Save Our Shrimpers Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]
- Committees
- Foreign Relations Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 23, 2026
Bottom line
The 'Save Our Shrimpers Act' aims to protect the domestic U.S. shrimping industry by preventing international financial institutions from funding foreign shrimp production, with a seven-year sunset clause.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that the United States Executive Directors at various international financial institutions (IFIs) use their voice and vote to oppose any financial assistance for projects supporting shrimp farming, processing, or export in borrowing countries. The Secretary of the Treasury can waive this requirement if deemed in the national interest, with notification to Congress. This mandate is set to expire after seven years from the date of enactment.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is essential for protecting the struggling domestic U.S. shrimping industry from unfair competition, particularly from foreign entities that may benefit from international subsidies or less stringent environmental regulations. They contend that U.S. tax dollars, channeled through IFIs, should not be used to undermine American jobs and economic stability, and that supporting domestic shrimpers contributes to national food security and economic resilience.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill could harm developing countries that rely on shrimp production for economic growth and poverty reduction, potentially undermining the development goals of international financial institutions. They may also contend that such a measure could be perceived as protectionist, leading to diplomatic tensions or retaliatory trade actions, and that it interferes with the independent decision-making processes of IFIs.
The bill is very short and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for a thorough evaluation of its implications.
Section 2(a)
Mandate U.S. Opposition to Foreign Shrimp Projects at International Financial Institutions
This provision requires the U.S. Executive Directors, who represent the United States at international financial institutions like the World Bank or International Monetary Fund, to vote against any financial assistance for projects related to shrimp farming, shrimp processing, or the export of shrimp in countries that borrow from these institutions. This effectively directs U.S. policy within these global bodies to disfavor foreign shrimp industries.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses a perceived imbalance where U.S. contributions to IFIs indirectly support foreign industries that compete with American businesses. They believe it levels the playing field for U.S. shrimpers and ensures that U.S. foreign policy aligns with domestic economic interests.
Critics contend
Critics contend that this provision could be seen as an overreach into the independent operations of IFIs, potentially undermining their mission to foster global development and economic stability. They argue it could strain diplomatic relations with borrowing countries and other IFI member states, who may view it as protectionist and contrary to principles of free trade and international cooperation.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between protecting a specific domestic industry and maintaining broad international development goals and diplomatic relations. It trades potential benefits for U.S. shrimpers against possible negative impacts on developing economies and the effectiveness of multilateral financial institutions.
Section 2(b)
Waiver Authority for National Interest
This section grants the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to waive the requirement to oppose shrimp-related projects if the Secretary determines that such a waiver is in the national interest of the United States. Congress must be notified when such a waiver is exercised. This provides a mechanism for flexibility in exceptional circumstances.
Section 2(c)
Seven-Year Sunset Clause
This provision stipulates that the mandate requiring U.S. opposition to foreign shrimp projects at IFIs will automatically expire after a period of seven years from the date the Act is enacted into law. This means the policy is not permanent and will cease to be in effect unless Congress takes further action to extend or reauthorize it.
The bill defines 'international financial institution' by referencing section 1701(c)(2) of the International Financial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(2)). This external reference determines the specific institutions where the U.S. Executive Directors must oppose shrimp-related projects.
Section 2(a)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid repeating lengthy definitions already established in law and to ensure consistency with existing statutory frameworks. It is not necessarily intended to be evasive.
Case for: Using existing statutory definitions promotes legal consistency and efficiency, avoiding redundant text and potential discrepancies. It ensures that the bill's scope aligns with established U.S. policy regarding international financial institutions.
Case against: For a casual reader, relying on external references makes the bill less self-contained and requires additional research to fully grasp its implications. This can obscure the precise scope of the bill's impact on various international bodies.
Estimated impact: The referenced section 1701(c)(2) of the International Financial Institutions Act typically includes institutions such as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Development Association, the International Finance Corporation, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, among others. The impact is to apply the bill's mandate across these major global financial bodies.