The changes are designed to replace old diesel-burning engines and outdated at-sea cooling systems and are touted by environmentalists as a way to reduce seafood’s carbon footprint. Salmon harvesters in Washington state, scallop distributors in Maine and halibut fishermen in Alaska are among those who told The Associated Press their federal commitments for projects like new boat engines and refrigeration systems have been rescinded or are under review.

“The uncertainty. This is not a business-friendly environment,” said Togue Brawn, a Maine seafood distributor who said she is out tens of thousands of dollars. “If they want to make America great again, then honor your word and tell people what’s going on.”

Decarbonization of the fishing fleet has been a target of environmental activists in recent years. One study published in the Marine Policy journal states that more than 200 million tons of carbon dioxide were released via fishing in 2016.

That is far less than agriculture, but still a significant piece of the worldwide emissions puzzle. With Earth experiencing worsening storms and its hottest year on record in 2024, reducing the burning of fossil fuels across different industry sectors is critical to fighting climate change, scientists have said.

But climate-friendly projects often cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, leading fishermen to seek U.S. Department of Agriculture or Environmental Protection Agency funds to cover some costs. DOGE, a commission assembled to cut federal spending, has targeted both agencies for cutbacks.

That has left fishermen like Robert Buchmayr of Seattle on the hook for huge bills. Buchmayr said he is nearing completion of a refrigeration project for a salmon boat and was counting on a $45,000 USDA grant to pay for a chunk of it. The agency told him last month the funding is on hold until further notice, he said.

“I’m scrambling, where does the money come from. I was counting on the grant,” Buchmayr said. “I was under the impression that if you got a grant from the United States, it was a commitment. Nothing in the letter was saying, ‘Yes, we’ll guarantee you the funds depending on who is elected.’”

Fishermen search for answers after getting bad news

The full extent of the cuts is unclear, and fishermen affected by them described the situation as chaotic and confusing.

Representatives for the USDA and EPA did not respond to requests for comment from AP about the value of the cuts and whether they were permanent. Dan Smith, USDA Rural Development’s state energy director for Alaska, said updates about some grants could arrive in April.

Numerous fishermen, commercial fishing groups and advocates for working waterfronts told AP they learned about the changed status of their grant money in February and March. Some were told the money would not be coming and others were told the funds were frozen while they were subject to a review.

Many prospective grant recipients said they have had difficulty getting updates from the agencies. The lack of certainty has fishermen worried and seeking answers, said Sarah Schumann, a Rhode Island fisherman and director of the Fishery Friendly Climate Action Campaign, a fishermen-led network that works on climate issues.

“They’ve started contacting me in the last couple of weeks because they’ve had the plug pulled on money that was already committed,” Schumann said. “If they miss a season they could go out of business.”

In Homer, Alaska, Lacey Velsko of Kaia Fisheries was excited for her decarbonization project, which she said hinged on hundreds of thousands of dollars via a USDA grant to improve a refrigeration system on one of her boats. The recently completed project burns less fuel and yields a higher quality project for the company, which fishes for halibut, Pacific cod and other fish, she said.

But, now the company is told the money is unavailable, leaving a huge cost to bear, Velsko said.

“Of course we think it was unfair that we signed a contract and were told we would be funded and now we’re not funded. If six months down the road we’re still not funded I don’t know what avenue to take,” she said.

Lack of funding puts businesses in jeopardy

The funding cuts have also hurt seafood processors and distributors, such as Brawn in Bremen, Maine. Brawn said she received a little more than half a USDA grant of about $350,000 before learning the rest might not arrive.

Brawn received the grant for Dayboat Blue, a project that uses a membership-based model to get Maine seafood to nationwide customers while reducing the carbon footprint of transportation and packaging.

“This model can really help fishermen, it can help consumers, it can help communities,” Brawn said. “What it’s going to do is it’s going to stop the program.”

The confusion on the waterfront is another example of the bumpy rollout of government cutbacks under Trump. The Trump administration halted its firings of hundreds of federal employees who worked on nuclear weapons programs last month. It also moved to rehire medical device, food safety and other workers lost to mass firings at the Food and Drug Administration. New tariffs on key trading partners have also been chaotic.

In Bellingham, Washington, EPA funding was paused for five engine replacement projects split between three companies, said Dan Tucker, executive director of the Working Waterfront Coalition of Whatcom County. He said the uncertainty about funding has made it difficult for fishermen to move ahead with projects that will ultimately benefit their businesses and the community at large.

“A lot of the small guys are like, ‘Well, I really want to help out with climate change but I can’t afford it,’” Tucker said.