Congress Moves to Lock In Commercial Fishing Access to Marine Monuments — and It's Bigger Than It Looks
A bill quietly advancing through the U.S. House of Representatives could permanently redraw the boundary between presidential power and commercial fishing rights in some of the most ecologically significant waters on the planet. The legislation, working its way through Congress, would forbid presidents from using executive power to outlaw commercial fishing inside marine national monuments, instead requiring that such fishing be governed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). On its surface, it reads like a narrow regulatory housekeeping measure. In reality, it strikes at a decades-long tug-of-war between conservation, commerce, and the unchecked reach of the Antiquities Act — and has massive implications for American fishermen, coastal economies, and the future of U.S. ocean policy.
The Bill and What It Would Actually Do
A bill being considered in U.S. Congress would prohibit presidents from prohibiting commercial fishing in marine national monuments, codifying that fishing activities in those areas must be regulated under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). That distinction matters enormously. The MSA, signed into law in 1976, is the primary framework through which federal fisheries are managed — it relies on regional fishery management councils, scientific input, and a public process to set catch limits and gear restrictions. Routing monument fishing decisions through the MSA rather than the Antiquities Act would essentially strip future presidents of the unilateral power to close off vast ocean territories with a stroke of the pen.
At a June 3 hearing before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries, U.S. Representative Harriet Hageman (R-Wyoming) voiced support for the measure. Hageman stated that some of the most serious misuses of the Antiquities Act have occurred in the U.S. exclusive economic zone, and that marine national monuments in the Western Pacific and off New England have severely limited commercial fishing access, harming American seafood competitiveness and coastal communities.
Like commercial fishing groups opposed to the bans, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere Tim Petty — who also spoke in favor of the bill at the hearing — argued that the existing regulatory process safeguards fish populations and habitats within those areas. "The MSA, along with the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and other applicable authorities, provides enforceable, adaptive, and science-based mechanisms sufficient to ensure the proper care and management of monument objects," Petty said.
A History of Executive Ping-Pong: How We Got Here
To understand why this legislation has arrived now, it helps to trace the tortured history of marine monument fishing policy — a story that reads less like coherent governance and more like a decadal grudge match between successive administrations.
The Obama Era: Drawing Lines in the Water
On January 6, 2009, President George W. Bush used his authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906 to establish what would become the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument. On September 25, 2014, President Obama expanded the monument to its present size under the same authority. The monument, known as the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument until January 2, 2025, is an area in the Central Pacific Ocean that encompasses over 495,000 square miles — nearly twice the size of Texas.
Former President Barack Obama also barred commercial fishing in the roughly 5,000-square-mile Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument upon its creation in 2016. That Atlantic monument, the only one of the five marine monuments located in the Atlantic Ocean, was created to conserve four underwater extinct volcanoes called seamounts and three canyons, some reaching depths of more than a mile. Located about 130 miles southeast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, the monument is also home to unique deep-sea corals, endangered whales, and scores of other marine species.
Trump, Biden, and the Reversal Cycle
Successive presidents' administrations have used the Antiquities Act to unilaterally establish national marine monuments or to change the protections granted within them, and commercial fishing groups have long bemoaned the use of that power to ban fishing within their boundaries. The merry-go-round of policy reversals has been dizzying. President Biden signed a proclamation restoring full protections to the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument in October 2021, prohibiting commercial fishing within its boundaries.
Then came Trump's return. President Trump began to roll back marine monument protections in April 2025 with an executive order calling for review of existing marine monuments and a proclamation opening the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine Monument to commercial fishing. On February 6, 2026, President Trump signed a proclamation opening the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument to commercial fishing. Trump did not mince words about his predecessor's decisions. "In my First Term, I reversed the prohibitions placed on Commercial Fishing, but Joe Biden, or whoever was using the AUTOPEN, foolishly reinstated them," Trump wrote on his Truth Social account after revoking the commercial fishing ban.
