I’ve seen a few discussions here about the Jones Act waiver the administration put in place back in March allowing foreign-flagged vessels to move fuel, fertilizer, and other energy-related cargo between U.S. ports. Now that it has been extended another 90 days through mid-August, it seems fair to ask whether the waiver has actually accomplished its stated purpose. Fuel prices and supply concerns were the justification for the emergency action, but I haven’t seen much evidence that the waiver materially improved those issues. Meanwhile, the longer it stays in place, the more it starts to look less like a temporary measure and more like a precedent.
I understand why places like Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and Alaska support these measures. Shipping costs in those markets are an issue, and lawmakers from those regions have been vocal about wanting relief.
At the same time, there are people in the contiguous states who see this very differently.
The waiver allows foreign-flagged vessels to move certain commodities between U.S. ports, and there are concerns about what this means long term for U.S.-flag jobs, shipbuilding, and domestic coastwise operators.
What concerns me is that this debate usually gets framed as “lower prices (mainly for the non-contiguous markets) vs protectionism,” but there are also national security and workforce questions tied into it. MARAD and DHS both state that the Jones Act exists in part to maintain a U.S.-owned, U.S.-built, and U.S.-crewed fleet available for national defense and domestic commerce.
I’m genuinely curious:
Is anyone actively involved in pushing back on these waivers or following the regulatory side closely? Or do most people think this is just temporary and not something that will materially affect the industry long term?
Lot of folks from industry, the unions, and from interest groups are pushing back heavily. The problem is that even writing to senators and congressmen is a mixed bag. Mine for example replied with the following “shut up and accept that we’re doing this” email:
I understand your concerns with the Jones Act, which was intended to support American shipbuilding and commerce, and waivers of its requirements by President Trump.
While I respect your perspective, I support President Trump’s decision. As the conflict in Iran has disrupted oil and gas markets, so too have prices at the pump risen for everyday Americans. This waiver will help mitigate short-term impacts from the conflict, allowing non-American flagged, built, and crewed ships to transport goods between U.S. ports, including oil.
Rest assured; Congress and the Trump Administration are also working to improve shipbuilding in America. That is why I was proud to support the Working Families Tax Cut Act, which invests $29 billion in shipbuilding.
So yeah, not much caring from our reps who have no real understanding that it does NOTHING to help everyday Americans at the pump and grocery store.
Tbh I don’t think most people notice until it starts affecting jobs or local operators directly. Worth keeping an eye on MARAD filings though, that’s usually where the real direction shows up before headlines do.
Wow! What stands out to me is that this response focuses almost entirely on short-term fuel prices while avoiding the larger concern many mariners are raising.
I also find it difficult to support expanded foreign-flag participation in domestic trade while simultaneously claiming to support rebuilding the U.S. maritime industry. Those two positions seem fundamentally at odds.
I believe once it starts directly affecting individuals’ jobs and especially local operators, it will be too late. I will definitely keep an eye on MARAD.
One of the joys of living in a landlocked state is idiocy when it comes to maritime issues. I have yet to ever receive anything even resembling a coherent response on maritime issues from Cotton, Boozeman, or Hill.
I wrote a proposal that could become the technical implementation for the SHIPS for America Act and submitted it to my local congressman here in California. His legislative assistants have had correspondence with me so will see how it goes. Getting involved with local politicians is the first step. It’s time we think outside the box to shift the US Merchant Marine from protectionist to expansionist, otherwise we will lose it forever.
What I’ve learned from following CATO, who tracks MARAD’s list of vessels using the waivers, is that cargo is there to be hauled, just need the ships to do it with.
The idea behind my proposal was to create a pragmatic way to scale up the merchant marine fleet without hurting the consumer or using direct government subsidies. To create a circular economy for shipping companies through incentives, tax breaks, cargo preference, and maritime levy on foreign carried cargo etc.
Even though I don’t sail anymore I know how important our Merchant Marine is and now is the time to make a stand or risk losing what little maritime sovereignty we have left.
I’ve attached the pillars of what I developed. It’s called the Maritime Workforce and Industrial Scaling Supplement or MWISS. I am open to discussion about it.
Interesting report you’ve come up with. Some good stuff there.
I’m not sure a 1:1 for brown water is necessary. We don’t seem to have a problem building tugs/barges/OSV/the like. I think I’d rather see a provision for oil rigs/platforms flagged in Marshall Islands or elsewhere that are actively drilling in US waters or EEZ’s. I’d even do a 3:1 for them as idk when the last time the US built an oil rig.
As far as section 2 is concerned, this is all a nice idea but it already kind of exists with KP. They have a requirement to sail, it’s discussed ad naseum how they do not fulfill that obligation, yet there is no entity enforcing the penalty for it. In my opinion we’d be better off having some entity enforce the requirement to sail, and if the obligation is not met that they either re pay their tuition, enlist in the US Navy, or sail for MSC until their obligation is fulfilled.
Section 3 - no income taxes is an insane ask and I doubt that would ever be considered, however I do think some sort of tax break would be beneficial and deserved. I do think the provision about “commercial trade” would need to be changed to include government contracts, otherwise 3/4 of the deep sea sailors would still be paying taxes.
If you’re actually engaging with your congressman about this, that is great news. SHIPS Act seems all but dead to me, sadly. Hopefully we can get something written into law to get this shit show of a merchant marine back off the ground.
I wanted to include the brown water fleet, even though they are pretty competitive already. The idea is to grow the whole fleet of ships in the country. The drillship idea is a good one.
The section 2 was to expand that to all maritime academies and schools. IF, big IF this was ever enacted the need for mariners would explode and become a problem. The idea is to help alleviate that.
No income tax is a big ask indeed, but it aligns with all other maritime nations in the world. The United States is one of the few countries that aggressively taxes its mariners. By alleviating them of income tax it benefits the mariners and companies as well, helping bring operating costs closer to foreign operators.
Thank’s for the feedback. Lots of big ideas, but the answer is never NO if you don’t ask.
I saw an article (from last week I think) that said the JA fleet is still being fully utilized but that additional cargos are also getting moved now as well.
If that’s the case it sounds like more JA ships are needed.
As long as they SAIL US flag idk why it matters. Their commitment says they’ll sail US flag snd keep a reserve commission for 7 years. I’d be happy if they did either of those honestly.
How would California, Oregon and Washington State get sufficient supplies of petroleum products, if not for the extra capacity offered by using foreign flag tankers under the waiver?
Where would the extra tonnage come from, if not for the waiver?
What would the price of petrol be on the East and West Coasts have been, if there were no extra shipping capacity when ME crude supplies dried up?
How many JA trade ships and ATBs are idle, laid up or scraped because of the present waiver?
PS: Refineries can NOT change from Heavy Crude Oil to WTI overnight.
