One of the first things maritime experts will tell outsiders interested in revitalizing the sector is: Be careful about challenging the Jones Act head on. It’s like a religion.
The Jones Act, officially known as Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, is a century-old piece of legislation that was ostensibly meant to support domestic shipping and shipbuilding in times of war or other national emergencies. Today, it requires that all domestic waterborne shipping of goods be transported on vessels that are built, flagged, owned, and crewed by Americans.
Due to this archaic legislation, America has the most restrictive shipping system in the world. Not surprisingly, the results have been disastrous. The Jones Act has led to inflated shipping costs, retaliatory protectionism from U.S. trading partners, regional economic disparities, environmental harm, competitive disadvantages for American businesses, inefficiencies in supply chains and disaster responses, and uncompetitive shipbuilding.
After a century under the Jones Act, the U.S. maritime sector is a shadow of its former self and a backwater compared to strategic competitors like China. According to the Office of Naval Intelligence, China now has 230 times America’s shipbuilding capacity. China’s maritime sector dwarfs the U.S.’s across every metric.
According to the U.S. Naval Institute, China makes up about 50% of the global shipbuilding market, while South Korea and Japan following at nearly 30% and 17%, respectively. U.S. capacity is only 0.13 percent.
Despite its disastrous downsides, the Jones Act is indeed like a religion within the maritime sector, fortified by unions, special interests, and lobbyists with scripted talking points. The Jones Act is such a sacred pillar that those within the maritime sector who challenge it often pay a price in their careers and businesses.
This is why well-meaning people within maritime advocate policy reforms by using oblique phrases like modernize the Jones Act. This language isn’t wrong. The end state we do want is a modernized legislative framework. The problem is that the indirect approach to advocating policy reform has proven too weak. It hasn’t worked.
America cannot afford to continue this charade. In a strategic environment that has intensified, this continued complacency threatens America’s economic and geopolitical strength. For those who care about America’s future, it is time to take the gloves off and challenge the Jones Act head on.
The following are seven suggestions for doing this.
Ramp up the rhetoric
First, we must challenge the Jones Act frontally instead of obliquely. This is a righteous cause, and those who care about the future of American maritime can no longer mince words. The term Abolish the Jones Act may seem aggressive, but it is necessary as both a rhetorical and policy strategy. It is the jolt needed to unlock U.S. maritime from self-satisfied stagnancy and accelerate it into the future. We simply do not have time to coddle maritime interests if we want to revitalize this critical sector.
Attack it from outside the industry
The structural dynamics within U.S. maritime bring to mind the famous quote from Upton Sinclair: It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. For this reason, the best vector for a frontal assault on the Jones Act is from people outside the industry whose livelihoods are not at stake. These outsiders can play “bad cop” and say what is needed.
For those working in the industry, it may be difficult to be open and direct about the failings of the Jones Act. We understand, but at least don’t get in the way of those who are being open and direct. You can still be an ally and find ways to help.
Rally Elon Musk and the startup community
The question one might ask is, where are there natural constituencies to challenge the Jones Act from outside the industry? One place to look is the tech sector and nascent American dynamism community. Imagine a figure like Elon Musk or Marc Andreessen championing the cause of abolishing the Jones Act, while investing in the Space X equivalents for maritime. A single Abolish the Jones Act tweet from Musk would put the entire special-interest apparatus on its back foot.
Maritime could become a natural focus area for pro-tech voices who are passionate about pushing America into the future, particularly in view of innovation opportunities around automation and SMRs. The term “e/acc” has become a shorthand moniker for effective accelerationism. A maritime wing of this could be something like “maritime/acc.” Startup founders and venture capital investors already focused on these challenges could be natural advocates against the Jones Act, just as Elon Musk had to challenge the space industry and Palmer Luckey had to challenge the defense industry in order to add dynamism to those sectors.
Amplify Puerto Rican voices
A different but no less powerful outside constituency are everyday Puerto Ricans, Hawaiians, and Alaskans. For these states and territories, inflated domestic shipping costs caused by the Jones Act translate to higher prices for everything from food to fuel. A 2024 Cato Institute analysis found that the Jones Act costs Puerto Rico approximately $1.4 billion annually, resulting in a higher cost of living and slower economic growth. Why should Puerto Ricans, who suffer from a 40 percent poverty rate, be penalized with higher living costs just to prop up a failing industry? Amplifying their voices and grievances is another powerful way to put Jones Act defenders on their back foot.
Expose the corruption
Another suggestion is to expose the corruption and conflicts of interests among those backing the Jones Act. These conflicts are not hard to find in maritime. Even DC think tanks are not immune to these conflicts. Consider, for example, the recent report by the Hudson Institute on “Why America needs the Jones Act to compete with China.” The report was written by Michael Roberts, who previously headed up the pro-Jones Act lobbying group that funded the report. He also worked for the domestic shipping company that also funded the report. This is a small example of a broader phenomenon in maritime that needs to be exposed.
Put defenders on the defensive
Jones Act defenders often use talking points about jobs and national security to justify their defense of the status quo. Their underlying message is, How dare you challenge the Jones Act! Despite their attempts to put Jones Act challengers on the defensive, they should be put on the defensive to defend the status quo.
When we suggested abolishing the Jones Act on Twitter, one maritime enthusiast defended the legislation because it “is a breathing machine that keeps a corpse alive.” This mindset is foolish. The idea of keeping U.S. maritime on a ventilator fortified by special interests and unions while China runs circles around us is a dangerous kind of contentedness that is all too common in the maritime sector. These sorts of views must be mocked and challenged.
Offer a positive, forward-looking vision for U.S. maritime
Some Jones Act defenders agree with the need to modernize maritime regulations but either offer changes that are too minor or argue that regulatory modernization must be combined with other efforts to revitalize U.S. maritime. The problem is that these qualifications are often used as an excuse to avoid challenging the Jones Act or are not revolutionary enough to spark the change that is needed.
We agree with the need for a multi-pronged approach to revitalizing maritime. While abolishing the Jones Act is a linchpin for revitalizing the sector, one cannot just be oppositional. People must offer a positive vision for revitalizing U.S. maritime that includes creative trade partnerships, aggressive investments in innovation, and new jobs, opportunities, and efficiencies. Thus, we suggest painting an optimistic, forward-looking picture of U.S. maritime without the Jones Act, and rallying people around it. We need to then combine that with bold proposals to build this great future.
Conclusion
In a world where efficiency and cost-effectiveness are paramount, the Jones Act is a glaring anachronism. Abolishing it may be disruptive in the short term, but it will unleash a wave of economic and national security benefits over time, while spurring innovation. It will lower shipping costs, make goods cheaper for consumers, and create jobs in industries that rely on affordable shipping, from manufacturing to retail. It will foster innovation in the shipping industry and encourage the development of newer, more efficient vessels. And it will level the playing field for American businesses, allowing them to compete more effectively on the global stage.
With bold and visionary leadership, there’s no reason America can’t cut the deadweight, hoist the sails, and set a new course for the U.S. maritime sector within the next 12 months. To achieve this, we must abolish the Jones Act, forge smart alliances with Allies, and bring techno-acceleration to U.S. maritime as quickly as possible.
If we have to hoist a black flag to get there, then so be it. Abolish the Jones Act.
Right idea for wrong reasons. Decimating maritime unions should be looked at as collateral damage of ending The Jones Act, not as its goal. The goal of removing The Jones Act should be de-globalizing supply chains to choke (garrote?) China while revitalizing American manufacturing and the unions that come with it.
Jones Act also requires US food aid to be shipped on US-flagged vessels, adding to the cost per shipment.