Why It Matters

A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report published July 15 lays bare the disconnect between federal shark management policy and the biological reality facing one of the ocean's most significant predators. The analysis, examining decades of shark conservation efforts, finds that most regional fishing organizations have ineffective rules for preventing unwanted shark catches, while several shark species remain under active overfishing pressure despite past legislative protections.

The Trump Administration has taken aggressive steps to reshape international environmental engagement, withdrawing from key conservation bodies, while simultaneously pushing a domestic agenda centered on what it describes as competitive seafood production.

The Big Picture

The stakes for shark management policy are fundamentally about understanding how much remains unknown about shark populations and whether the U.S. can meaningfully protect them amid broader pressures to expand fisheries. Over 50 shark species inhabit waters off the east coast of the United States, and federal agencies manage and study around 100 shark populations throughout U.S. waters. Yet, the science underpinning shark species protection remains incomplete in critical ways.

The information gap is significant: fourteen Atlantic shark stocks and six North Pacific stocks have unknown overfished or overfishing status as of March 2026, making it difficult for regulators to assess whether current fishing practices are sustainable. This uncertainty undermines the ability of marine conservation regulations to achieve their intended effect.

What makes the current moment consequential is that the administration's proposed budgetary and organizational changes could further constrain the capacity to close these knowledge gaps. The Fish and Wildlife Service's fiscal 2026 budget justification proposes merging the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act functions of the National Marine Fisheries Service into the Fish and Wildlife Service itself.

Congress has built a regulatory framework for shark conservation United States that reflects evolving scientific understanding and public pressure:

  • The Shark Finning Prohibition Act banned shark finning and carcass discarding in U.S. waters.
  • The Shark Conservation Act of 2010 subsequently required fins to remain naturally attached to carcasses. T
  • The Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act of 2023 banned possession and sale of shark fins with limited exceptions, closing a loophole that had allowed U.S. traders to traffic in fins harvested abroad.
  • The Supporting the Health of Aquatic systems through Research Knowledge and Enhanced Dialogue Act would establish a National Marine Fisheries Service, or led task force to identify shark conservation needs and conduct research on shark depredation.
  • The Florida Safe Seas Act of 2025 would ban shark feeding in federal waters off Florida, a targeted approach to depredation prevention.

Political Stakes

For the Administration

The push to expand seafood competitiveness, formalized in Executive Order 14276, signed April 17, 2025, conflicts with international conservation commitments and creates pressure on domestic agencies to deprioritize species protection research.

For Congress

Congress must work to balance competing interests. Coastal communities and fishing industries push for measures addressing shark depredation and facilitating harvest, while conservation constituencies and scientific advisors push for stronger protections and expanded research. The disconnect between legislative intent and regulatory effectiveness evident in the CRS report suggests that current approaches may satisfy neither group fully.

For the Public

The public interest centers on whether regulatory frameworks can adapt quickly enough to address emerging threats and unknowns. The information gaps in shark population status, ecology, and fishing interactions mean decisions are often made with incomplete data.

The Bottom Line

For now, the patchwork of state and federal shark regulations, coupled with legislative efforts by Congress, represents the government's response to a conservation challenge that science suggests demands either greater resources or greater international coordination—or both.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article