Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker…
The bill (Saving NEMO Act of 2025) prohibits taking, importing, exporting, possessing, selling, or transporting designated "covered coral reef species." Covered species are broadly any marine reef species listed in CITES Appendix II and other species the Secretaries determine pose a substantial risk.
Exceptions allow scientifically based management plans, qualified breeding or aquaculture programs, authorized scientific/museum/zoo purposes, and certain incidental-take permits.
Enforcement includes civil and criminal penalties, forfeiture, searches and seizures, citizen suits, and a 1-year delayed effective date.
Substantive conservation goals increase appeal, but regulatory burdens, industry opposition, committee jurisdictional complexity, and Senate rules reduce overall odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused substantive statutory prohibition on take/import/export and trade in designated coral reef species, with extensive definitions, delegated agency authority, and a comprehensive enforcement framework. It assigns responsibilities to specific Secretaries, establishes exceptions and penalties, and integrates with several existing statutory regimes.
Left emphasizes ecosystem protection; right emphasizes federal overreach and business harm.
Left emphasizes ecosystem protection; right emphasizes federal overreach and business harm.
Likely broadly supportive because the bill strengthens protections for coral reef species and limits destructive collection.
It emphasizes science-based limits, bans destructive practices, and enables citizen enforcement.
Concerns would focus on ensuring exceptions aren't loopholes and communities are supported during transitions.
Generally favorable to the bill's conservation objectives, while wanting clarity on implementation and costs.
Appreciates science-based exemptions and interagency consultation but seeks precise regulatory standards, equivalency procedures, and fiscal estimates.
Would push for clear timelines and minimized unintended trade impacts.
Skeptical of the bill because it expands federal restrictions on trade and harsh enforcement tools.
Concerned about federal overreach, criminal penalties, forfeiture, and impacts on lawful businesses and coastal livelihoods.
Might accept narrower, locally led conservation measures instead.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantive conservation goals increase appeal, but regulatory burdens, industry opposition, committee jurisdictional complexity, and Senate rules reduce overall odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes ecosystem protection; right emphasizes federal overreach and business harm.
Substantive conservation goals increase appeal, but regulatory burdens, industry opposition, committee jurisdictional complexity, and Senat…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused substantive statutory prohibition on take/import/export and trade in designated coral reef species, with extensive definitions, delegated agency…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.