There were a few, but not to recapture Jerusalem, which everyone could now see was a pointless waste of time.

Edward’s crusade ended in 1272. There was no hope of retaking Jerusalem at that point, partly because Mamluk Egypt was just too strong, but also because the remaining crusader cities along the coast and on Cyprus could never agree to anything. There were various factions there (the “native” crusader barons, the military orders, the various Italian merchants, the Angevins, etc) and sometimes they preferred to go to war with each other rather than cooperate against Egypt. Over the next 20 years the Mamluks captured all the remaining cities, notably Tripoli in 1289, and Acre in 1291.

In Europe, the Council of Lyon in 1274 called for a new crusade, and Edward was in contact with Abaqa, the ruler of the Mongol Ilkhanate in Persia, but no one was willing to spend money, time, or effort on an obviously hopeless cause.

In 1306, a French author, Pierre Dubois, wrote “On the Recovery of the Holy Land." Among his suggestions were a new church council to establish peace between all the states of Europe, reform of the military orders, better education for ambassadors and missionaries to the east, and, uh, *checks notes* establish one of the sons of the king of France as Emperor of the East!? Ok, sure…

But then a few years later the Templars were suppressed, the Papacy was in chaos and had to move to Avignon, there was war between England and France...who could possibly think about going on crusade?

Everyone also had “crusade fatigue”. It seems like people today generally imagine crusades were glorious victories, but in reality, Europe sucked at crusading. They were really terrible at it. The First Crusade was successful sort of by accident, and only because it was unexpected. Every other crusade to the Near East/Egypt was either a massive failure, or only a minor success that wasn’t really worth the effort. The only reason those ones had any success at all was because there were friendly crusader states in the east after the First Crusade. Cyprus was still there in the 14th century, but the ones on the mainland were all gone after 1291. Why would anyone want to go on such an expensive and pointless expedition where they would basically have to start all over again, against a powerful enemy that was fully expecting them?

Nevertheless, there were a few more crusades after that, but no one was concerned with getting Jerusalem back anymore. The crusades in the Baltic continued throughout the 14th and 15th centuries. There were crusades against the Ottomans in 1396 (the Battle of Nicopolis) and 1444 (the Battle of Varna), but they failed too.

So, in short, there were a few attempts, but they knew they would never get Jerusalem back. They were much more concerned with political and religious disputes within Europe. Everyone also realized that they were actually pretty crappy at crusading, and it was actually a big waste of time after all!

Sources:

Norman Housley writes a lot about crusading post-1291:

The Later Crusades, 1274-1580 (Oxford University Press, 1992)

Crusading in the Fifteenth Century: Message and Impact (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004)

Pierre Dubois' book has also been translated:

Walther I. Brandt, trans., Pierre Dubois: The Recovery of the Holy Land (Columbia University Press, 1956)