Save Our Shrimpers Act
Introduced March 11, 2025 · Last action May 13, 2026
Plain English Summary
This bill instructs the U.S. Treasury Department to direct American officials at international financial institutions (like the World Bank and regional development banks) to vote against loans and other financial assistance for shrimp farming, processing, and export projects in borrowing countries. The requirement lasts for 7 years unless the Treasury Secretary waives it for a specific project in the national interest.
Who benefits
U.S. domestic shrimp producers and wild-capture shrimp fishermen, particularly in Gulf Coast states (Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida), who face competition from lower-cost imported farmed shrimp from Southeast Asia and Latin America. Environmentally-focused organizations and coastal communities that oppose shrimp farming due to mangrove habitat destruction.
Who pays / loses
Shrimp farmers and exporters in borrowing countries (primarily Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Ecuador, and other developing nations with aquaculture industries) who lose access to development bank financing. Developing-nation governments that rely on shrimp industry revenues and employment. Consumers in the U.S. and worldwide who may face higher shrimp prices or reduced supply. International financial institutions that see their lending flexibility constrained by U.S. voting mandates.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
U.S. shrimp industry associations and Wild-Caught Shrimp Council represent domestic producers seeking protection from farmed shrimp imports. Environmental organizations focused on coastal habitat preservation (particularly mangrove forests destroyed by shrimp aquaculture expansion) align with this bill. Foreign shrimp farming and export companies in Southeast Asia and Latin America oppose it but have minimal U.S. political influence. Sponsor finance data not provided in bill text.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
U.S. Gulf Coast shrimp fishermen and producers (estimated 2,000–3,000 commercial fishing vessels in Louisiana alone); developing-country shrimp farming communities in Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Ecuador, and Bangladesh where aquaculture is a major employer and export revenue source; low-income consumers in the U.S. who purchase farmed shrimp as an affordable protein source.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue the bill protects American shrimpers from unfair competition and supports environmental conservation by blocking financing for mangrove-destroying shrimp farms. Critics contend the bill uses U.S. voting power at development banks to restrict lending based on a single commodity, undermining the banks' developmental mission in poor countries, raising consumer prices, and punishing foreign aquaculture workers. Non-partisan evidence shows shrimp farming does cause significant mangrove loss in Southeast Asia, but also generates substantial employment and export revenue in developing economies. The policy treats a commodity-specific restriction as a climate/conservation tool—a novel application of development bank governance that lacks clear precedent or impact assessment.
Real-World Stakes
If enacted, the bill reduces shrimp aquaculture financing in developing countries for 7 years, likely slowing industry expansion and protecting mangrove habitats in some regions. However, it may not significantly reduce global shrimp farming if private lending, national development banks, or other sources replace development bank capital. Domestic U.S. shrimp prices may rise moderately if import volumes decline, benefiting domestic producers but increasing household food costs. International development banks (World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Asian Development Bank) must implement a narrow policy constraint on a routine commodity, setting a precedent for other countries or industries to lobby for similar restrictions. Analogous precedents include Congressional restrictions on bank lending for coal and fossil fuels (passed 2023–2024), which reduced development bank energy financing in poor countries by single-digit percentages but did not substantially change global energy markets or climate outcomes.
What's Inside This Bill
Non-obvious provisions not apparent from the headline summary.
National Interest Waiver Discretion
Allows the Treasury Secretary to waive the shrimp farming voting requirement for any specific project by determining it serves the national interest, with no defined criteria, congressional notification requirement, or documentation standard for what constitutes 'national interest.'
AffectsShrimp farming projects in developing countries that could receive exemptions based on Treasury Secretary discretion; countries may benefit unpredictably; environmental advocates have no transparency into waiver decisions.
Scope Ambiguity on Related Industries
The bill targets 'shrimp farming, processing, and export projects' but does not clarify whether this includes indirect financing (e.g., port infrastructure, aquaculture feed production, or packaging facilities) that primarily serve shrimp operations.
AffectsCoastal communities and suppliers in developing countries whose infrastructure projects may be blocked if deemed 'related' to shrimp; lending institutions uncertain about application scope.
Seven-Year Automatic Sunset Without Reauthorization
The mandate expires after 7 years unless Congress acts to reauthorize it, meaning compliance requirements disappear automatically without legislative action.
AffectsInternational development institutions and Treasury staff who must track the sunset date; countries may time shrimp projects to apply after the provision expires; no guarantee the policy continues even if still desired.
No Definition of 'Borrowing Country' Coverage
Does not specify whether the requirement applies to all countries receiving World Bank/regional development bank loans or only certain categories, creating ambiguity about geographic scope.
AffectsMiddle-income and upper-middle-income countries may or may not be subject to the requirement, leading to inconsistent enforcement across regions and potential complaints of discriminatory application.
Sponsor
Co-sponsors (20)
RRep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14]DRep. Carter, Troy A. [D-LA-2]RRep. Higgins, Clay [R-LA-3]RRep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]RRep. Letlow, Julia [R-LA-5]RRep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12]RRep. Murphy, Gregory F. [R-NC-3]RRep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1]RRep. Cloud, Michael [R-TX-27]RRep. Haridopolos, Mike [R-FL-8]RRep. Luna, Anna Paulina [R-FL-13]RRep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19]RRep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4]RRep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1]DRep. Davis, Donald G. [D-NC-1]RRep. Rutherford, John H. [R-FL-5]RRep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36]RRep. Fry, Russell [R-SC-7]DRep. Gonzalez, Vicente [D-TX-34]RRep. Rouzer, David [R-NC-7]
Vote Record
Passed: 391–18R 205–1 · D 186–17
| Name | Party | State / District | Vote |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rep. Adams, Alma S. [D-NC-12] | D | NC-12 | Yea |
| Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4] | R | AL-4 | Yea |
| Rep. Aguilar, Pete [D-CA-33] | D | CA-33 | Yea |
| Rep. Alford, Mark [R-MO-4] | R | MO-4 | Yea |
| Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA-12] | R | GA-12 | Yea |
| Rep. Amo, Gabe [D-RI-1] | D | RI-1 | Yea |
| Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2] | R | NV-2 | Yea |
| Rep. Ansari, Yassamin [D-AZ-3] | D | AZ-3 | Yea |
| Rep. Arrington, Jodey C. [R-TX-19] | R | TX-19 | Yea |
| Rep. Auchincloss, Jake [D-MA-4] |
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
Top contributing industries
Other$267,104.96
Technology$8,100
Finance$7,750
Agriculture$3,957.05
Healthcare$3,300
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.