The President’s action rests on the Antiquities Act (54 U.S.C. § 320301), which authorizes monument proclamations; the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel concluded (June 2025) that a President may alter or revoke prior monument designations and their restrictions by proclamation. That legal claim is contested in scholarship and by earlier OLC precedent (and some judges have treated the issue as unsettled), so a revocation of monument fishing restrictions is likely to be litigated and could ultimately be decided by courts. (In short: the Administration cites the Antiquities Act/OLC opinion; many legal scholars disagree and courts have not conclusively resolved the issue.)
Obama’s 2016 proclamation (Proclamation 9496) established the 4,913‑sq‑mile Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument and prohibited a set of extractive and damaging activities (examples in the proclamation): mineral/oil & gas exploration and development; use of poisons/electrical charges/explosives to collect resources; introducing non‑native species; removing or damaging living or nonliving monument resources; drilling/anchoring/dredging or placing structures on submerged lands; and "fishing commercially" in the monument (with a limited 7‑year phase‑out allowed for red crab and American lobster). The February 6, 2026 White House fact sheet says the new proclamation restores commercial fishing access to all 4,913 sq mi — i.e., it removes the monument’s commercial‑fishing prohibition; other prohibitions in Proclamation 9496 are not described as changed in the White House notice.
Scientists say the canyons and seamounts host fragile, slow‑growing deep‑sea corals, sponges and benthic communities that are damaged by bottom‑contact and fixed gear; reopening to commercial fishing (especially bottom‑contact gear and trap lines) raises risks of physical destruction of coral/sponge habitat, loss of nursery/spawning habitat, declines in benthic biodiversity, and cascading effects up the food web (fish, seabirds, marine mammals). Long‑lived deep‑sea organisms recover very slowly, so damage can be essentially permanent on human time scales. The area’s role as a productive feeding/wintering area for migratory species means broader ecosystem impacts are possible. (Observed impacts of bottom trawling and fixed gear on deep‑sea corals and seamounts are documented by NOAA and peer‑reviewed studies.)
The White House fact sheet and its text identify longline and Maine lobster fisheries and U.S. commercial vessels as beneficiaries; NOAA’s 2024 final rule shows the Monument prohibition was implemented in Magnuson‑Stevens regulations. Which specific vessel types will immediately operate depends on fisheries management (regional fishery management councils, permits, and NOAA regulations). Commercial fishermen would still need to comply with existing federal and regional permits, vessel safety and reporting rules, and any fishery‑specific regulations (quotas, gear restrictions, area closures). If the proclamation is implemented, operators would use the fisheries’ legal permitting pathways (NOAA/Regional Council), but any change may be subject to litigation and follow‑on rulemaking; until NOAA/management bodies and courts act, the 2016/2021 prohibitions remained in federal regulation.
The Magnuson‑Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) is the primary statute for U.S. fishery management; it creates regional fishery management councils, sets stock‑assessment, bycatch, and conservation requirements, and authorizes fishing regulations. The Administration argues that MSA protections for highly migratory and managed species remain in force in place of monument restrictions, and NOAA has used MSA regulations to implement fishing prohibitions inside the monument. But MSA is a fishery‑management statute; it does not by itself prohibit other extractive activities or substitute for monument status protections for non‑fish resources (e.g., deep‑sea corals). Whether MSA “applies in place of” a monument prohibition depends on the legal question whether the President may remove the monument restriction and on what NOAA/management measures remain in force; NOAA previously implemented the commercial‑fishing prohibition through MSA regulations (50 CFR), showing the two regimes interact but are not identical.
The White House fact sheet asserts reopening will support New England and Maine fishing industries and create jobs, but it does not provide a public, peer‑reviewed economic analysis on net impacts. Independent economic studies of marine protected areas and fishing closures show localized short‑term costs to restricted fishermen can be offset over time by spillover and ecosystem benefits, but results vary by fishery, gear type, and management design. NOAA and regional fishery councils typically conduct stock‑ and socioeconomic analyses when changing access; however, the White House fact sheet offers claims without citing a published economic study specific to reopening this particular monument. In short: the Administration states economic benefits but has not cited a transparent, peer‑reviewed economic analysis in the public fact sheet; independent analyses would be needed to verify net job and regional economic impacts.