The Trump Administration issued a final rule in April 2026 rescinding regulations issued under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act that restrict commercial fishing within the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. The legislative push is essentially an attempt to end this cyclical battle once and for all by taking the question out of any one president's hands entirely.
The Pacific Fleet in Crisis: Real Numbers, Real Stakes
For the men who actually work these waters — skippers running tuna boats out of Hawaii and American Samoa, crew members whose livelihoods track directly with access to fishing grounds — the debate is not abstract policy. It is an existential economic question.
One of the witnesses at the hearing, American Tunaboat Association Executive Director William Gibbons-Fly, blamed marine national monuments for the shrinking size of the American tuna fleet in the Western Pacific, noting that roughly 53 percent of the U.S. exclusive economic zone around the Pacific Islands Region is covered by marine national monuments. "Our industry is struggling to survive, and with it, so is the tuna-dependent economy of American Samoa. The loss of fishing grounds and the strict regulatory environment has seen the U.S. Pacific purse seine fleet reduced from 34 vessels just a few years ago to just 15 vessels operating today," Gibbons-Fly testified.
That collapse — from 34 boats to 15 — is not a gradual natural decline. It is a structural gutting of an industry, and it has cascading effects that extend far beyond the docks. American Samoa's economy is deeply intertwined with tuna processing and the fishing industry; the loss of those vessels represents jobs, tax revenue, and the cultural identity of communities that have fished the Pacific for generations.
The four Pacific monuments — Pacific Islands Heritage, Rose Atoll, Marianas Trench, and Papahānaumokuākea — cover 3.1 million square kilometers (1.2 million square miles) of coral atolls, deep-sea trenches, and remote islands. All four monuments have banned commercial fishing since their establishment. The sheer scale of that closure, combined with the contraction of the American tuna fleet, has created the conditions that made legislation like this politically viable.
Hawaii Longliners and the Competitive Disadvantage
Beyond the purse seine fleet, Hawaii's longline fishery tells a parallel story of regulatory burden versus market reality. As tuna longliner and Hawaii Longline Association board member Peter Webster notes, the Hawaiian longliners have gone to great lengths to become a model fishery. "We have to jump through all these hoops to prove we're fishing sustainably and ethically," Webster says. The HLA boats are certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council.
"But our guys don't see a return on that. And if they don't have the label, they can't sell, but buyers will buy from the Chinese longliners." That quote cuts to the heart of what frustrates American commercial fishermen most: they operate under world-class environmental standards, face the full cost of compliance, and still lose market share to foreign fleets that operate under far looser oversight. Closing off more domestic fishing grounds only widens that disadvantage.
When U.S. longliners fished the newly opened waters around Johnston Atoll, they reported that their catches per hook were not significantly different from the waters outside the previously closed areas. "What we like about opening these up is the opportunity to fish there when the fish are there," says one industry representative. "Most of our effort — 80-90 percent — is on the high seas, and we're competing with the foreign fleets. But when the fish are inside 200 miles around the islands, we can go in and fish without that competition."
The Conservation Counter-Argument
No serious account of this fight is complete without grappling with the scientific and environmental objections, which are substantial and have generated significant legal firepower.
A coalition of more than 230 scientists and 53 ocean conservation organizations sent a letter in October 2025 to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum warning them that opening up marine national monuments to "industrial-scale fishing" not only endangers "sensitive ocean ecosystems," but also "the local economies that rely on them" if permanent damage is caused.
Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the group believes there will be permanent damage to coral reefs and marine life, and strongly disagrees with Trump's statements that current laws are strong enough to protect "vulnerable animals like the endangered sperm whale" that rely on the protected marine sanctuary for survival.
"Scientific studies have shown that protecting the resources within protected areas like the monument increases the amount of fish available to commercial fishers in waters outside the protected areas," explained marine biologist Bob Richmond. That is the spillover effect argument — the idea that no-take zones function as nurseries and population reservoirs that replenish adjacent waters. Critics of monument closures have pushed back on this logic, arguing the science is less settled than its proponents claim.
