Seafood is an iconic staple of our summer diets, but that shrimp on your po’boy may not be what it seems.

Despite promises of “fresh Gulf seafood” on menus across the country, many diners are unknowingly served imported products falsely labeled as local catch.  

Stark evidence of this came just last year, when an iconic Mississippi restaurant shocked the Gulf Coast by pleading guilty to selling more than 29 tons of mislabeled seafood, which led to a fine of more than $1 million and a prison sentence for the manager of the restaurant’s seafood distributor. The restaurant served what it called fresh Gulf seafood, like red snapper and grouper, when it was actually selling cheaper foreign imports to unwitting customers.  

This was not an isolated incident, but a warning sign.  

This type of seafood fraud dupes consumers, hides health risks and hurts honest fishermen and seafood businesses. It can occur anywhere throughout the complex seafood supply chain, especially with gaps in traceability requirements for the seafood we import. Without robust traceability systems and consumer labeling in place, dishonest actors can swap out species, hide origins, and lie about catch methods with little fear of being caught.  

This makes it more important than ever for the government to protect consumers and domestic fishermen. Due to shortcomings with the current seafood traceability program in the United States, seafood lovers, businesses and domestic fishermen aren’t comprehensively shielded from fraud.   

States are taking matters into their own hands, and this is especially true on the Gulf Coast. The case in Mississippi led the Magnolia State to adopt a law that went into effect in July requiring all seafood and crawfish sold in every restaurant, grocery store, market and food truck be labeled as either “imported” or “domestic.” Violators face fines of up to $10,000 or up to six months in jail.  

Louisiana and Alabama recently adopted similar laws, and Texas is following suit with a new shrimp-labeling law set to go into effect in September. Now, when you sit down at a restaurant in one of these places, you will be closer to knowing what’s actually on your plate.    

A Southern Shrimp Alliance seafood fraud analysis showed the distinct difference between states that have implemented seafood labeling laws and those that have not. In states that lack restaurant labeling laws, a jaw-dropping 75 percent of restaurants where seafood was tested appeared to offer U.S. wild-caught shrimp when they were selling imported, farm-raised products. That number was 34 percent in the states where seafood labeling laws are in place.  

Although these regional attempts at solutions matter, we know that seafood fraud is an interstate and international problem. State-level fixes are important, but patchwork policies can’t keep up with a product that crosses oceans and borders. The only real solution is strong, nationwide traceability. This includes catch documentation with key information about the origins of our seafood that is tracked from the farm or net to the final point of sale — making it harder to mislabel or defraud customers.  

Fortunately, we already have a tool in place: the Seafood Import Monitoring Program, which requires documentation and traceability for certain at-risk species of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, as well as seafood fraud. But this program currently covers less than half of all imported seafood. That’s a gaping hole in our food safety and enforcement system. Expanding it to cover all seafood imports, and enforcing it with robust oversight, would help reduce seafood fraud and keep illegal fishing products from our supply chain.   

This isn’t just about consumer protection; it’s about economic fairness and national food security. The U.S. seafood industry supports 1.6 million jobs and contributes billions to our economy. Our fishers do dangerous, vital work to feed the nation, and their livelihoods are threatened by seafood with a fake backstory and a falsified label.   

We must ensure that all of the seafood coming into our country is safe, legally caught, responsibly sourced and honestly labeled. That requires end-to-end traceability — from the point of catch to the final point of sale — coupled with consumer labeling laws to guarantee that consumers, regulators and businesses alike have access to critical data about their seafood.   

It’s the only way we can truly know what’s on our plate and how it got there.   

Max Valentine, Ph.D., is the campaign director and senior scientist for Oceana’s illegal fishing and transparency campaign in the United States. 

The deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. has led to a media and political meltdown. In the New York Times, a column  lamented that the military had not revolted against the civilian president.

Even, so, commentators declared a “coup” because the federal government reasserted its constitutional power over the federal district. A Justice Department employee went so far as to scream profanities at federal officers on the street and assault one of them with a submarine sandwich. He was declared a “freedom fighter” against “the Gestapo.”

The utter lunacy of the left was again triggered by Trump with an almost Pavlovian predictability. Trump rang the bell, and suddenly thousands of Democratic leaders began to salivate. In addition to denying a very real crime crisis in the district, Democrats immediately pivoted on the issue to renew unpopular demands for D.C. statehood. 

 Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, insisted that this was only happening because “American citizens lack the protections of statehood.”

Ankit Jain echoed that view. Jain occupies a farcical position as “D.C. shadow senator,” an unpaid position in which he pretends to be a member of the U.S. Senate. Jain wrote that “it’s entirely possible that people will die as a result” of the deployment. He insisted that this would not occur in states where democracy governs: “We may not have it in Washington, but if you live in any of the other 50 states, you do.” 

Over the years, I have testified five times in the House and Senate to argue for the restoration of full representation for residents in Washington, D.C. Residents could have a governor, two real U.S. senators, a voting representative in the House, a state legislature, and every other trapping of statehood. It needs only to go back whence it came.

D.C. needs to return to Maryland through “retrocession.” 

In academic writings, I have advocated for what I called “modified retrocession” where Maryland would take back the land given initially to create what was called “the federal city.”

The Framers did not want the capital under the control of any state, so they created the federal enclave to be under the control of Congress as a whole.  Originally, the outlines of the federal city were laid out by none other than George Washington as the surveyor. It was a diamond shape, with territory ceded by both Virginia and Maryland. Within a few decades, Virginians in what is now Arlington County and Alexandria came to regret not having direct representatives and were allowed to retrocede back to their state.

That left the triangle of territory from Maryland. However, Marylanders did not agree with their Virginian counterparts. They liked living in the federal enclave and decided to remain without direct representation.

Congress previously allowed retrocession and could do so again. Under my prior proposal, the federal enclave would be reduced to the small sliver of land upon which our Capitol, Supreme Court, and the White House rest. 

It would finally give every Washington resident full representation. Also, in a city notoriously mismanaged for years, D.C. residents would be part of a state that excels in areas like education that could materially improve their positions.

So if the lack of representation is so intolerable, why wouldn’t Washington return to Maryland? It would give every Washington resident a voting representative in the U.S. House, two senators, a governor in a sovereign state, and a state legislature.

The reason is politics at its most cynical and hypocritical.

Democrats only want two senators representing D.C. if it boosts their numbers. It’s not good enough to give them Maryland’s senators. What’s more, Maryland Democrats will not suffer a shift in the center of their state’s political gravity from Baltimore to Washington. Finally, D.C. Democratic leaders are not eager to share power with Maryland Democrats, as they might gain all the trappings of a state.

This is why, for decades, Democrats have settled to leave D.C. voters without direct representation in Congress. They decided it is better to lament the lack of representation on license plates than to give residents such representation through retrocession of the residential sections of D.C. to Maryland.

Polling shows that most Americans still oppose statehood for this one city — a Vatican-like city-state. That is why Democrats are not keen on attempting a new constitutional amendment to change the status of the city. They would rather bewail the lack of direct representation while, ironically, trying to achieve effective statehood without a direct vote of citizens on a constitutional amendment. 

The fact is, Trump has every right to deploy the National Guard in Washington and to take over the D.C. police. Those are entirely lawful and constitutional orders. Yet the New York Times appears to have changed its position on the danger of insurrection.

The Times recently ran a bizarre column by former Obama officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson, “We Used to Think the Military Would Stand Up to Trump. We Were Wrong.” They complain that “it now seems clear to us that the military will not rescue Americans from Mr. Trump’s misuse of the nation’s military capabilities.”

The “rescue” would have meant military personnel disobeying a direct order from the commander-in-chief because they disagreed with the need for the deployment. In fairness to the New York Times, that is not exactly an insurrection — it is more of a mutiny.

What is striking about this debate is how entirely untethered it is from anything that touches upon reality.

Statehood remains easily attainable for Washington, if Democrats would only stop opposing retrocession. Meanwhile, the deployment is clearly constitutional, regardless of how many columns or submarine sandwiches you throw about in another furious fit. 

The only thing that is clear is that Washington residents are again being played. They remain political props left stateless because returning them to full representation is not politically advantageous. They are given make-believe “shadow senators” and protest license plates rather than restoring their prior status. As with the debate over crime, few want to discuss how to solve this problem.

Given the opposition of the Democrats, Trump should take the lead and order federal officials to develop a blueprint for retrocession. He should use his office to fully inform the American people, and particularly D.C. residents, of the benefits of returning to Maryland.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”