By Mark J. Spalding, President, The Ocean Foundation
In the vast and interconnected world of marine conservation, few organizations have established themselves as vital to ocean health and American interests as The Ocean Foundation (TOF). Yet since January 2025, this respected institution has been caught in a perfect storm—buffeted by policy shifts, executive orders, and legal challenges that have left it and similar organizations struggling to stay afloat in a sea of uncertainty. This “perfect storm” will weaken Americans and put the American economy at greater risk.
The Executive Order That Froze an Ocean
On January 24, 2025, newly appointed Secretary of State Marco Rubio suspended federal foreign aid, including grants to The Ocean Foundation’s international programs. This action came just two days after Rubio issued a statement outlining the priorities of the Second Trump Administration’s State Department, stating that every dollar spent, program funded, and policy pursued must make America “safer,” “stronger,” and “more prosperous.”
An abrupt halt to TOF’s critical marine conservation work worldwide followed – work that directly serves those very interests. The United States has been a leader in ocean conservation, sharing information, capacity building, helping to build critical infrastructure, and even political capital such as in international fisheries management, combating marine debris, marine protected areas, coral reef conservation, the Global Tsunami Warning System, ocean acidification research, and the International Whaling Commission. The focus often includes scientific research, sharing best practices, providing financial and technical assistance, and advocating for strong international policies.
There is one global ocean that is too interconnected and complex for any single country to monitor, protect, and sustain. TOF’s international scientific collaborations are vital to American soft power, particularly in strategically crucial areas like the Pacific region. Of course, abandoning soft power by dismantling USAID, withdrawing from trade agreements, and eroding the trust of U.S. allies constitutes a shift away from using cultural influence, diplomacy, and foreign aid to attract and persuade other nations. Without this soft power, the U.S. must instead rely on coercive or transactional methods like economic sanctions, military threats, or trade tariffs. China has capitalized on the decline of U.S. soft power by increasing its presence in the Pacific via economic influence and cultural diplomacy. As a result, the U.S. risks ceding influence to China in the Pacific region. This shift undermines long-term alliances and allows China to fill the void.
Unfortunately, China stepping into the void is not always pretty. When the U.S. pulled out from the Solomon Islands, China moved in with promises of help, but what followed was a wave of logging, mining, and illegal fishing that wrecked both the land and the sea. Forests were stripped, rivers polluted, and runoff poured into the ocean, killing coral reefs, seagrass, and mangroves that locals rely on. What’s left is environmental destruction, social unrest, and a loss of control and ecological stability from which the Solomon Islands might never fully recover.
The foreign aid suspension was part of a broader executive order reevaluating U.S. foreign aid, which effectively froze approximately $60 billion in funding – less than 1% of the U.S. budget – to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and related programs. While Secretary Rubio later indicated that “humanitarian programs” would be exempted, the reality on the ground told a different story.
The Human and Diplomatic Cost
For TOF, the most immediate impact of the funding freeze was the effect on an 80-person ocean science workshop led by TOF staff that was already underway in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). Despite the U.S. ambassador to FSM requesting a waiver to continue because everyone was there and the money had been spent, the request was denied, “upending more than a year of planning, work, and building trust with our Pacific colleagues and grantees that the US is a committed partner.” The grants were made as part of the US government’s efforts to “limit Chinese influence” in the region.
The U.S. government’s efforts to limit Chinese influence in the Pacific region stem from several strategic, economic, and geopolitical concerns:
- Strategic and Security Concerns
China’s growing influence in the Pacific Islands, including a leaked security pact with the Solomon Islands, raises concerns about potential military expansion closer to U.S. territories and allies. This could undermine regional security and extend China’s power projection capabilities to the Second and Third Island Chains. The U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy aims to prevent China from coercing Taiwan into reunification, with Southeast Asia and the Pacific playing pivotal roles in this strategy. Additionally, a shift in the Freely Associated States’ alignment towards China could weaken U.S. defense architecture in the region. - Economic Competition
The US has aimed to maintain its access to Asia through trade and technology while limiting China’s access to critical technologies like semiconductors through targeted export controls. China has also used economic tools like infrastructure projects, loans, and trade agreements to gain influence in Pacific nations, often with strategic implications, such as controlling ports or digital infrastructure for military purposes. - Diplomatic Rivalry
Taiwan’s recognition by several Pacific nations aligns with the U.S. position, but China’s efforts to change this could undermine U.S.-led democratic partnerships. Beijing’s soft power initiatives include increased diplomatic engagement, people-to-people connections, and media presence in local languages to challenge U.S.-aligned norms in the region. - Broader Geopolitical Goals
Historically, the U.S. has aimed to counter China’s rise by strengthening alliances with regional actors like Japan, Australia, and ASEAN, enabling them to take leadership roles in regional security. These partnerships promote democratic norms and counter illiberal trends from a more Sino-centric regional order.
This FSM workshop incident illustrates the broader consequences of abrupt funding suspension, as opposed to policy and funding adjustments made over time. As a coalition of ocean conservation organizations noted in their letter to Ocean Caucus Members and the leadership of the Foreign Affairs Committee, “The abrupt suspension of work already underway and the reimbursements for work already done undermines America’s reputation and security.”
