The squid, which has no shell at all, has been embroiled in legal disputes for a remarkably long time. That argument might be coming to an end. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed changing its definition of “shellfish” in March 2026 to formally include cephalopods, such as squid, cuttlefish, octopus, and nautilus. This would close a regulatory loophole that had long silently irritated exporters and fishermen.
The issue stems from language that was written long before anyone realized how complex it would become. Shellfish are defined by federal law as “an aquatic invertebrate having a shell.”” Of course, squid are invertebrates. However, unlike the hard exterior of a clam or oyster, their shell, if you can call it that, is internal, a thin, flexible structure known as a gladius. Squid has always been handled by NOAA Fisheries as shellfish. USFWS did not, taking the statute more literally. The whole story lies in that mismatch.
It seems like a small technicality. For those who actually load squid onto trucks at ports in Point Judith or New Bedford, it hasn’t felt that way. The three main commercial U.S. squid fisheries—Atlantic longfin, Atlantic Illex, and California market squid—have been subject to wildlife import and export licensing, inspection requirements, and user fees that most other seafood never experiences because squid was not covered by USFWS’s shellfish exemption. It’s difficult to argue otherwise when a shipment of shrimp clears with paperwork while a shipment of squid doesn’t. Industry associations have characterized the process as slow and redundant.
Since at least 2020, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has been opposing this, designating it as a top priority in reaction to two different executive orders from the president regarding seafood competitiveness. Letters were sent out. There were meetings. Federal rulemaking typically proceeds at the speed of tide pools rather than headlines, so nothing changed for years.
Cost is what appears to have finally made a difference. Last fall, the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy observed that small fishing operations—the type of businesses without a compliance department to absorb additional fees and delays—were incurring actual costs due to the ambiguity. Within months of that argument being put in writing, the proposed rule was implemented.
If approved, the change would completely transfer squid oversight to NOAA Fisheries, eliminating USFWS and bringing squid into line with its current biological treatment as a mollusk that has evolved to shed the bulky armor that its shelled relatives retained. Something about that seems almost appropriate. Millions of years ago, squid sacrificed their shells for flexibility and speed; now, the documentation is catching up with the biology.
Early in April 2026, the public comment period ended, and the agency has indicated that it will review comments before releasing a final rule. It’s unclear how quickly that will happen because federal deadlines tend to slip. However, even a small, unglamorous regulatory cleanup is a victory for an industry that has been demanding this precise solution since before the pandemic. Outside of the trade press, it won’t make headlines. However, it will significantly simplify the mornings for some fishermen.
