As "The Constitutional Critic," I have reviewed Proclamation 10918 of April 17, 2025, titled "Unleashing American Commercial Fishing in the Pacific," issued by President Donald J. Trump during his second term. My analysis is grounded in a steadfast commitment to the original principles of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the vision of the Founding Fathers, with a skeptical eye toward government actions that may infringe on individual liberties, state sovereignty, or the balance of power. Below, I provide a summary of the proclamation, dissect the stated rationale versus potential underlying motives, assess impacts on constitutional rights, and highlight areas of concern for American citizens.
Summary of Proclamation 10918
Proclamation 10918 modifies existing restrictions on commercial fishing within the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (PRIMNM), originally established under Proclamations 8336 (2009) and 9173 (2014). These earlier proclamations designated over 400,000 square miles of Pacific Ocean territory around various islands and atolls as protected areas, banning commercial fishing to preserve biodiversity, marine ecosystems, and historic objects. President Trump’s proclamation reverses this ban in specific areas (between 50 to 200 nautical miles from the landward boundaries of the monument) within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), allowing commercial fishing by U.S.-flagged vessels under the management of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. The proclamation cites existing federal laws—such as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Endangered Species Act—as sufficient to protect the monument’s resources without a total fishing ban. It also directs the Secretary of Commerce to propose new rules to amend or repeal restrictive regulations.
Stated Rationale vs. Potential Underlying Motives
Stated Rationale:
The proclamation argues that the commercial fishing ban within PRIMNM is unnecessary for protecting the monument’s scientific and historic objects, as existing federal laws and fishery management bodies already provide adequate safeguards. It claims that migratory fish species (like tuna) are not permanently resident in the monument, rendering the ban ineffective for conservation. Additionally, it highlights economic harm to American fishermen and territories like American Samoa, where the fishing industry constitutes over 80% of the private sector economy. The ban has forced U.S. fleets to compete in international waters against poorly regulated foreign fleets, which disadvantages American workers. The policy shift aims to restore access to nearly half of the U.S. EEZ in the Pacific for domestic commercial fishing while maintaining environmental protections through existing regulations.
Potential Underlying Motives and Hypocrisy:
While the economic argument for supporting American fishermen and territories appears compelling, I approach this proclamation with skepticism, as government actions often mask deeper political or corporate interests. First, the timing of this proclamation—early in President Trump’s second term—suggests a possible alignment with campaign promises or donor interests tied to the fishing industry. Large commercial fishing corporations, which stand to gain significantly from access to these waters, may have lobbied for this change, potentially prioritizing profit over long-term environmental stability. The administration’s emphasis on “unleashing” American industry echoes a broader deregulatory agenda that often benefits powerful stakeholders at the expense of broader public interests, such as conservation.
Moreover, the claim that existing laws are sufficient to protect the monument’s resources is questionable. While statutes like the Endangered Species Act and Magnuson-Stevens Act provide frameworks for conservation, enforcement in remote Pacific areas is notoriously challenging. The government’s assertion that commercial fishing won’t harm protected objects could be a convenient justification to sidestep stricter oversight, potentially leading to overfishing or ecosystem damage that future administrations will have to address. This raises concerns about whether the real motive is short-term economic gain or political capital rather than a balanced approach to resource management.
Finally, the restriction to U.S.-flagged vessels—while framed as protecting American interests—could be a veiled protectionist measure to exclude foreign competition without addressing the root causes of international overfishing. This selective deregulation smells of political posturing, prioritizing nationalist rhetoric over genuine environmental or economic reform.
Constitutional and Rights Implications
At first glance, Proclamation 10918 does not directly infringe on individual constitutional rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, or due process. However, as a vigilant critic, I must examine broader implications for the balance of power and the potential erosion of public trust in government stewardship of natural resources, which indirectly affects Americans’ rights to a sustainable environment and equitable economic opportunity.
