The Heritage Foundation’s controversial plan dubbed “Project 2025” is proposing significant changes to the U.S. maritime industry, including a potential transfer of the Maritime Administration (MARAD) and a substantial reform or repeal of the Jones Act.
The plan suggests moving MARAD from the Department of Transportation (DOT) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the Department of Defense, arguing that MARAD’s position within DOT is unique as it doesn’t regulate the industry it represents—as this falls under the Coast Guard and independent Federal maritime Commission (FMC). MARAD also has dual responsibilities in peacetime commerce and wartime sealift. These factors, including management of the National Defense Reserve Fleet and 45-ship Ready Reserve Force, set MARAD apart from other modal administrations within the DOT. Consequently, its missions and funding priorities have often been underappreciated in DOT planning and budgeting.
According to the Project 2025, “MARAD would be better served by being transferred from DOT to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),” aligning MARAD with the U.S. Coast Guard, which is also part of the DHS, and potentially improving operational efficiencies in maritime sector oversight and regulation.
LATEST VIDEOS
Regarding the Jones Act, Project 2025 advocates for “serious consideration… to repealing or substantially reforming the Jones Act,” citing economic costs that “vastly exceed its effect on the supply of domestic ships.” The plan points out that “no liquified natural gas (LNG) can be shipped from Alaska to the lower 48 states because there are no U.S.-flagged ships that carry LNG,” highlighting potential inefficiencies in the current system.
The proposal also argues that transferring MARAD to DHS could streamline disaster response efforts, as FEMA falls under DHS as well. Additionally, it could improve the Jones Act waiver process, which initially requires MARAD to conduct a market survey of available shipping tonnage.
“Transferring MARAD to DHS would make coordination and requisition of those vessels a smoother and more rapid process,” it states. The plan further suggests that placing MARAD under DHS could benefit the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, potentially aligning it more closely with the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.
The American Maritime Partnership (AMP), a leading domestic maritime industry association and staunch supporter of the Jones Act, asserts that the Jones Act “bolsters U.S. national security at no cost to the federal government,” while the U.S. Navy warns that repealing the Act would “hamper [America’s] ability to meet strategic sealift requirements and maintain and modernize our naval forces.”
Despite being championing similar policy goals during his presidency and Project 2025’s labeling as a “presidential transition plan”, former President Trump has been distancing himself from the plan in an attempt to maintain appeal to his base while avoiding association with the project’s more controversial aspects, which have faced criticism from moderates and progressives for potentially undermining democratic institutions.
Bottom line, Project 2025’s implementation could have far-reaching implications for the U.S. maritime industry, potentially affecting nearly 650,000 American jobs and $150 billion in annual economic contributions. With the upcoming November election, the future of America’s maritime policy just might hang in the balance.
For a maritime historian’s perspective on Project 2025’s plan for U.S. maritime policy, check out the below episode of What’s Going on with Shipping? from Sal Mercogliano below: