views of politics and the military. There are risks inherent in deploying the military to deal with crowds and protesters. At Kent State, the county prosecutor warned the governor that something terrible could happen if he didn't shut down the campus after the guard's arrival. The university's administration did not want the guard brought to campus because they understood how provocative that would be to student protesters who were very anti-war and anti-military. It's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. The military is not trained or equipped to deal well with crowd control. It is taught to fight and kill, and to win wars. California Governor Gavin Newsom has said that deploying the guard to Los Angeles is inflammatory. What do you fear most about this new era of domestic military deployment? People's sense of history probably goes back five or 10 years rather than 40 or 50. That's regrettable. The people making these decisions — I can't unpack their motivation or perceptions — but I think their sense of history in terms of the dangers inherent in deploying U.S. troops to deal with street protests is itself a problem. There are parallels between Kent State and Los Angeles. There are protesters throwing bottles at police and setting fires. The Ohio governor called the Kent State protesters dissidents and un-American; President Trump has called the Los Angeles demonstrators insurrectionists, although he appears to have walked that back. What do you make of these similarities? The parallels are rather obvious. The general point I wish to make, without directing it at a particular individual, is that the choice of words used to describe a situation has consequences. Leaders have positions of responsibility and authority. They have a responsibility to try to keep the situation under control. Are officers today more apt to use rubber bullets and other so-called less-lethal rounds than in 1970? Even though these rounds do damage, they're less likely to kill. Could that save lives today? Most likely, yes. In 1970, the guard members at Kent State, all they had were tear gas canisters and assault rifles loaded with live ammunition. Lessons have been learned between 1970 and today, and I'm almost certain that the California National Guard is equipped with batons, plastic shields, and other tools that give them a range of options between doing nothing and killing someone. I've touched one of the bullets used at Kent State. It was five and a half inches long. You can imagine the catastrophic damage that can inflict on the human body. Those bullets will kill at 1,000 yards, so the likelihood that the military personnel in Los Angeles have live ammunition is very remote. Trump authorized the deployment of federal troops not only to Los Angeles but also to wherever protests are 'occurring or are likely to occur,' leading to speculation that the presence of troops will become permanent. Was that ever a consideration in the '60s and '70s, or are we in uncharted waters here? In the 1960s and early 1970s, presidents of both parties were very reluctant to deploy military forces against protests. Has that changed? Apparently it has. I personally believe that the military being used domestically against American citizens, or even people living here illegally, is not the answer. Generally speaking, force is not the answer. The application of force is inherently unpredictable. It's inherently uncontrollable. And very often the consequences of using it are terrible human suffering. Before the Kent State shooting, the assumption by most college-aged protesters was that there weren't physical consequences to engaging in protests. Kent State demonstrated otherwise. In Los Angeles, the governor, the mayor, and all responsible public officials have essentially said they will not tolerate violence or the destruction of property. I think that most of the protesters are peaceful. What concerns me is the small minority who are unaware of our history and don't understand the risks of being aggressive toward the authorities. In Los Angeles, we have not just the guard but also the Marines. Marines, as you mentioned, are trained to fight wars. What's the worst that could happen here? People could get killed. I don't know what's being done in terms of defining rules of engagement, but I assume that the Marines have explicitly been told not to load live ammunition in their weapons because that would risk violence and loss of life. I don't think that the guard or the Marines are particularly enthusiastic about having to apply coercive force against protesters. Their training in that regard is very limited, and their understanding of crowd psychology is probably very limited. The crowd psychology is inherently unpredictable and often nonlinear. If you don't have experience with crowds, you may end up making choices based on your lack of experience that are very regrettable. Some people are imploring the Marines and guard members to refuse the orders and stay home. You interviewed guard members who were at Kent State. Do you think the troops deployed to Los Angeles will come to regret it? Very often, and social science research has corroborated this, when authorities respond to protests and interact with protesters in a respectful fashion, that tends to have a calming effect on the protesters' behavior. But that's something learned through hard experience, and these Marines and guard members don't have that experience. The National Guard was deployed in Detroit in 1967; Washington, D.C. in 1968; Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992; and Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd. Have the Marines ever been deployed? Or any other military branch? Yes. In 1992, in the wake of the Rodney King controversy, the California governor at the time, a Republican named Pete Wilson, asked President George H.W. Bush to deploy not only the guard but also the Marines to deal with street riots in Los Angeles. That's the last time it was done. And how did that go? I'm not an expert on this, but I assure you that the senior officers who commanded those Marines made it very clear that they were not to discharge their weapons without explicit permission from the officers themselves, and they were probably told not to load their weapons with live ammunition. In 1967, during the Detroit riots, the Michigan National Guard was called out to the streets of Detroit. When the ranking senior officer arrived, he ordered the soldiers to remove their bullets from their rifles. