Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Unleashes American Commercial Fishing in the Pacific

TLDR

This is a “fact” sheet for an executive order that opens the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument to commercial fishing by U.S. vessels within 50-200 nautical miles. It claims to support American Samoa’s economy (where the tuna cannery is the largest employer), combat foreign competition (especially from China), and advance economic interests through deregulation. The document presents economic benefits while dismissing conservation impacts, offering no scientific evidence that the fishing ban “did little” for conservation, and likely inflating economic claims about American Samoa.

This “fact” sheet is for a proclamation to open the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (PRIMNM) to commercial fishing, allowing U.S.-flagged vessels to fish within 50-200 nautical miles of the monument’s boundaries. The policy claims to support American Samoa’s economy, where the tuna cannery is described as the largest employer. The document frames the action as removing unnecessary restrictions, combating foreign competition (especially from China), and advancing economic interests through deregulation.

It claims:

1. The fishing ban “did little to guard fish populations” because tuna and other species are migratory
2. American fishermen lost access to nearly half of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the Pacific
3. This drove U.S. fishermen to compete against less regulated foreign fleets in international waters
4. American Samoa’s economy is highly dependent on the tuna industry, with the cannery providing 5,000 jobs and accounting for 99.5% of exports

The fact sheet presents a one-sided view that focuses exclusively on economic benefits while dismissing conservation impacts. While correctly noting that tuna are migratory, it overlooks that protected areas can still benefit migratory species through spillover effects and protection of critical habitat. The document provides no scientific evidence for its claim that the fishing ban “did little” for conservation.

The economic claims about American Samoa appear inflated. While fishing is important to the territory’s economy, the 5,000 jobs figure and 99.5% export statistic require verification. The fact sheet fails to mention that previous administrations established buffer zones specifically designed to balance conservation with fishing interests.

The document frames the policy entirely as removing “unnecessary restrictions” without acknowledging potential long-term ecological consequences or sustainable fishing alternatives. The final section pivots to broader deregulation initiatives without establishing clear connections to fisheries policy.

A comprehensive evaluation of the monument’s future requires addressing several currently missing contextual elements. First, there is a need for a scientific assessment of the monument’s conservation value, particularly with respect to its unique ecosystems and biodiversity. This should be complemented by input from marine scientists and conservation organizations, who can provide ecological insights and help shape effective management strategies. Additionally, sustainable fishing alternatives or compromise solutions must be considered to balance ecological integrity with the livelihoods of fishing communities. A long-term economic analysis is also critical, one that includes not just short-term economic benefits but also the potential costs of overfishing, such as resource depletion and ecosystem collapse. Finally, climate change impacts on Pacific fisheries must be factored into decision-making, as warming seas and ocean acidification are already altering species distributions and could significantly affect both conservation and fishing viability in the region.