The bill
MAWS Act of 2026
HR. 4294, 119th Congress — read as touching Agribusiness.
Sponsored by
Rep. Elfreth, Sarah [D-MD-3]
ID: E000301
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 4294, 119th Congress — read as touching Agribusiness.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
24 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Commerce" section, p. 708-710 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
March 17, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
(sigh) Oh joy, another bill that's about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face. Let me dissect this mess for you.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The MAWS Act of 2026 is a pilot program designed to "support" watermen (read: fishermen) in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed by creating a market for blue catfish. Yeah, because that's exactly what we need - more government intervention in the fishing industry.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (because who doesn't love a good acronym?) to establish this pilot program. The Secretary of Commerce will enter into cooperative agreements with "covered entities" (read: companies that will make money off this) to purchase blue catfish from watermen or seafood processors. Because, you know, the free market wasn't doing its job.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Watermen, seafood processors, and covered entities will be affected by this bill. Oh, and let's not forget the taxpayers who'll be footing the bill for this boondoggle.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This program is a perfect example of government overreach and crony capitalism. It's a handout to specific industries and individuals at the expense of everyone else. The "abundance baseline" provision is just a fancy way of saying "we'll make up some numbers to justify this program." And don't even get me started on the "report" required by the Secretary - it's just a way to cover their behinds when this program inevitably fails.
Diagnosis: This bill has all the symptoms of a classic case of Government-Induced Stupidity Syndrome (GISS). The sponsors and supporters are suffering from a bad case of Crony Capitalism Fever, where they think that throwing money at specific industries will magically solve problems. Newsflash: it won't.
Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for the inevitable waste of taxpayer dollars, and a willingness to call out this nonsense for what it is - a pork-filled, special-interest-driven disaster waiting to happen.
Rep. Elfreth, Sarah [D-MD-3]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: W000804
Top Contributors
24
ID: K000399
Top Contributors
23
ID: H000874
Top Contributors
20
ID: I000058
Top Contributors
22
ID: M001232
Top Contributors
0
No contribution data available
ID: O000176
Top Contributors
25
ID: M000687
Top Contributors
20
ID: S000185
Top Contributors
20
ID: M001228
Top Contributors
22
ID: G000565
Top Contributors
23
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 38 nodes and 45 connections
Total contributions: $45
Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.
Section 2(e)(1)(A) directs the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with covered entities to purchase blue catfish from watermen; covered entities are defined in (10)(E) as persons engaged in manufacturing or processing pet food, animal feed, or aquaculture feed, which are part of the agribusiness industry. This creates a market for their products, providing a benefit.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"The MAWS Act aligns with Project 2025's goal of streamlining NMFS and reducing regulatory burdens by creating a market-based approach to invasive species management that supports watermen economically while addressing ecological concerns, reflecting a preference for commercial solutions over top-down regulation."
— 675 — Department of Commerce l The National Ocean Service (NOS); l The Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR); l The National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS); l The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); and l The Office of Marine and Aviation Operations and NOAA Corps. Together, these form a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity. This industry’s mission emphasis on prediction and management seems designed around the fatal conceit of planning for the unplannable. That is not to say NOAA is useless, but its current organization corrupts its useful func- tions. It should be broken up and downsized. NOAA today boasts that it is a provider of environmental information services, a provider of environmental stewardship services, and a leader in applied scientific research. Each of these functions could be provided commercially, likely at lower cost and higher quality. Focus the NWS on Commercial Operations. Each day, Americans rely on weather forecasts and warnings provided by local radio stations and colleges that are produced not by the NWS, but by private companies such as AccuWeather. Studies have found that the forecasts and warnings provided by the private com- panies are more reliable than those provided by the NWS.2 The NWS provides data the private companies use and should focus on its data-gathering services. Because private companies rely on these data, the NWS should fully commercialize its forecasting operations. NOAA does not currently utilize commercial partnerships as some other agencies do. Commercialization of weather technologies should be prioritized to ensure that taxpayer dollars are invested in the most cost-efficient technol- ogies for high quality research and weather data. Investing in different sizes of commercial partners will increase competition while ensuring that the govern- ment solutions provided by each contract is personalized to the needs of NOAA’s weather programs. The NWS should be a candidate to become a Performance-Based Organization to better enforce organizational focus on core functions such as efficient delivery of accurate, timely, and unbiased data to the public and to the private sector.3 Review the Work of the National Hurricane Center and the National Environmental Satellite Service. The National Hurricane Center and National Environmental Satellite Service data centers provide important public safety and — 676 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise business functions as well as academic functions, and are used by forecasting agen- cies and scientists internationally. Data continuity is an important issue in climate science. Data collected by the department should be presented neutrally, without adjustments intended to support any one side in the climate debate. Transfer NOS Survey Functions to the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Geo- logical Survey. Survey operations have historically accounted for almost half the NOS budget. These functions could be transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Geological Survey to increase efficiency. NOS’ expansion of the National Marine Sanctuaries System should also be reviewed, as discussed below. Streamline NMFS. Overlap exists