A recent House hearing on President Donald Trump’s executive order to “Restore American Seafood Competitiveness” has raised significant concerns from lawmakers and stakeholders about whether the administration’s actions align with its stated goals.
Led by Republicans, the June 4 hearing spotlighted the administration’s efforts to reduce regulatory burdens on the U.S. fishing industry. Subcommittee Chair Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) framed the initiative as a response to long-standing frustrations over federal fisheries regulations and enforcement under the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
“The president is committed to reducing regulatory hurdles and ensuring the American fishing industry can thrive,” said Hageman. “This hearing is a signal that Congress is on board.”
However, Democrats on the House Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee expressed deep skepticism. They pointed to the administration’s recent actions—most notably, mass staff cuts at NOAA—as undercutting the very capacity needed to implement any meaningful regulatory reform.
“The administration says it wants to make our seafood sector more competitive, but it’s been slashing funding, firing scientists, and dismantling key programs,” said Rep. Val Hoyle (D-OR). “Fishing communities in my state are in chaos.”
The cuts stem from a February campaign by the administration’s newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which resulted in the termination of roughly 800 NOAA employees nationwide. NOAA Fisheries’ Alaska Regional Office, for example, reported a 24% staffing loss in less than six months.
In addition to personnel cuts, NOAA has been instructed to scale back its climate research, avoid references to climate change, and reduce participation in international fisheries negotiations. Further compounding the challenge are ongoing trade tensions, which have disrupted seafood exports and imports.
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) called the executive order “deeply disingenuous,” stating, “You don’t restore seafood competitiveness by gutting science and slashing the workforce that makes sustainable fisheries possible.”
The administration’s FY 2026 budget proposal outlines a 28% cut to NOAA Fisheries funding and plans to shift enforcement responsibilities for the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—an agency with limited experience in commercial fisheries oversight.
While the National Fisheries Institute and some industry groups welcomed the administration’s call to streamline regulation, others worry that depleted agency resources will hinder implementation and lead to long-term instability.
As the seafood sector grapples with these sweeping changes, the central question remains: can U.S. seafood truly become more competitive while its regulatory foundation is being systematically dismantled?