Fishing supports over two million jobs in the United States. In 2022, U.S. commercial and recreational fishing combined to generate $321 billion in sales with an additional $150 billion in added value impacts, based on figures from witness testimony.
The prevailing sentiment among witnesses was frustration.
“Imagine waking up every day knowing that the very thing that defines you is constantly at risk,” said Dustin Delano, COO of the New England Fishermen Stewardship Association in Maine. “It’s not because you’ve done anything wrong; it’s because layer after layer of regulation has been stacked so high and so fast you can no longer see a clear path forward.”
Delano also raised concerns about unequal treatment in disputed maritime zones like Machias Seal Island, where Canadian fishing vessels operate under looser rules and much lower costs than U.S. fishermen. As a result, Canadian fish caught in that zone are imported into U.S. markets above what U.S. fishing fleets can catch and sell, he said.
Alaska’s seafood economy faces unrelenting Russian and Chinese imports.
Larson Hunter of the Coastal Villages Region Fund warned that U.S. fishermen are being squeezed by state-subsidized fleets on the other side of the Pacific. Hunter cited estimates that claim China has over 17,000 fishing vessels in its distant water fleet, including those working the same waters as Americans.
“The Russians are massively subsidizing new fishing fleets,” Hunter told the Committee. For example, Russia’s pollock catch has jumped from 1.75 million tons to 2.46 million tons since 2021, while the U.S. pollock volume remains steady and sustainable. Pollock is a common white fish. “It also costs three times more to build large fishing vessels in the U.S. than it does overseas,” Hunter said. “Hopefully, Congress and the President can address some of these issues through legislation and trade policies.”
Rep. Mike Ezell (R-MS-4) spoke to the intense pressure from seafood imports. His local shrimpers are bombarded by them. “Imported shrimp accounts for 90% of the shrimp that are consumed in the United States,” he said. “A lot of that comes from bad actors. Our seafood industry cannot compete with the low pricing and transportation costs of some of these foreign competitors.”
The hearing made one thing clear: American fishermen are caught in a regulatory bind while facing fierce competition from heavily subsidized foreign fleets. Though there is broad agreement on the severity of IUU fishing and the need to strengthen U.S. seafood production, their only presentable solution for the time being is regulatory rollback. It seems the witnesses supported that, as none offered tariffs or import quotas as a possibility.
Despite the new tariffs, seafood prices remain below the general inflation rate—undercutting claims that protectionism drives up consumer costs.
For now, Trump’s April EO on seafood serves as the only signal from the White House that it intends to ease the pain. Meanwhile, Democrats warn that budget cuts and layoffs in those government agencies that work in this market are akin to an “own goal.”
Overregulation and Foreign Competition Dominate House Hearing on U.S. Seafood; Tariffs Mentioned But Not Embraced as Solution
At a June 4 hearing before the House Natural Resources Committee’s Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee, lawmakers and industry representatives expressed growing frustration with what they described as an overregulated domestic seafood industry that is steadily losing ground to foreign competition.
Democrats mostly led on the discussion over budget cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with Rep. Dave Min (D-CA-47) taking what has become the standard Party response on trade matters. He came out against tariffs as a solution to the problems.
“Tariffs not only increase the price of imported fish, but also the price of fish exported for processing and then brought back into the U.S. market,” he said. “These policies will be counterproductive.”
There is no Section 232 investigation into seafood at this time.
As of April 2, seafood imports are now subject to the 10% universal tariff imposed by the Trump administration.
The U.S. imported $1.67 billion worth of fish and shellfish so far this year – down only slightly from the $1.73 billion imported in the first four months of 2024 – when much of these items were imported under Most Favored Nation tariff rates at around 3.4%.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices for fresh fish and seafood are 1.07% higher in 2025 versus 2024, so Rep. Min’s warning about ‘higher prices’ ignores the fact that seafood inflation is actually running below core inflation.
The U.S. fish and seafood trade has been in a growing deficit despite the huge potential of U.S. local production, CPA’s economics team noted in a study about our food deficit published in January. The seafood deficit surpassed $20 billion in 2024, and it has been rising steadily since 2000, when the seafood deficit was around $7 billion.
“I think it is interesting we’re talking about the issue of tariffs,” said Rep. Nick Begich (R-AK), shortly after Rep. Min lit into the idea as a no-go zone for him. “The Trump administration has signaled that they are more than willing to engage in some very, maybe uncomfortable and challenging discussions, but hopefully part of that discussion with other nations will be illegal, unreported, unregulated fishing (IUU), as well as a number of the subsidies that are provided by countries that damage our ability to be competitive.”
Begich’s comments, however, were focused more on export competitiveness than on defending the domestic market from imports. His competition concerns were all export oriented. Worse yet, strict environmental rules—meant to protect marine mammals, seafloor habitats, and fish stocks—place U.S. fleets at a disadvantage. Importers rarely face similar environmental rules, especially true for Asian fishing operations.
