America’s supply chains are strained, shipping costs are soaring, and China’s running laps around us. Only a quarter of the U.S. Navy’s fleet was rolled out after 2010, compared to about 70 percent of China’s. China’s rapidly expanding shipbuilding capacity and productivity means they could outbuild and out-repair the U.S. in a real conflict. Our commercial fleet is even worse. Most U.S. container ships are past their prime, while China’s fleet is around half the age, according to a 2022 United Nations Trade and Development report.

Trump addressed America’s declining dominance of the seas in his April 9 “Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance” Executive Order (EO). The goal: make shipbuilding great again by launching the Maritime Action Plan, aimed at rebuilding our domestic maritime industries and workforce to boost economic prosperity and ensure greater self-reliance. The EO also established Maritime Prosperity Zones to encourage development and investment in coastal communities, and a Maritime Security Trust Fund to provide funding for maritime programs and financial incentives for shipbuilding in the U.S.

The EO fact sheet didn’t mince words about the state of U.S. shipping: 0.2% of the world’s ships are built in the U.S., while China builds 74%. When it comes to container ships — the massive ones that actually move global commerce — China makes 96% and not a single one is American-made. With the EO, Trump aimed to push back on China’s “non-market practices” and break its chokehold on global supply chains.

The EO highlighted more issues: a bloated regulatory system in the US, a shrinking US workforce, and foreign nations — friend or foe — capable of building ships at a fraction of what it costs in the U.S., all contributing to a less competitive U.S. maritime industry. The only problem with the EO? It avoided the elephant in the room: the Jones Act.

Officially coined the “Merchant Marine Act of 1920,” the Jones Act is a century-old protectionist law written for a post-World War I America that still controls how 21st-century goods move between U.S. ports today. Originally architected to jumpstart domestic shipbuilding to reduce reliance on foreign vessels — especially to be ready and able in times of war — under the Act, any cargo shipped between two U.S. ports must travel on a vessel built in America, owned by Americans, and crewed by Americans.

Practically, this means a ship from Panama (likely foreign-flagged) can stop at New Orleans to drop off cargo. But that same ship cannot then proceed to Miami with more cargo, even though it’s already in the U.S. Instead, the cargo must be either offloaded onto trucks or trains and shipped overland to Miami — far more expensive and inefficient than simply sailing it along the coast — or transferred to a U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged, U.S.-crewed ship, which is legally allowed to move it to Miami, and which are few and costly, making this method rare and expensive. Either option massively inflates the cost of the cargo.

Supporters of the Act — like the American Maritime Partnership, which represents the U.S. maritime industry, and Pete Buttigieg cosplaying as a logistics expert — argue it’s essential for economic stability, infrastructure and national security because it shields domestic shipbuilding from foreign competition — like China. They also claim it protects about 650,000 maritime jobs. But these arguments are problematic.

The U.S. has just 124 active shipyards, while China has over 2,000. Add in higher input costs, unionized labor, and suffocating regulations — many of which are the indirect consequence of the Jones Act — and you get a $190–$250 million price tag for building a ship in the U.S. — versus as low as $30 million abroad. Relying on shipbuilding at an enormously inflated cost to maintain the American supply chain is not a recipe for economic prosperity, and government officials even admit this. “Over the last few decades, the U.S. Maritime industry has suffered losses as companies, ships, and jobs moved overseas,” said former Maritime Administrator Mark Buzby in a 2018 statement to Congress. Since 2000, the fleet of Jones Act-compliant cargo ships has shrunk by nearly half — from 193 down to 99 — and only 78 are militarily useful.

Aging U.S. ships mean higher maintenance costs and greater risk of accidents, thanks to outdated safety standards and decades-old designs. They’re also a disaster for energy efficiency and the environment. Shipping by water is the most carbon-efficient way to move goods — but the Jones Act makes it so expensive in the U.S. that cargo gets shoved onto trucks and trains instead. That puts a strain on highways and railways, which means the need for more infrastructure spending. The result? More costs for consumers, more tax dollars down the drain, and more carbon emissions. Fun fact: 38 states and D.C. are connected by waterways, and 40% of Americans live near the coast — yet coastal shipping between U.S. ports accounts for just 2% of domestic freight, according to a 2018 Cato Institute report.

More, “national security” has become the ultimate political cheat code. Any policy can now be justified with the magic words “national security” — even when nobody can explain how, exactly, it’s relevant. Supporters of the Jones Act want us to rely on American shipbuilders in wartime, but those same shipbuilders can produce one vessel for every eight built abroad. How exactly does throttling the size of our fleet like this promote national security? The Act doesn’t boost our defenses — it has undermined both the shipbuilding capacity and the commercial fleet it supposedly is meant to safeguard.

Ironically enough, the Jones Act gets waived during times of crisis, because when it matters, even Washington admits it gets in the way. Waiving the Act allows for an easier flow of necessary goods and materials to affected areas. But, if cheaper, more reliable shipping is critical in times of disaster, why shouldn’t it be critical all the time? Don’t worry, it’s not supposed to make sense.

Bottom line: the Jones Act has depleted our domestic shipping fleet, undermined our military readiness, increased the cost of living, harmed the environment and is useless during times of crisis. Repealing the Act could increase U.S. economic output by up to $135 billion by making domestic shipping far cheaper, more efficient, and more competitive.

We’re at a crossroads: Trump already signed an EO aimed at cutting ten regulations for every new one, he wants to dominate the seas again, and he’s pushing for trade negotiations. If that momentum’s used right, we could finally be more competitive on the sea — and on our terms.

We shouldn’t be jacking up the cost of living for U.S. citizens for the sake of some ancient protectionist law. If we want a real maritime industry in America, the first step is simple: kill the Jones Act. DOGE that ship.

— Timothy Sekerak