Democratic senators have argued that multiple studies indicate well-managed marine protected areas with fishing bans have minimal or no negative economic effects on commercial fishermen. They also noted that when the Trump administration opened the monument to fishing in 2020, 99 percent of fishing activity still occurred outside its boundaries. That last data point is significant — it raises the question of whether the symbolic and ecological stakes of reopening these areas genuinely outweigh what industry would actually gain in practical terms.
Legal Battles Already in Motion
The courts have already become a major front in this war, and any legislation that passes Congress would almost certainly face immediate challenge. Earthjustice filed a lawsuit on behalf of organizations challenging Trump's proclamation opening the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument to commercial fishing, arguing that it lacks legal authority to do so under the Antiquities Act.
The Antiquities Act has so far only been used to confer protection, not remove it, according to Earthjustice attorney David Henkin — and deciding the constitutionality of that use will take time to work through the courts. The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii agreed with environmental groups in August 2025, granting injunctive relief to the plaintiffs and vacating the April 2025 NMFS letter that had declared the monument open to fishing.
"The court forcefully rejected the Trump administration's outrageous claim that it can dismantle vital protections for the monument's unique and vulnerable species and ecosystems without involving the public," Earthjustice Attorney David Henkin said. "The court reaffirmed that, even if President Trump's directive to allow some commercial fishing in the monument were legal (which we dispute), the Fisheries Service still has the discretion to ban highly destructive practices like longline and purse seine fishing."
That ruling is precisely why the legislation matters so much to fishing industry advocates. Executive orders and presidential proclamations can be undone by courts, reversed by the next administration, or undermined by regulatory agencies exercising their own discretion. A statute passed by Congress is much harder to unravel.
What the Magnuson-Stevens Framework Would Actually Change
The core argument from proponents of the bill is that the MSA is not some lesser form of protection — it is the gold standard of American fisheries management, and deferring to it should satisfy both conservation and commerce. "The MSA, along with the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and other applicable authorities, provides enforceable, adaptive, and science-based mechanisms sufficient to ensure the proper care and management of monument objects," Assistant Secretary Petty told the subcommittee.
Under the MSA framework, the eight regional fishery management councils — bodies that include representatives from industry, academia, states, and federal agencies — develop fishery management plans subject to NOAA oversight. The process requires scientific review, public comment, and analysis of environmental impacts. Proponents of the bill argue this is more rigorous, transparent, and adaptive than blanket monument-wide bans set by presidential decree.
Mary Sabo, a spokesperson for the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, said Trump's February proclamation "aligns with the Council's previous recommendations" from August 2025 and as far back as 2016, adding that the approach ensures fishing in the marine monument is handled through the same "science-based, participatory process" as other areas.
The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council has been among the most active supporters of the push for access. "The council has long supported restoring commercial fishing access to waters around Wake, Johnston, and Jarvis, and welcomed the President's proclamation reopening those areas," stated council chair Will Sword. "Now, under the executive order, the council is preparing its comments on the broader review of opening the three remaining U.S. marine monuments in the Pacific to commercial fishing. We are engaging with islanders across the region to ensure our input reflects both the best available science and the needs of our fishing communities."
The Antiquities Act Problem: Too Much Power for One Person
Underlying the legislative debate is a more fundamental question about presidential authority over public lands and waters — one that has simmered since Theodore Roosevelt first used the Antiquities Act in 1906 to protect the Grand Canyon. The law grants presidents extraordinary, largely unchecked power to designate national monuments by proclamation. For terrestrial monuments, that has long been controversial. For marine monuments carved out of the U.S. exclusive economic zone, the stakes are uniquely commercial.
Successive presidents' administrations have used the Antiquities Act to unilaterally establish national marine monuments or to change the protections granted within them, and commercial fishing groups have long bemoaned the use of that power to ban fishing within their boundaries. What the current bill would do, in effect, is draw a bright legal line: the Antiquities Act can designate and protect a monument, but it cannot override the statutory framework that governs commercial fishing in U.S. waters. That framework is the MSA — and Congress, not the president, wrote it.
