Nine U.S. maritime labor organizations are expressing significant concerns about the ongoing Jones Act waiver from the Trump administration. They warn that foreign-flagged ships might be making domestic trips without fulfilling federal reporting requirements and other legal protections meant to safeguard American sailors and national security.
In a letter dated October 27, addressed to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) and Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee Ranking Member Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.), the unions questioned whether the waiver follows the restrictions put in place by the Fiscal Year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
This letter arrives as the administration's Jones Act waiver, initially issued on March 17 to address disruptions related to the war in Iran, is nearing its expiration on November 15 after two extensions. This waiver permits certain foreign-flagged vessels to carry cargo between U.S. ports, temporarily ignoring the Jones Act's requirement that domestic cargo be moved only by vessels that are U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, and U.S.-crewed.
The main issue is whether the waiver meets the NDAA’s requirement that such exemptions should only be allowed when it is "necessary in the interest of national defense to address an immediate adverse effect on military operations."
The unions contend that the level of foreign vessel activity allowed under the waiver doesn’t align with this standard.
“The Administration has provided Congress and the public with minimal information regarding the necessity for the waivers and the availability of U.S. vessels as required by law,” the organizations stated.
They also claim that some recipients of the waiver have not submitted adequate documentation, missed essential reporting deadlines, or failed to report their journeys entirely.
Federal regulations require vessel operators to send post-voyage reports to the Maritime Administration within 10 days, which should include details about the vessel, cargo, ports visited, and how the voyage served national defense interests.
According to the unions, many operators have provided vague justifications or simply marked “not applicable” when asked to clarify the national defense reasons for their movements.
Concerns About Foreign Crews
The labor organizations have also raised concerns about the employment of foreign mariners on vessels conducting domestic transportation. They highlight possible violations of immigration, labor, and tax laws.
The letter poses specific questions about whether foreign crew members holding D-1 visas are allowed to work on vessels transporting cargo between U.S. ports.
“Immigration law, for example, prohibits foreign crew members with a D-1 visa from participating in domestic commerce, yet many operations under the waiver seem to employ these D-1 visa mariners,” the unions noted.
Additionally, they pointed to recent guidance from the Internal Revenue Service that raises questions about U.S. tax responsibilities for foreign vessel operators and mariners involved in domestic shipping.
They argue that allowing foreign crews to handle domestic shipping without meeting the same legal, licensing, and security requirements puts U.S. mariners at a disadvantage.
The letter further expresses national security concerns, mentioning the reported use of the waiver by COSCO, a Chinese state-owned shipping company, and an incident involving Russian mariners.
“These issues are particularly alarming because the Jones Act waiver was meant to enhance national security,” the organizations stated. “Instead, it seems to have facilitated many domestic voyages by foreign vessels staffed by foreign crews, exempt from laws that Congress intended to enforce.”
While the unions cite media reports of potential espionage activities involving COSCO vessels near U.S. coastlines, the letter does not confirm that any vessel operating under the waiver was involved in such actions.
Increased Oversight
This letter adds to growing scrutiny from Congress regarding the waiver, including questions posed by Carbajal earlier this month about foreign vessel reporting and legal compliance.
As gCaptain reported on October 19, Carbajal requested clarification from Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin on how the department is enforcing immigration, tax, and maritime regulations for foreign vessels operating under the waiver.
This inquiry followed Bloomberg Government's investigation, which uncovered evidence of at least 14 previously unreported domestic tanker voyages, indicating that foreign vessels transported over $40 million worth of petroleum products without being recorded in MARAD's public waiver records.
A review of MARAD data from September 16 identified 255 completed movements under the initial waiver and its first extension, suggesting that the official count was not comprehensive.
MARAD has previously indicated to Bloomberg Government that it lacks the authority to compel operators to submit required reports, as enforcement of the Jones Act falls under the jurisdiction of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The administration has since revised its waiver procedures. Following the August 17 extension, operators now must submit requests for vessel availability before undertaking a voyage, allowing MARAD to determine if a qualified U.S.-flag vessel is available. The Department of Defense will then assess whether the movement qualifies under the waiver.
It remains unclear if these changes effectively address the larger compliance issues.
Carbajal has asked for a response from DHS by October 31.
The October 27 letter was signed by leaders of nine maritime labor organizations, including the Seafarers International Union, American Maritime Officers, Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association, Masters, Mates and Pilots, Sailors’ Union of the Pacific, American Radio Association, Marine Firemen’s Union, AFL-CIO Maritime Trades Department, and AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department.
“American mariners are ready to support the nation’s energy, transportation, and national security needs,” the unions emphasized. “We ask only for proper enforcement of the laws passed by Congress.”