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Avoid escalation': World reacts to Israel strike on Iran
World leaders urged restraint on Friday after Israel pounded Iran, striking 100 targets including nuclear and military sites, and killing senior figures, including nuclear scientists and the armed forces chief of staff. Here is a roundup of key reactions: - 'Cannot have nuclear bomb': United States - US President Donald Trump, told Fox News he was aware Israel was going to conduct strikes on Iran before it happened and said: "Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb and we are hoping to get back to the negotiating table. We will see." Fox News also reported that "Trump noted the US is ready to defend itself and Israel if Iran retaliates." - 'Maximum restraint': UN - UN chief Antonio Guterres asked "both sides to show maximum restraint, avoiding at all costs a descent into deeper conflict, a situation that the region can hardly afford," according to a spokesperson. Guterres was "particularly concerned" by Israel's strikes on nuclear installations amid the ongoing US-Iran negotiations. - 'Deeply worried' : China - "The Chinese side... is deeply worried about the severe consequences that such actions might bring," foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian said, calling "on relevant parties to take actions that promote regional peace and stability and to avoid further escalation of tensions". - 'Reasonable reaction': Czech Republic - Czech Republic Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky said Iran "is supporting so many players, including the Hezbollah and Hamas movements, with the intention to destroy the state of Israel, and also seeking a nuclear bomb", that "I see that this was a reasonable reaction from the state of Israel towards a possible threat of a nuclear bomb". - 'Avoid any escalation' : France - "We call on all sides to exercise restraint and avoid any escalation that could undermine regional stability," France's foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot said on X. - 'Dangerous escalation': Hamas - "This aggression constitutes a dangerous escalation that threatens to destabilise the region," said the Iran-backed, Palestinian militant group, whose October 2023 attack on Israel sparked the Gaza war. - No 'battleground': Jordan - "Jordan has not and will not allow any violation of its airspace, reaffirming that the Kingdom will not be a battleground for any conflict," a government spokesperson told AFP after Jordan closed its airspace. - 'Dangerous approach' : Oman - Nuclear talks mediator Oman said "calls on the international community to adopt a clear and firm position to put an end to this dangerous approach, which threatens to rule out diplomatic solutions and jeopardise the security and stability of the region". - 'Strong condemnation': Qatar - Gaza mediator Qatar expressed "its strong condemnation and denunciation of the Israeli attack," the Gulf state's foreign ministry said, adding that the "dangerous escalation threatens security and stability of the region and hinders efforts to de-escalate and reach diplomatic solutions". - 'Aggressive actions': Turkey - "Israel must put an immediate end to its aggressive actions that could lead to further conflicts," Turkey's foreign ministry said in a statement. - 'Reduce tensions urgently': UK - British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a statement: "The reports of these strikes are concerning and we urge all parties to step back and reduce tensions urgently. Escalation serves no one in the region." - 'Legitimate right to defend itself': Yemen's Huthi rebels - Tehran-backed Huthi rebels said on Telegram they backed "Iran's full and legitimate right to... develop its nuclear programme" and that "we strongly condemn the brutal Israeli aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran and affirm its full and legitimate right to respond by all possible means". burs-djt/yad

Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Senate GOP's hard-liners are suddenly sounding softer on the megabill
