New Executive Order Prioritises Recreational Anglers
On Friday, 25 September 2026, the administration unveiled an executive order titled Restoring American Saltwater Angling and Recreation. The directive instructs federal agencies to place recreational fishing at the forefront of US marine policy and to revisit the scientific standards that have long governed American fisheries. The National Marine Fisheries Service welcomed the move, stating: “By addressing long-standing flaws in federal data collection, streamlining permitting, and expanding marine habitats, this action delivers long‑overdue stability to America’s $1.2 tn outdoor recreation economy.” Conservationists, however, view the order as a significant step away from evidence‑based management, warning that hard‑won gains could be eroded.
Calls to Prioritise Anglers Over Science
The order tasks the Department of Commerce with reviewing fisheries guidelines established under the Magnuson‑Stevens Act, the 1976 law that forms the backbone of federal fisheries management. The review is to “ensure they appropriately account for the … recreational fishery.” While Gib Brogan, senior campaign director at Oceana, notes that such reviews are not unprecedented, he raises alarms about the administration’s track record. “The concern comes in the way that this administration has been implementing the bedrock environmental and conservation laws,” he said, adding, “We’re very concerned about how this administration will attempt to reinterpret things like overfishing and rebuilding, or what constitutes ‘best available science’.”
Lance Morgan, president of the Marine Conservation Institute, echoed those concerns. “That progress is now being dismantled, bit by bit,” he said. “The current administration has moved to gut most ocean protections, threatening to take the US from a global leader in marine conservation to nearly a bystander.” Morgan’s warning is backed by a stark projection: if every proposed rollback survives legal challenge, US waters could end up with just 4 % under any form of protection, down from 26 %—a figure deemed far too small to sustain marine biodiversity.
Debate Over Converting Oil Rigs into Artificial Reefs
Another contentious element of the order tasks the Interior Department with creating a programme to convert decommissioned offshore oil and gas structures into permanent artificial reefs. Proponents argue that these rigs can provide new habitat, but critics see the provision as a gift to the oil industry. Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity, called it “a handout to the oil industry”, describing it as “another blatant demonstration of Trump’s desire to let the oil industry avoid any responsibility for the mess it continues to leave in our oceans”. She warned that offshore platforms were never designed as healthy reefs, noting they can become hubs for invasive species and may leach harmful chemicals.
Arlo Hemphill, Greenpeace USA’s ocean sanctuaries project lead, offered a more nuanced view. While some rigs could indeed serve as useful habitat, he cautioned against a blanket approach. “You don’t just put [artificial reefs] anywhere just because there happened to be an oil rig there,” he said, highlighting obstacles such as rigs in busy navigation lanes, strong currents, or areas already rich in natural habitat. He also stressed that attracting fish to a structure does not automatically create new fish populations. “They do have the potential to build the population by creating new habitats. But the first fish you’re going to see are not fish that were created by that habitat being there. It’s fish that were in all the surrounding area and then were drawn in by … a new habitat … It’s just making them easier to catch,” he explained.
Shark and Marine Mammal Concerns
The order also establishes an “Interagency Shark and Pinniped Depredation Task Force” to tackle instances where sharks and marine mammals steal fish from anglers’ lines. The task force is directed to examine barriers to shark fisheries, including international agreements and CITES listings. Andrea Treece, deputy managing attorney for oceans at Earthjustice, suggested the provision may be aimed at easing restrictions on the shark trade, which has been largely prohibited under US federal law. “It seems to be aimed at killing more sharks and that is really short‑sighted,” she said, pointing to sharks’ critical role in regulating food webs and supporting coral‑reef health. Treece noted that most shark populations in the US are a fraction of historic levels and questioned whether increased depredation is due to over‑fishing rather than simply more predators.
Grace Casselberry, a postdoctoral researcher focusing on shark depredation at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, urged caution. “While some shark populations have seen various levels of recovery, we also have more people fishing recreationally than ever before, which creates a perfect storm for these encounters,” she said. “It has taken decades to get to the point where sharks are beginning to recover, and that progress could be quickly undone.” Casselberry stressed that any adjustments to harvest limits must be grounded in the best available science and must continue to promote population growth and sustainability.
Deregulatory Push Threatens Whale Protections
Beyond fisheries, the order directs agencies to “suspend, revise or rescind regulations that overly burden boaters, anglers and outdoor businesses.” Critics warn that this deregulatory thrust could jeopardise vital protections such as the vessel‑speed rule designed to reduce deadly collisions with endangered North Atlantic right whales. The measure requires ships to slow to 10 knots or less in certain zones and at specific times, cutting the risk of fatal strikes. Monsell highlighted the rule’s importance: “The speed rule is an effective, life‑saving measure that reduces the risk of deadly strikes. Right whales are facing threats from all directions, and the speed rule is one of their few protections.”
Broader Rollback of Environmental Safeguards
The executive order sits within a wider pattern of environmental roll‑backs by the administration. Since returning to office last year, the government has expanded deep‑sea mining, weakened safeguards for marine national monuments, and dismantled key protections for endangered species across the United States. Morgan’s stark warning—that the cumulative effect could leave only a fraction of US waters protected—underscores the potential long‑term ramifications for marine ecosystems.
Why it Matters
The latest executive order signals a decisive shift in US marine policy, placing recreational fishing interests ahead of scientific consensus and established conservation safeguards. By re‑examining core fisheries laws, promoting the conversion of oil rigs into reefs, and creating a task force to address shark depredation, the administration is reshaping the legal landscape in ways that could accelerate the decline of vulnerable species and habitats. The potential erosion of protections for right whales, the risk of weakened shark trade restrictions, and the broader rollback of environmental regulations all threaten the resilience of ocean ecosystems that underpin both biodiversity and the $1.2 tn outdoor recreation economy. The outcome of these policy changes will determine whether the United States remains a steward of its marine resources or becomes a bystander in the global effort to preserve ocean health.
