HR-9507-119
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, and Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Nicholas Begich (R-AK)
What it does
The FISH Act of 2026 would create and maintain a public list of foreign vessels, fleets, and their owners engaged in illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Owners of listed vessels would face visa revocation and be barred from entering the United States. The bill would also expand Coast Guard boarding authority on the high seas, require multiple federal studies and reports on IUU fishing's economic impact, direct agencies to develop strategies for identifying seafood produced with forced labor, and reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program through 2032.
Who benefits
U.S. commercial fishing industry and fishing communities, who compete directly with foreign vessels engaged in IUU fishing and would gain a more level playing field. Domestic seafood processors and retailers who source legally caught fish. Artisanal and subsistence fishing communities in developing nations whose fish stocks are depleted by IUU operators. Workers in the global fishing industry who are victims of forced labor. Marine ecosystems and the broader public who benefit from sustainable fisheries management. U.S. consumers who may gain greater confidence in the legal and ethical sourcing of imported seafood. Coastal communities in partner nations that depend on healthy fish stocks.
Who is hurt
Foreign vessel owners and operators placed on the IUU vessel list, who would lose U.S. visa access and face reputational and commercial consequences. Beneficial owners of listed vessels — including those who may have only indirect ownership stakes — who face the same sanctions. Seafood importers and supply chain intermediaries who source from regions with high IUU activity and may face increased compliance scrutiny. Foreign fishing nations (particularly those with large distant-water fleets) whose industries could face trade and diplomatic pressure. U.S. federal agencies that would bear new administrative, reporting, and enforcement costs. Taxpayers, through authorized appropriations of at least $10 million per year for the IUU vessel list and $2 million for the National Academies study.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that IUU fishing accounts for an estimated 20% of global catch — worth up to $23 billion annually — undermining both sustainable fisheries management and the competitiveness of law-abiding U.S. fishermen. They contend that a public, enforceable vessel blacklist with real consequences (visa sanctions, Coast Guard boarding) closes a gap in existing law, where IUU operators faced little personal accountability. Supporters further argue that linking IUU enforcement to forced labor interdiction addresses a documented humanitarian crisis at sea, where workers are often trafficked and held against their will aboard fishing vessels.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's "clear and convincing evidence" standard for listing vessels is undermined by language allowing listing even with "only partial information," creating a risk of erroneous designations that could harm legitimate operators and strain diplomatic relationships with key trading partners. They contend that the permanent nature of the IUU vessel list — with removal contingent on owner-initiated applications — raises due process concerns, and that visa sanctions applied to beneficial owners with as little as 50% indirect ownership could sweep in individuals with limited operational control over a vessel's fishing practices.
Constitutional context
The bill's visa sanction provisions rest on Congress's broad plenary power over immigration and foreign affairs, which courts have historically upheld with minimal judicial review. The IUU vessel listing mechanism, which delegates listing and removal authority to the Secretary of Commerce (NOAA), could face scrutiny under the post-Loper Bright framework, where courts now independently assess whether agency statutory interpretations are correct rather than deferring to the agency's reading.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (NOAA, State Department, Coast Guard) gains new listing, sanctioning, and boarding authority; checks include a 90-day notice-and-comment process for vessel owners before listing, a hearing and interagency working group review process for listed owners, a Presidential national interest waiver on visa sanctions, congressional reporting requirements, and judicial review of agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Historical precedent
The Maritime SAFE Act (2020) and the Port State Measures Agreement Act (2015) established earlier frameworks for IUU fishing enforcement that this bill directly amends and expands; the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act similarly created predecessor vessel listing mechanisms.