The timing couldn’t have been worse, the coalition argued. “Changes in ocean depth, chemistry, and temperature are accelerating, threatening marine ecosystems and the communities that depend on them. The programs now frozen provide critical support for sustainable fisheries that feed millions, protect coastal infrastructure worth billions, and help vulnerable nations build resilience against climate impacts.”
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) was even more blunt about the consequences, stating that “malnourished babies who depend on U.S. aid will die. Anti-terrorism programs will shut down, and our most deadly enemies will get stronger. Diseases that threaten the U.S. will go unabated and reach our shores faster.”
Between Executive Orders and Judicial Orders
The legal landscape surrounding the funding freeze quickly became as turbulent as storm-tossed seas. TOF staff and partners spent days getting stranded people home, reminding grantees that they could not spend funds to pursue goals, and trying to establish cash flow protocols to protect programs while funds were frozen. By mid-February, a federal judge ordered the U.S. to restore funds for foreign aid programs, which looked to be a lifeline for organizations like TOF. However, this judicial intervention provided little immediate relief.
“Despite the judicial stay on the pause on government contracts and grant spending, many portals have been shut down, slowing the reimbursement process,” noted a TOF internal document. The organization contacted their lead grants contact at the State Department, emphasizing that they had “numerous federal grant projects to implement, with staff and partners standing by,” but received only a noncommittal response that “official guidance is still underway.”
The legal battle escalated to the highest court in the land. By March 9, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s proposal to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid in a narrow 5-4 vote. The Court ordered Federal District Judge Amir Ali to clarify his earlier order to release aid quickly. Despite this ruling, nonprofit groups and businesses still waited for the money they were owed, leading to service cuts, worker layoffs, and stranded partners worldwide.
It wasn’t until March 3 that the U.S. Department of State finally lifted the suspension of certain awards, instructing recipients to “resume activities under the award(s) immediately.” Even then, not all programs were reinstated. TOF’s EPPIC program, for example, was slated for revision to make it more “America First” by removing small grants to developing nations that support their efforts to establish public-private partnerships to address plastic pollution.
The Strategic Argument for Ocean Conservation
Before and throughout this crisis, The Ocean Foundation has consistently made the case that its work directly supports America’s strategic interests across multiple domains.
The U.S. ocean economy contributes over $300 billion annually to the nation’s GDP, spanning sectors from seafood and tourism to shipping and biotechnology. TOF’s programs in sustainable fisheries management, marine habitat protection, and ocean acidification solutions help secure this economic engine. Additionally, their research assists military planners in protecting coastal installations and maintaining operational readiness.
Food security is another critical concern. Americans consume over 5 billion pounds of seafood annually, and TOF’s programs support sustainable fisheries and combat illegal fishing, enhancing food security for Americans worldwide. The organization’s Blue Resilience Initiative helps coastal communities restore critical fish habitat and adapt to changes in the coastal environment, protecting billions in infrastructure.
Perhaps most notably in the current geopolitical climate, TOF’s work in the Pacific Islands region demonstrates how ocean science diplomacy can advance both conservation and strategic interests. While China increases its presence through one-and-done infrastructure projects, TOF builds lasting partnerships through marine conservation and climate resilience programs. Their community-based programs effectively counter China’s infrastructure-focused engagement, maintaining American relationships through scientific collaboration and capacity building.
Constitutional Questions and Fiscal Responsibility
Policies can and often do change with a new Administration, but this abrupt cancellation of all activity left thousands of US citizens stranded without help or guidance and hundreds of tons of food purchased from American farmers rotting on ships—not to mention its effects on US relationships with other countries. The freeze raised serious constitutional questions that extend beyond the legality of breaching the contracts under which the aid is provided. As TOF noted, “there is no plausible argument that the President has the constitutional authority to refuse to spend previously appropriated or approved funds just because he doesn’t like how the money is being spent.”
Senator Murphy echoed this concern, questioning why the Administration would pursue a policy that benefits strategic competitors: “China—where [Elon] Musk makes his money—wants USAID destroyed. So does Russia. Trump and Musk are doing the bidding of Beijing and Moscow. Why?”
From a fiscal perspective, the coalition of ocean conservation organizations argued that “after a 90-day suspension, the cost of rebuilding these partnerships and programs will far exceed any short-term savings.” Many programs operate through carefully constructed international partnerships that have taken years to build, and their abrupt suspension damages America’s reputation as a reliable partner. Organizations and businesses spend this time and money because they have government contracts in hand and build those relationships on faith that the government will keep its word. Some cooperative knowledge sharing, data gathering, and other activities may never restart.
The Community Response
Faced with this unprecedented crisis, The Ocean Foundation and the broader ocean conservation community mobilized rapidly. TOF launched a comprehensive strategy in response to the shifts in U.S. foreign aid policy, including strategic consultations with Program Officers, crafting detailed donor correspondence, developing targeted communications, and preparing a substantive blog post demonstrating how their international initiatives align with stated policy priorities.