Trump’s Seafood Executive Order Might Not Be Enough
Chairwoman Harriet Hageman (R-WY) opened the hearing by emphasizing the economic and strategic importance of restoring competitiveness in the U.S. seafood sector, a sector overwhelmed by imports. She pointed to President Trump’s April Executive Order (EO), Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness, as a step toward cutting through the regulatory thicket.
“Our domestic seafood sector, including its role in our food supply chain, is a major part of our trade strategy,” she said. “It makes massive contributions to our economy. President Trump is committed to addressing these issues” mainly through regulatory rollback.
Democrat members countered by echoing that the EO was not enough.
Rep. Val Hoyle (D-OR-4) said she appreciated “that the Trump administration wants to support the competitiveness of our domestic seafood industry. Certainly, it is an important part of the economy of my district. I hope to work with the administration to achieve that goal,” she said, advising against NOAA cuts.
Full Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-CA-2) played the role of opposition figure, labeling Trump’s EO an “imperial edict.” But despite a partisan jab, it is clear that both parties support protecting their fishing industries. Huffman was again wary of budget cuts to programs like the Seafood Import Monitoring Program. Here, he called out the IUU fish and shellfish that “flood our markets.”
Both parties lost the opportunity to discuss protective measures and instead focused on regulatory burdens and budgets.
Industry Voices: Regulation & Trade Imbalances
Fishing supports over two million jobs in the United States. In 2022, U.S. commercial and recreational fishing combined to generate $321 billion in sales with an additional $150 billion in added value impacts, based on figures from witness testimony.
The prevailing sentiment among witnesses was frustration.
“Imagine waking up every day knowing that the very thing that defines you is constantly at risk,” said Dustin Delano, COO of the New England Fishermen Stewardship Association in Maine. “It’s not because you’ve done anything wrong; it’s because layer after layer of regulation has been stacked so high and so fast you can no longer see a clear path forward.”
Delano also raised concerns about unequal treatment in disputed maritime zones like Machias Seal Island, where Canadian fishing vessels operate under looser rules and much lower costs than U.S. fishermen. As a result, Canadian fish caught in that zone are imported into U.S. markets above what U.S. fishing fleets can catch and sell, he said.
Alaska’s seafood economy faces unrelenting Russian and Chinese imports.
Larson Hunter of the Coastal Villages Region Fund warned that U.S. fishermen are being squeezed by state-subsidized fleets on the other side of the Pacific. Hunter cited estimates that claim China has over 17,000 fishing vessels in its distant water fleet, including those working the same waters as Americans.
“The Russians are massively subsidizing new fishing fleets,” Hunter told the Committee. For example, Russia’s pollock catch has jumped from 1.75 million tons to 2.46 million tons since 2021, while the U.S. pollock volume remains steady and sustainable. Pollock is a common white fish. “It also costs three times more to build large fishing vessels in the U.S. than it does overseas,” Hunter said. “Hopefully, Congress and the President can address some of these issues through legislation and trade policies.”
Rep. Mike Ezell (R-MS-4) spoke to the intense pressure from seafood imports. His local shrimpers are bombarded by them. “Imported shrimp accounts for 90% of the shrimp that are consumed in the United States,” he said. “A lot of that comes from bad actors. Our seafood industry cannot compete with the low pricing and transportation costs of some of these foreign competitors.”
The hearing made one thing clear: American fishermen are caught in a regulatory bind while facing fierce competition from heavily subsidized foreign fleets. Though there is broad agreement on the severity of IUU fishing and the need to strengthen U.S. seafood production, their only presentable solution for the time being is regulatory rollback. It seems the witnesses supported that, as none offered tariffs or import quotas as a possibility.
Despite the new tariffs, seafood prices remain below the general inflation rate—undercutting claims that protectionism drives up consumer costs.
For now, Trump’s April EO on seafood serves as the only signal from the White House that it intends to ease the pain. Meanwhile, Democrats warn that budget cuts and layoffs in those government agencies that work in this market are akin to an “own goal.”
MADE IN AMERICA.
CPA is the leading national, bipartisan organization exclusively representing domestic producers and workers across many industries and sectors of the U.S. economy.
TRENDING
Why Do Western Governments Keep Folding to China? Nexperia Serves Up Another Example.
Trump’s Question to Meat Packers — Where’s the Beef? — Opens Market Manipulation Investigation
CPA Calls for Replacing USMCA with Two Bilateral Agreements to Restore U.S. Trade Sovereignty
CPA Releases New Economics Report: “Section 232 Steel Tariffs Are Necessary For National Security”
Beef Prices: Blame the Packers, Not America’s Ranchers
The latest CPA news and updates, delivered every Friday.
WATCH: WORTH FIGHTING FOR
Get the latest in CPA news, industry analysis, opinion, and updates from Team CPA.
CHECK OUT THE NEWSROOM ➔