The Senate's conservative hard-liners vowed to wage holy war against the 'big, beautiful bill.' Now they appear to be coming to Jesus. The recent rhetorical downshift from some of the loudest GOP critics of the pending megabill underscores the political reality for conservatives: As much as they want to rail publicly about the legislation and the need to address any number of pressing national emergencies in it, very few are willing to buck President Donald Trump on his biggest priority. None of them are ready to cave just yet. But the White House and their GOP colleagues increasingly believe that three senators in particular — Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Lee of Utah and Rick Scott of Florida — are now on track to support the bill. Johnson, in particular, has softened his once-fierce criticism of the legislation in recent days. 'We all want to see President Trump succeed,' he said in a brief interview this week. 'Everybody is trying to help. That's why, if I seem to have been striking a more hopeful tone, it's because I am more hopeful.' Just a couple of weeks ago, Johnson was demanding near-unworkable levels of spending cuts and warning that the bill would drive the nation off a fiscal cliff. Then the Trump administration and members of Republican leadership went to work. Johnson made a pitch to Trump during a recent one-on-one phone call to let him work with administration officials on his deficit reduction plan. That led to a meeting with Vice President JD Vance and Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council. A person with knowledge of the meeting, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said afterward that the White House is 'optimistic that there's a path to getting Johnson to yes.' Trump also privately urged Johnson during a meeting with other Finance Committee Republicans last week to speak more positively about the bill. The callout came after Trump officials — and Trump himself — grew annoyed watching Johnson savage the bill on television. His message: You should be out there selling this bill proudly, he told Johnson, according to two White House officials granted anonymity to describe the meeting — arguing that even if he doesn't love every detail, there was plenty in the bill for Republicans to be proud of. 'When the president says, 'Ron, you've been so negative, that's just not even helpful,' I want to be helpful,' Johnson said, acknowledging Trump's message in the meeting and admitting he has 'downplayed what is good in the bill.' One of the White House officials summarized the approach to Johnson: 'Don't be negative to create leverage for yourself,' the person said. 'If you want to negotiate, like, we can negotiate in private. We're all reasonable people.' The hands-on efforts to win over Johnson are part of a larger effort to try to help the fiscal hawks find a soft landing — and at least the semblance of some concessions that will be able to hold up as wins in the end. That's played out in face-to-face meetings with administration officials, negotiations over pet provisions and discussions about how to continue the fight to cut budget deficits down the road. Being able to win over their deficit hawks would be a huge boon to Majority Leader John Thune, who has acknowledged that he's got one hard 'no' vote in Sen. Rand Paul, who firmly opposes the bill's debt-ceiling hike. Thune can only afford to lose three GOP senators, with Vance breaking a tie. That has given the fiscal hawks leverage, since the GOP leaders can't afford to lose all of them, and that's on top of the other potential headaches they have to navigate elsewhere in the conference. To hear the fiscal hawks tell it, they are sounding a more positive note about their ability to support the bill because the administration is starting to take their demands seriously. To help appease their holdouts, GOP leaders have tried to scrounge up additional savings beyond what is included in the House bill. 'I believe we'll get a deal done. I'm doing everything I can to represent my state,' Scott said in a brief interview. GOP leaders are working to assuage Lee by tucking one of his top priorities into the bill. The deregulatory proposal, known as the REINS Act, was initially expected to run afoul of Senate rules for the party-line reconciliation process, but leaders have been working to try to find a version that could pass muster. House conservatives, meanwhile, have grown increasingly worried that the Senate, with the blessing of their fiscal-hawk allies, will send back a bill that waters down some of their hard-fought victories. The House Freedom Caucus has laid out public demands, while its members have met privately with Lee, Scott and Johnson to strategize about additional spending reductions and maintaining their policy wins. The Senate hard-liners aren't ready to concede just yet. Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has promised Johnson he will advance a second reconciliation bill, giving conservatives another chance to enact cuts. But Johnson said that wouldn't be enough to get him on board. Instead he wants a 'forcing mechanism' to maintain a longer-term push to return to 2019 spending levels. He's letting the White House brainstorm other ideas and described himself as 'reasonably flexible.' Lee said in a statement he's 'been working with my colleagues and the White House to make the Big Bill Beautiful.' But added: 'It's not where it needs to be yet.' 'We need to sell federal land to help fix the housing crisis, terminate benefits that flow to illegals, end the Green New Scam, and get rid of the Medicaid provider tax. I want to see this effort cross the finish line, but we need to do more,' he added. Even as they continue to push, their colleagues see the signs of late softening — and aren't surprised whatsoever. 'They'll fold,' said a GOP colleague who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said that Republicans have 'made progress' with Johnson and 'I wouldn't count him out.' And two others, Sens. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and John Kennedy (R-La.), said they expect Lee, Scott and Johnson to come around when the bill comes up for a final vote, even if they don't ultimately love every provision. 'They're very gettable,' Kennedy said. 'At some point people are just going to have to decide, is this good enough?' Rachael Bade and Meredith Lee Hill contributed reporting.