The organization also initiated a collaborative advocacy effort through an NGO sign-on letter, securing support from industry colleagues, and explored media outreach opportunities to amplify their message. An emergency board meeting was convened to review and refine TOF’s response strategy.
Meanwhile, supporters of TOF’s mission stepped up. “Thank you to all who have donated to help us through the crisis caused by the abrupt halt in federal funding for our work with small island states and other coastal nations worldwide,” wrote TOF. “A special thank you goes to those who called or wrote to their congressional representatives.”
Looking Ahead: Uncertain Seas
As of mid-March 2025, The Ocean Foundation had received confirmation that most of its federal grants had been reinstated, but the organization remains in a precarious position. The EPPIC program’s revision to eliminate support for developing nations addressing plastic pollution symbolizes the ongoing tension between “America First” policies and the inherently global nature of ocean conservation.
The crisis has exposed more profound issues about the role of ocean science diplomacy, the constitutional limits of executive power, and the strategic value of environmental leadership on the world stage. It also raises questions about the vulnerability of non-governmental organizations to political winds and the need for diverse funding streams to weather such storms.
For TOF and similar organizations, the past few months have been a harsh reminder of how quickly years of careful relationship-building and program development can be disrupted. Yet they continue to make the case that their work represents a strategic investment in American prosperity and global leadership – creating a “virtuous cycle in which environmental conservation strengthens national security, economic interests, and diplomatic relationships.”
As the organization navigates these troubled waters, the broader implications of this episode extend far beyond a single foundation or even the field of ocean conservation. They touch on fundamental questions about America’s role in the world, the constitutional separation of powers, and the long-term costs of short-term policy shifts.
In the interconnected global ocean that TOF works to protect, the ripple effects of these decisions will be felt for years to come—not just in marine ecosystems but also in diplomatic relationships, economic opportunities, and America’s standing on the world stage.
The Geopolitical Dimension
While the foreign aid funding freeze affected a tiny portion of the federal budget, its geopolitical implications are far-reaching, particularly in regions where the United States faces growing competition for influence.
The Ocean Foundation’s work in the Pacific Islands region offers a compelling case study. These island nations control vast exclusive economic zones and sit astride vital shipping lanes. They also face existential threats from climate change and ocean degradation – challenges that directly impact their economies, food security, and long-term viability.
China has steadily expanded its regional presence through infrastructure investments and development aid. The abrupt suspension of U.S.-funded programs created an opportunity for Beijing to position itself as a more reliable partner and gain access to strategic ports, fishing grounds, and other resources.
s TOF noted in its appeal, “By helping island nations develop sustainable fishing practices and climate adaptation strategies, TOF demonstrates a long-term commitment to regional stability while protecting crucial shipping lanes and maritime territories.” Suspending these programs risks “ceding influence to strategic competitors in vital areas like the Pacific Islands.”
The Way Forward
This crisis has highlighted the need for greater resilience and diversified funding sources for The Ocean Foundation and similar organizations. Federal funding requires an organization or business to raise unrestricted funds to spend towards reimbursement under the grant or contract agreement. It is well-known that political winds can shift, and policies can be amended. However, they generally occur after existing contracts have been fulfilled, whether for non-profit organizations, businesses, or farms. While federal grants enable crucial support for international programs, reliance on this funding creates vulnerability to a new kind of shift no one anticipated.
The outpouring of private support during the crisis demonstrates that there is a constituency for ocean conservation work that transcends political divisions. Building on this base of support may provide a buffer against future funding disruptions, but it, too, is vulnerable to other economic forces.
At the same time, TOF continues to make the case that its work directly supports American interests as defined by the current Administration. By demonstrating how ocean conservation contributes to security, prosperity, and global leadership, the organization hopes to build broader political support for its mission.
The ocean conservation community also recognizes the need for greater coordination and collective advocacy. The coalition letter to Congress represents one step in this direction, bringing together multiple organizations to speak with a united voice about the importance of sustained funding for marine conservation programs.
As The Ocean Foundation navigates these challenging times, its experience offers valuable lessons for other non-governmental organizations working at the intersection of science, policy, and international relations. It underscores the importance of clearly articulating how scientific conservation work serves national interests, building diverse coalitions, and maintaining the flexibility to adapt to changing political and natural landscapes.
In the end, the fate of the ocean will depend not just on funding decisions but also on a national conversation about America’s role in the world and its approach to global challenges that respect no borders—challenges like climate change, ocean health, and the sustainable management of shared resources.
For The Ocean Foundation, an organization dedicated to protecting the world’s interconnected waters and the communities that depend on them, this unprecedented political disruption demands immediate action, not passive acceptance. We stand firm in the face of threats to our mission. The ocean contributes $300 billion annually to the nation’s GDP while providing vital ecological services – making it an environmental priority and a critical component of national security and economic stability.
The systematic undermining of conservation efforts is unacceptable and threatens both marine ecosystems and the livelihoods of countless Americans who depend on healthy coasts. By integrating sustainable natural resource use with ecological conservation through community empowerment, we continue fighting to build resilient models that reimagine maritime sectors as living components of marine ecosystems with ongoing cultural significance.
Photo Above: Aerial view of a cargo ship. Credit: Cameron Venti / Ocean Image Bank