Tuna Treaty Overhaul: New Rules Set Stricter License Requirements and Expand Civil Penalties for Fishing Vessels

The South Pacific Tuna Treaty Act of 2025 is essentially a massive software update for the decades-old rules governing U.S. commercial tuna fishing in the South Pacific. It’s not about changing where we fish so much as changing the definitions, the paperwork, and the penalties for the vessels that do. This bill takes the existing 1988 law and performs major surgery, renumbering sections, tightening up key definitions, and generally giving the Secretary of Commerce more control over who gets a fishing license and what happens if they mess up.

What Counts as Fishing Now?

One of the most immediate changes is how the bill defines the activity itself. The definition of “fishing” is being expanded to include activities “for any purpose” after the actual harvesting of fish (Sec. 3). More importantly, the definition of a “fishing vessel” is being narrowed specifically to those used for “commercial purse seine fishing for tuna.” If you’re running a boat that uses a different method or targets other species, these specific rules might not apply, which could be a win for clarity. The bill also tightens the definition of the “Licensing Area,” making it clear that internal waters, territorial seas, and archipelagic waters of the Pacific Island Parties are excluded, which simplifies boundaries for captains.

The Secretary’s New Gatekeeping Power

If you own or charter a U.S. vessel applying for a license, the gate just got a little narrower. The Secretary now has the authority to refuse to forward a license application to the Administrator if the owner or charterer is involved in bankruptcy proceedings or hasn't paid a penalty previously assessed under this Act (Sec. 8). Think of this as the government adding a mandatory credit check and a “no outstanding tickets” rule to your commercial fishing license. Furthermore, applicants must now convince the Secretary that their vessel has “full insurance coverage” for typical maritime risks. This puts a significant amount of discretionary power in the hands of the Secretary to judge a vessel owner’s financial security, which could be a problem for smaller operators trying to weather tough economic times.

The Penalty Box Gets Bigger

For vessel operators, the biggest real-world impact might be the changes to civil penalties. The bill removes a large list of existing exceptions that previously protected certain actions from being penalized (Sec. 7). Before, if you committed a specific, minor violation, you might have been exempt from the penalty process. Now, that entire list of exemptions is gone. This means the assessment process for fines will apply more broadly, potentially expanding liability exposure for operators. If you run a fishing business, this change means you need to be even more meticulous about compliance, because the margin for error just shrank. The bill also adds two new prohibited acts: violating any established “regional terms and conditions” for fishing, or exceeding any set limits on authorized fishing effort or total catch allowed (Sec. 4). This formalizes catch limits as a direct violation, which is a significant enforcement tool.

More Secrets, More Discretion

Finally, the bill strengthens confidentiality rules for information collected by the Secretary, including data labeled confidential by the Administrator or gathered by observers (Sec. 11). For the public and media, this means less transparency regarding specific vessel activities and catch data. However, the bill carves out a massive exception for Congress, ensuring that these confidentiality rules do not limit Congress or its Committees from obtaining any requested record. It also allows federal employees to access the data for law enforcement or national security missions, making sure the right hand of the government knows what the left hand is doing, even if the public doesn't. The bill also grants the Secretary new authority to set requirements for how a vessel’s boom must be stowed in a “Closed Area,” replacing a specific rule with one determined solely by the Secretary (Sec. 12). This is another example of shifting from hard statutory rules to flexible, administrative discretion.