Federal Overreach and the Antiquities Act:
The proclamation is issued under the authority of the Antiquities Act (54 U.S.C. § 320301), which grants the President broad discretion to designate and manage national monuments. While the Act allows for the modification of monument protections, the Founding Fathers emphasized checks and balances to prevent unchecked executive power. The unilateral decision to reverse a long-standing conservation policy without Congressional input or extensive public consultation raises concerns about executive overreach. The Constitution vests legislative authority in Congress (Article I), and while the Antiquities Act delegates certain powers to the President, such significant policy shifts—especially those with long-term environmental and economic impacts—should arguably involve broader democratic input. This action could set a precedent for future presidents to alter national monument designations for political or economic gain, undermining the stability of public land protections.Property and Economic Rights:
The proclamation indirectly touches on property rights and economic liberties, which the Founding Fathers sought to protect under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. By reopening fishing areas, the administration claims to restore economic opportunities to American fishermen previously denied access to these waters. However, this could disproportionately benefit large commercial entities over small, independent fishermen or local communities in American Samoa, potentially creating economic inequity. Furthermore, if overfishing or environmental degradation occurs due to lax enforcement, future generations may lose access to these resources, effectively constituting a “taking” of public heritage without due compensation or process.State and Territorial Sovereignty:
American Samoa’s heavy reliance on the fishing industry is noted in the proclamation, yet there is no mention of direct consultation with territorial leaders or communities about the potential impacts of increased commercial activity. The Constitution emphasizes federalism and the rights of states and territories to have a voice in policies affecting their economies and environments. Ignoring local input risks alienating these stakeholders and undermining the principles of self-governance that the Founders championed.Environmental Rights as a Modern Concern:
While the Constitution does not explicitly address environmental protection, the Founding Fathers’ vision of preserving the nation’s resources for future generations is implicit in their writings on stewardship and the public good. The potential for environmental harm from commercial fishing—despite assurances of regulatory oversight—could infringe on Americans’ unwritten right to a sustainable natural heritage. If ecosystems in the PRIMNM are damaged, it could impact not just biodiversity but also the cultural and economic livelihoods of Pacific communities, raising questions about whether this proclamation prioritizes short-term gain over long-term public welfare.
Political Manipulation and Hidden Beneficiaries
Proclamation 10918 may serve as a political tool to bolster President Trump’s image as a champion of American industry and economic deregulation, a narrative central to his political brand. By framing this as “unleashing” American fishing, the administration appeals to working-class voters and industries frustrated by federal restrictions. However, the primary beneficiaries are likely to be large commercial fishing operations with the capital to exploit these newly opened waters, rather than small-scale fishermen or local communities. Political donors or lobbyists tied to these industries may have influenced this decision, a recurring concern in modern governance where special interests often shape policy behind closed doors.
Additionally, the emphasis on U.S.-flagged vessels and the exclusion of foreign fleets aligns with a nationalist agenda, potentially garnering support from domestic constituencies while ignoring broader international cooperation on sustainable fishing practices. This could strain diplomatic relations or exacerbate global overfishing issues, outcomes the government may downplay to avoid scrutiny.
What the Government Might Not Want You to Know
Enforcement Challenges: The proclamation relies heavily on existing federal laws and agencies to manage fishing sustainably, but it glosses over the logistical difficulties of monitoring and enforcing regulations in remote Pacific waters. The National Marine Fisheries Service is already underfunded and overstretched; increased fishing activity could overwhelm its capacity, leading to unchecked environmental damage.
Long-Term Risks: The government presents this as a win for American fishermen, but it downplays the risk of overfishing migratory species like tuna, which could deplete stocks critical to Pacific ecosystems and economies. Once these resources are diminished, reversing the damage may be impossible, and future administrations—or taxpayers—will bear the cost of mitigation.
Lack of Public Input: There is no mention of public hearings, environmental impact assessments, or consultations with conservation groups, indigenous communities, or territorial governments before issuing this proclamation. This lack of transparency undermines democratic accountability and suggests the decision may have been rushed to serve political or economic interests.
Conclusion and Call to Action
Proclamation 10918, while not a direct assault on constitutional rights, raises significant concerns about executive overreach, the balance of power, and the long-term stewardship of America’s natural resources. The stated goal of supporting American fishermen and economies like American Samoa’s is undermined by the potential for environmental harm, economic inequity, and the prioritization of corporate interests over public good. As “The Constitutional Critic,” I urge everyday Americans to question this policy’s true beneficiaries and demand greater transparency and accountability from their government.
What You Can Do:
- Contact your Congressional representatives to push for legislative oversight of national monument modifications, ensuring that such decisions are not left solely to executive discretion.
- Support independent environmental studies to assess the impact of commercial fishing in the PRIMNM, holding the government accountable to its promise of sustainable management.
- Engage with local and territorial leaders in affected areas like American Samoa to amplify their voices in federal policy discussions.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a government of checks and balances, where the public’s welfare—not private profit or political gain—remains paramount. Let us hold President Trump and future leaders to that standard, ensuring that our natural heritage and constitutional principles are not sacrificed for short-term expediency. I remain skeptical of this proclamation’s true intent and will continue to scrutinize government actions that risk eroding the freedoms and protections we hold dear.