Some stakeholders assert that primary fishery management authorities in the MSA may be effective for limiting overfishing and that activities such as potential commercial fishing in monument areas already are regulated by federal laws. Others raise concerns about the vulnerability to commercial fishing practices of species protected by the monuments. Still others contend that ecosystem-based management approaches may allow for effective fisheries management even in data-limited regions.
Democratic Opposition and the Political Map
The bill faces significant resistance from Democrats, particularly those representing coastal New England constituencies where the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts monument sits. Some lawmakers have asked Trump to reinstate commercial fishing bans within the monuments — in March, a group of nine Democratic senators signed a joint letter asking the president to reverse his order directing the resumption of commercial fishing in the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument.
The Democratic lawmakers argued that multiple studies show creating well-managed marine protected areas that prohibit fishing has little to no harmful economic impact on commercial fishermen, and noted that when the Trump administration opened the monument for fishing in 2020, 99 percent of fishing activity still took place outside of the monument. "In an era where fish stocks are shifting and being depleted, fishing communities need our support more than ever, but selling out the monument to earn political points does nothing to actually help fishermen," the lawmakers said.
Connecticut Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal vowed to fight the Atlantic monument opening, saying "This natural treasure should be preserved for future generations, not endangered by industrial fishing," and described the rollback of protections as "hugely misguided." The political fault lines here are not entirely clean — some fishing-dependent coastal Democrats have quietly expressed sympathy with industry complaints, even while voting with leadership on monument protections.
Indigenous and Cultural Stakes
One dimension of this fight that rarely gets adequate attention in the mainland American press is the cultural dimension — specifically, the concerns of Pacific Islander communities who have complex and sometimes conflicting relationships with both commercial fishing access and monument protections.
Environmental groups argue that commercial fishing in the Pacific Islands Heritage monument threatens indigenous cultural heritage and critical species habitat within and around the monument. But the picture on the ground is more complicated. "I am sad that with all these restrictions in our areas, we are slowly losing some of our culture," Wespac council member Pedro Itibus said in a press release. Many locals note that recreational fishing was never banned and that some restricted sites are far from any community.
The monuments were not established in a vacuum — many Pacific Island communities had long used these waters and view access to marine resources as culturally and nutritionally significant. The idea that protecting a monument from commercial fishing automatically serves indigenous interests is a simplification that many in the region reject outright.
What This Means for American Fishermen and Coastal Economies
If the bill passes and survives legal challenge, its most immediate effect would be to stabilize fishing access in a way that neither executive orders nor proclamations can. Commercial fishing operators could plan capital investments — boats, equipment, processing capacity — without fear that the next presidential election would wipe out their access to key fishing grounds.
Marine national monuments and sanctuaries currently protect over 1 million square miles of ocean ecosystems and preserve cultural resources, but they are at risk of being downsized or exposed to commercial fishing and other activities that compromise their protection — depending on which side of the argument you stand on, that is either a warning or a long-overdue correction.
For the men of the Hawaii longline fleet, the American Samoa tuna canneries, the New England lobstermen, and the Pacific purse seine fleet, the legislation represents a chance to settle a question that has dogged their industry for two decades: whether American waters are open for American fishermen to work, or whether they will continue to be locked away while foreign competitors face no such constraints. The Trump administration has argued consistently that the U.S. fishing industry is hampered by overregulation compared with foreign competitors — and the men losing their boats and their contracts believe it.
The bill's path to passage is not guaranteed. It faces a Democratic Senate minority capable of slowing or blocking it, organized environmental opposition with significant legal resources, and the perennial congressional reluctance to constrain presidential power even when it cuts against the current occupant of the White House. But its introduction — and the hearing before the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries — signals that the political coalition behind it is serious, organized, and backed by an administration that has already used every executive tool available to push in the same direction. Congress codifying what Trump has done by proclamation would be a far more durable outcome for the fishing industry, and everyone in this fight knows it.
