The Trump administration's decision to extend the Jones Act waiver for another 90 days has sparked mixed reactions. U.S. maritime groups are happy about new limits on foreign vessels, but they warn that continued exemptions could hurt efforts to rebuild the domestic maritime industry.
On Monday, President Donald Trump extended the waiver that allows foreign-flagged ships to transport oil and other goods between U.S. ports. This exemption will continue for another 90 days starting August 17.
This extension comes as the ongoing conflict with Iran disrupts global energy flows and pushes fuel prices higher. There is increasing pressure on the administration to relieve transportation bottlenecks and keep domestic energy supplies flowing.
However, the administration has tailored the waiver after receiving feedback from U.S. shipbuilders and vessel operators. Instead of a blanket exemption, each individual voyage will now be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Matthew Paxton, President of the Shipbuilders Council of America, welcomed the move toward a more limited waiver process. He emphasized the importance of checking U.S. vessel availability before allowing foreign ships into U.S. trade.
“As global instability highlights the need to strengthen American maritime and shipbuilding, we are pleased that the Administration is adopting a limited Jones Act waiver process—one that ensures U.S. ship availability and limits foreign exploitation,” Paxton stated.
He also cautioned that broad waivers could undermine the administration's efforts to revive U.S. shipbuilding by discouraging investment in new vessels, while the administration looks to boost the domestic maritime industry after years of decline.
“Broad Jones Act waivers hinder long-term investments needed for our commercial shipbuilding and domestic supply chains,” Paxton explained. “As we work with the Trump Administration on revitalizing our maritime sector, any future exemptions during this 90-day period need to be strictly justified on national security grounds to protect our progress.”
The American Waterways Operators (AWO), which represents the U.S. tugboat and barge industry, also approved of the changes but expressed disappointment that the broader waiver was not allowed to expire.
“While we appreciate the discussions with the Administration that led to some changes, we are disappointed that the waiver has been extended,” the group stated.
AWO argued that the waiver has not been dictated by military needs, hasn't reduced gasoline prices, and has enabled foreign vessels—some linked to China and Russia—to compete with American operators.
Moving forward, AWO aims to ensure that individual waiver applications are closely scrutinized, including confirming national defense needs and the availability of qualified U.S. vessels.
They also called for foreign vessels operating under the waiver to adhere to U.S. tax, immigration, labor, and environmental regulations.
The American Maritime Partnership (AMP), which supports the Jones Act, echoed similar sentiments.
AMP President Jennifer Carpenter referred to the shift to individual reviews as “an improvement,” noting that the previous blanket waiver had hurt American mariners and shipbuilders.
However, Carpenter expressed regret that the waiver itself was extended.
“The waiver has not reduced fuel prices for American consumers and has been used to increase profits for oil traders, not to address military needs,” Carpenter stated.
AMP urged the administration to carefully review the national defense justification for each application and ensure that U.S.-flagged vessels are considered before allowing exemptions for foreign ships.
The waiver has already led to significant foreign-flagged shipping activity. Data from the Maritime Administration shows that 212 voyages were completed under this exemption by August 8.
Supporters of Jones Act reform highlighted these voyages as proof that the law hampers U.S. domestic commerce.
Colin Grabow and Scott Lincicome from the Cato Institute pointed out that over 54 million barrels of energy products have moved between U.S. ports on more than 200 voyages since the waiver began in March.
They argued that these shipments expose significant gaps in the Jones Act-qualified fleet, particularly with regards to vessels suitable for carrying commodities like bulk propane and asphalt. The waiver also enabled nearly 15 million barrels of shipments to the West Coast and facilitated new propane movements to Puerto Rico.
“The waiver has provided real-world data showing how much commerce has been restricted by this protectionist law for over a century,” Grabow and Lincicome explained.
However, they labeled the temporary exemption a “band-aid,” insisting that Congress should pursue broader revisions or even repeal the protectionist elements of the Jones Act entirely.
Americans for Prosperity went further, stating that the lengthy suspension highlights the need to eliminate the law entirely.
“President Trump should be commended for prioritizing American families over an outdated regulation,” said AFP Chief Government Affairs Officer Brent Gardner. “Extending the Jones Act waiver will help maintain energy flow during this critical time and strengthen the argument for the law's repeal, as temporary waivers can't replace permanent reforms.”
The Jones Act, formally known as Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, requires that cargo moving between U.S. ports must be transported on vessels that are U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, and U.S.-crewed.
This waiver was originally set to expire on August 16. With the added 90 days, it marks the longest suspension of the Jones Act in its history, which spans over a century.
The American Petroleum Institute supported the extension, claiming that targeted waivers provide necessary flexibility to transport American energy between domestic ports amid global market fluctuations. However, analysts have warned that while additional tanker availability may ease transport constraints, its impact on gasoline prices will likely be minimal.
These reactions highlight the growing divide over the implications of the unprecedented waiver for the future of the Jones Act.