between the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Overly simplified, the NMFS handles saltwater species while the Fish and Wildlife Service focuses on fresh water. The goals of these two agencies should be streamlined. Harmonize the Magnuson–Stevens Act with the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Under the auspices of NOS, marine sanctuaries (including no-fishing zones) are being established country-wide, often conflicting with the goals of the Magnu- son–Stevens Act fisheries management authorities of NOAA Fisheries, regional fishery management councils, and relevant states. Withdraw the 30x30 Executive Order and Associated America the Beautiful Ini- tiative. The 30x30 Executive Order and the American the Beautiful Initiative are being used to advance an agenda to close vast areas of the ocean to commercial activities, including fishing, while rapidly advancing offshore wind energy devel- opment to the detriment of fisheries and other existing ocean-based industries. Modify Regulations Implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. These acts are currently being abused at a cost to fisheries and Native American subsistence activities around the U.S. Allow a NEPA Exemption for Fisheries Actions. All the requirements for robust analysis of the biological, economic, and social impacts of proposed regulatory action in fisheries are contained with the Magnuson–Stevens Act, the guiding Act for fisheries. NEPA overlays these requirements with onerous, redundant, and time-consuming process requirements, which routinely cause unnecessary delays in the promulgation of timely fisheries management actions. The Department of Commerce and the Council on Environmental Quality should collaborate to reduce this redundancy. Downsize the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. OAR provides theoretical science, as opposed to the applied science of the National Hurricane Center. OAR is, however, the source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism. The preponderance of its climate-change research should be disbanded. OAR is a large network of research laboratories, an undersea research center, and several joint research institutes with universities. These operations should be reviewed with an aim of consolidation and reduction of bloat.
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on a pilot program to mitigate invasive blue catfish and support watermen in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, while the Project 2025 EPA section emphasizes internal EPA Office of Water reforms, guidance policies, and regulatory changes (e.g., WOTUS, CWA deadlines). Both involve water-related issues but address different objectives."
— 428 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Personnel, Budget, and Office Restructuring l Place a political appointee in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ, regulating mobile sources) and a political appointee in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, for the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS, regulating stationary sources) and give those appointees the requisite titles and authority to oversee the OTAQ and OAQPS staff. l Establish a political Chief of Staff in D.C. to manage the entire air office. l Pull the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program out of OTAQ; establish its own suboffice in D.C. (with status parallel to OTAQ and OAQPS) that is headed by a political appointee; and establish a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy to work together to establish RFS programs. l Require regional air offices to receive approval from OAR before moving forward with enforcement actions in order to ensure that enforcement is meeting the requirements established by regulations and is not going beyond them. OFFICE OF WATER (OW) OW is responsible for ensuring safe drinking water and restoring and main- taining oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and recreational activities, and provide healthy habitats for fish, plants, and wildlife. Its two main statutes include implementing the Clean Water Act (CWA)26 and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).27 OW has generated a large number of expansive regulations that infringe on private property rights, most notably with the Waters of the U.S. program. Needed Reforms The overarching theme for reform is guidance on guidance. OW relies heav- ily on guidance documents that are outdated and that sometimes have been in a “deliberative” state for years. Additionally, there are significant issues surrounding OW’s holding up guidance as something more than simply guidance: as something akin to law in certain circumstances. The August 6, 2019, “Office of Water Policy for Draft Documents” memorandum28 should be strictly enforced to ensure transpar- ency as well as good governance by not letting guidance linger in draft form and by also ensuring that guidance documents are clearly just that: guidance. They do not have the effect of law and should not be treated by the office as if they did have any such effect. — 429 — Environmental Protection Agency As a matter of broad practice, OW should be complying with statutorily estab- lished deadlines in all situations with only minimal exceptions. In cases where statutory deadlines will not be met, senior management should be made aware of the delay and should have an opportunity to determine whether alternative courses should be taken. Depending on the outcome of regulations from the Biden Administration as well as intervention by the Supreme Court on both waters of the United States (WOTUS) and CWA Section 401,29 the repeal and reissuance of new regulations should be pursued. New Policies New regulations should include the following: l A WOTUS rule that makes clear what is and is not a “navigable water” and respects private property rights. Coordinate with Congress to develop legislation, if necessary, to codify the definition in Rapanos v. United States that “waters of the United States” can refer only to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water…as opposed to ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.”30 l A rule that provides clarity and regulatory certainty regarding the CWA Section 401 water quality certification process to limit unnecessary delay for needed projects, including by establishing a discharge-only approach with a limited scope (from point sources into navigable waters), assessing only water quality factors that are consistent with specific CWA sections, and excluding speculative analysis regarding future potential harm. l A rule to ensure that CWA Section 30831 has a clear and enforced time limit. l A rule to clarify the standard for criminal negligence under CWA Sections 40232 and 404.33 l A rule to prohibit retroactive or preemptive permits under CWA Section 404. l A rule to promote and shape nutrient trading that utilizes a carrot-versus- stick approach when dealing with nutrient compliance. l A rule to update compensatory mitigation that imposes no new or additional requirements beyond current law. l A rule on updates necessary for the effective use of the CWA needs survey.
AI Analysis:
"The MAWS Act focuses on invasive species mitigation and economic support for watermen through a NOAA-administered pilot program, which does not directly address the USDA-focused Project 2025 objectives of reducing marketing orders, checkoff programs, or export promotion. While both involve agricultural economic support and market mechanisms, the MAWS Act operates in a different domain (fisheries vs. commodity agriculture) and does not engage with the specific USDA programs targeted for reform in"
— 306 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise programs,104 and they focus on research and promotion of commodities such as beef and eggs. Marketing orders cover research and promotion, but also cover issues such as quality regulations and volume controls. The latter issue, volume controls, is a means to restrict supply, which drives up prices for consumers. Fortunately, there are few active volume controls.105 Marketing orders and checkoff programs are some of the most egregious pro- grams run by the USDA. They are, in effect, a tax—a means to compel speech—and government-blessed cartels. Instead of getting private cooperation, they are tools for industry actors to work with government to force cooperation. The next Administration should: l Reduce the number and scope of marketing orders and checkoff programs. The USDA should reject any new requests for marketing orders and checkoff programs to the extent authorized by law and eliminate existing programs when possible. While the programs work differently, there are often petition processes and other ways that make it difficult for affected parties to get rid of the marketing orders and checkoff programs,106 and the USDA itself may not even be required to honor requests to terminate a program.107 The USDA should make the process easier. Further, the USDA should reject any effort to bring back volume controls to limit supplies of commodities. l Work with Congress to eliminate marketing orders and checkoff programs. These programs should be eliminated, and if industry actors want to collaborate, they should do so through private means, not using the government to compel cooperation. l Promote legislation that would require regular votes. There should be regular voting for parties subject to checkoff programs and marketing orders. For example, the voting should occur at least every five years, to determine whether a marketing order or checkoff program should continue. The USDA should be required to honor the results of such a vote. Through regular voting, parties can demonstrate their support for a marketing order or checkoff program and ensure that those administering them will be held accountable. Focus on Trade Policy, Not Trade Promotion. The USDA’s Foreign Agri- cultural Service (FAS) covers numerous issues, including “trade policy,” which is a reference to removing trade barriers, among other things, to ensure an envi- ronment conducive to trade.108 It also covers trade promotion.109 This includes programs like the Market Access Program110 that subsidizes trade associations, — 307 — Department of Agriculture businesses, and other private entities to market and promote their products overseas. FAS should play a proactive and leading role to help open upmarkets for American farmers and ranchers. There are numerous barriers, such as sani- tary and phytosanitary measures, blocking American agricultural products from gaining access to foreign markets.111 However, FAS should not help businesses and industries promote their exports, something these businesses and industries can and should do on their own. The next Administration should: l Push legislation to repeal export promotion programs. The USDA should work with Congress to repeal market development programs like the Market Access Program and similar programs. Remove Obstacles for Agricultural Biotechnology. Innovation is critical to agricultural production and the ability to meet future food needs. The next Admin- istration should embrace innovation and technology, not hinder its use—especially because of scare tactics that ignore sound science. One of the key innovations in agriculture is genetic engineering. According to the USDA, “[C]urrently, over 90 percent of U.S. corn, upland cotton, and soybeans are produced using GE [genet- ically engineered] varieties.”112 Despite the importance of agricultural biotechnology, in 2016, Congress passed a federal mandate to label genetically engineered food.113 This legislation was argu- ably just a means to try to provide a negative connotation to GE food. There are other challenges as well for agricultural biotechnology. For example, Mexico plans to ban the importation of U.S. genetically modified yellow corn.114 The next Administration should: l Counter scare tactics and remove obstacles. The USDA should strongly counter scare tactics regarding agricultural biotechnology and adopt policies to remove unnecessary barriers to approvals and the adoption of biotechnology. l Repeal the federal labeling mandate. The USDA should work with Congress to repeal the federal labeling law, while maintaining federal preemption, and stress that voluntary labeling is allowed. l Use all tools available to remove improper trade barriers against agricultural biotechnology. The USDA should work closely with the Office of the United States Trade Representative to remove improper barriers imposed by other countries to block U.S. agricultural goods.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.