For over 130 days, President Trump has waived the Jones Act, allowing foreign ships to carry cargo between U.S. ports. Supporters say this is a move for free trade.
But it's not.
Transporting oil from Texas to New Jersey is part of domestic commerce, similar to a UPS truck delivering across state lines. Once you call it "trade," you lose the argument. This is about domestic commerce, not a trade barrier, and it should be seen that way.
Those who support the waiver also claim that the Jones Act fleet is fully booked, so the waiver has no cost. That's incorrect. Reports indicate that ships have been sitting idle for months waiting for jobs, and brokers struggle to find contracts for their clients. An analysis from Navigistics Consulting showed that during the first 60 days of the waiver, nearly 90% of the diverted voyages could have been completed by Jones Act vessels.
The damage is real, even if it hasn't been fully analyzed until now.
The American maritime industry asked PwC, a leading accounting firm, to estimate the costs of a long-term waiver.
The results show: up to 21,650 direct maritime jobs at risk, and 133,700 total jobs impacted when considering related economic effects. Up to $12.2 billion in annual wages could be at stake. Potential losses of $26.5 billion in shipbuilding demand over the next decade and $2.6 billion in annual capital investment could go abroad. Up to $1.8 billion in tax revenue for federal, state, and local governments could be lost.
These figures are based on solid public data from those who took the time to do the math. In contrast, the waiver supporters haven't provided comparable information. When one side presents clear facts, and the other offers speculation, governance shouldn't rely on guesswork.
President Trump has built his political stance on opposing the outsourcing of American jobs. This waiver is a form of outsourcing in reverse: instead of sending jobs overseas, it brings in foreign crews to perform American jobs on American waters, transporting American goods between U.S. ports, while the associated wages and taxes go overseas.
In essence, it's outsourcing on water.
Additionally, this move benefits China, which already has a strong hold on global shipbuilding and is increasing its share of world shipping. Allowing foreign ships in American trade lanes opens the door for Chinese-built and owned vessels at a time when the U.S. is trying to reduce its economic reliance on China. You cannot revive American shipbuilding while giving away the demand necessary for it to thrive.
This approach undermines the administration’s Maritime Action Plan, which aims to rejuvenate American shipbuilding, expand the domestic fleet, and grow the maritime workforce. Shipyards cannot operate based on hope, and investors won't fund new vessels when the demand is given to foreign companies.
The argument that the Jones Act raises shipping costs in Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico needs a thoughtful response, not dismissal.
The reality is that shipping is just one piece of a larger puzzle; its impact on retail prices is variable and route-dependent. Even PwC admits that it’s hard to confidently measure consumer benefits with available data. In cases where real supply issues exist on specific routes, targeted waivers could solve problems without dismantling the entire domestic maritime industry.
There’s also a crucial security aspect. USTRANSCOM, Military Sealift Command, and the Maritime Administration have openly stated that the commercial fleet, shipyards, and trained mariners are vital for wartime shipping, as the Navy doesn’t have enough capacity for what a conflict would demand. If we weaken this base during peacetime, it won’t be there when urgently needed. Markets can't put a price on national security readiness.
Three groups need to grasp this situation.
The President should reject the idea that this is a trade issue. It follows the same principle that keeps foreign airlines off U.S. routes and prevents foreign companies from entering nuclear industries.
Members of Congress should understand that maritime workers aren’t seeking subsidies; they simply want to avoid being undercut by foreign competition in their own country.
And skeptics of free trade should focus their efforts on issues like tariffs and market access because the Jones Act was never truly about trade.
The sovereignty argument, security concerns, and the fact that this isn’t trade should each stand alone as strong reasons. Together, they strongly argue against a long-term waiver.
Read the report: Potential Effects of a Long-Term Waiver of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920