A reader recently reached out with a thoughtful question. After seeing renewed debate around the Jones Act — including critiques from respected analysts and commentators — they wanted to understand how that debate fits with our advocacy for the SHIPS Act and the recently proposed Strategic Seas Act.
It’s a fair question. And it reflects a broader challenge: America’s maritime conversation has become fragmented, emotional, and often disconnected from strategic reality.
Here’s the clearest way to understand it.
The Core Issue Isn’t One Law — It’s the System
America’s maritime problem did not emerge because of one bad law or one bad decision. It emerged because policy, industry, workforce, logistics, and security drifted out of alignment over decades.
The Jones Act, the SHIPS Act, and the Strategic Seas Act each address different layers of that system. Confusing them — or pitting them against one another — obscures the real challenge.
What the Jones Act Actually Does (and Does Not Do)
The Jones Act governs domestic coastwise and inland shipping — cargo moved between U.S. ports along rivers, coasts, and internal waterways.
Its intent is to preserve:
-
- A U.S. maritime workforce
- Domestic shipbuilding and repair capacity
- U.S. control over domestic trade routes
It does not regulate international or blue-water shipping.
Critics are right about one thing: the Jones Act did not prevent the collapse of America’s international commercial fleet. That collapse happened outside its scope — driven by tax policy, financing disadvantages, flag-of-convenience practices, and long-term neglect.
That critique is legitimate. But it’s also incomplete.
Why the Jones Act Debate Isn’t Decisive
For years, serious naval professionals and analysts have debated whether the Jones Act is a national security asset or a liability. That debate is not new, and it has often been conducted in good faith.
What has changed is the strategic environment.
Recent analysis has reminded us of a hard truth: wars at sea are wars of attrition. Losses come fast. Ships, crews, and shipyards lost early in a conflict cannot be replaced in time to affect the outcome.
That means no maritime policy — Jones Act included — can be judged solely by cost or efficiency in peacetime. The real question is whether the overall system can absorb loss and sustain combat before a war begins.
What the SHIPS Act Is Designed to Fix
The SHIPS Act addresses a failure the Jones Act was never designed to solve: the collapse of U.S.-flag international shipping and sealift capacity.
Its focus includes:
-
- Rebuilding a viable U.S.-flag fleet in international trade
- Expanding and stabilizing the pool of credentialed U.S. mariners
- Strengthening sealift capacity the Navy depends on in wartim
- Restoring American relevance in global maritime commerce
This is where America’s absence has become a strategic vulnerability — and where reform is long overdue.
Why We Proposed the Strategic Seas Act
Even rebuilding ships and mariners is no longer enough.
Modern global commerce and advanced technologies create maritime security risks at scale — from congested sea lanes and port dependencies to undersea cables and logistics chokepoints. When those risks materialize, the burden falls almost entirely on the U.S. Navy and the American taxpayer.
The Strategic Seas Act starts from a simple principle: strategic risk should be managed and shared, not externalized.
It focuses on:
-
- Accountability for maritime risk creation
- Protection of ports, shipyards, sea lanes, and undersea infrastructure
- Aligning commercial innovation with maritime and naval security
- Closing the gap between private gain and public security cost
- This is not about shipping rates. It’s about national responsibility in a contested maritime world.
Why We Don’t Lead With the Jones Act Debate
The Jones Act debate often becomes ideological. The most urgent maritime failures today are strategic and systemic.
Our priority is:
-
- Whether America can move and sustain forces at scale
- Whether we have the mariners to crew ships in crisis
- Whether our industrial base can repair and regenerate under pressure
- Whether commercial success carries shared security responsibility
That doesn’t make the Jones Act irrelevant. It makes it one part of a much larger system.
Why Americans Should Care
Most Americans never see ships — but their food, fuel, medicine, data, and livelihoods move by sea. When maritime policy fails, the consequences show up quietly: fragile supply chains, higher prices, longer crises, and greater military risk.
Maritime strength is not abstract. It shapes daily life.
Implications for the Navy
The Navy cannot surge ships, mariners, or shipyards after a war starts. Civilian maritime capacity is not separate from naval readiness — it underpins it. Planning without industrial and workforce reality invites failure.
Implications for Our Allies
Allies measure credibility by endurance. A stronger U.S. maritime system reduces dangerous dependence on adversaries and turns alliances into real, usable capacity — not just promises.
Closing Thought
The real question isn’t whether one maritime law should be defended or repealed.
The question is whether the United States intends to remain a serious maritime nation — prepared before the first shot is fired, not scrambling after ships are lost.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
Let’s roll.