Blog

Posted on

America at Sea: Mark Tempest on Sea Blindness, Sustainment and Thinking Strategically

Welcome back to America at Sea: Voices That Matter. Today we hear from Captain Mark Tempest, U.S. Naval Reserve (Ret.), who co-hosts the Midrats podcast with CDR Salamander. In more than 30 years of Navy and Navy Reserve service, he served on an ammunition ship off Vietnam, in convoy planning to get merchant ships safely across the oceans, and protecting Saudi ports during Desert Storm. Same three questions as everyone: what’s working, what’s in the way, and what he’d fix first.

What we heard

What’s working: People. “Get good people, keep good people, and treat people well.” Sailors know good leadership and will find better ways to do the job if leaders listen.

The biggest barrier: Sea blindness. America gave up most of its merchant fleet because foreign shipping was cheaper, and China built the shipyards and much of the world’s shipping, and now a navy that may rival ours in size. Meanwhile we have a huge stretch of ocean to defend, from Guam to Alaska to the Gulf.

“We are a big country with a lot of water around us. That’s both a blessing and a curse.”

Keeping a fleet supplied: His biggest concern is sustainment, everything a fleet needs to keep fighting far from home. Fuel, food, ammunition reloads, repairs, tender ships, hospital ships and floating dry docks that can be towed toward a fight. In the 1920s the Navy planned for exactly that. Today, he says, we’ve lost that capacity and need an urgent program to rebuild it. He also suggests using drones and long-range aircraft to escort supply ships across the ocean.

Fix first: End “just in time” thinking. “Let’s think strategically and let’s act strategically.”

Full transcript

Lightly edited for clarity.

Bill Cullifer: Bill Cullifer here with Americans for a Stronger Navy. Welcome back to America at Sea: Voices That Matter. This week we’ve heard from the people who sail our ships and the people who build and crew them. Today we meet Captain Mark Tempest, U.S. Naval Reserve, retired, a convoy and logistics veteran who co-hosts the Midrats podcast with CDR Salamander, on what it takes to keep a fleet supplied in a fight. These are his views. Not everyone will agree, and that’s how we find common ground. Mark, over to you.

Introduction

Mark Tempest: Hello, I’m Mark Tempest, retired captain, United States Naval Reserve. I’ve spent 30 years or more in the United States Navy and Navy Reserve, including time on service force ships, an ammunition ship off the coast of Vietnam, and a destroyer. I served in the Naval Control of Shipping organization, dealing with convoy operations to get merchant shipping across the oceans to sustain our forces if there was an event overseas, and in the inshore undersea warfare organization, particularly during Desert Storm, when we were tasked with helping protect the ports of Saudi Arabia for sustainment of land forces already ashore.

So I have experience in areas many naval officers have not touched, and I’ve been studying matters of naval import for some time. I did extensive coverage of piracy, especially the Somali pirates in their heyday, and have written some thoughts on how our Navy could be better maintained.

Question 1: What’s working right now that we should do more of?

Mark Tempest: The answer is: get good people, keep good people, and treat people well. We do a pretty good job with our sailors. We get good sailors. We have great people who, when they’re given the opportunity, are extremely professional and innovative, and they like to experiment if you give them the chance.

One of the things I used to tell my units was, there’s always a better way. The challenge is to find it. So I encouraged people to think about how to do their job better, how to do my job better, and we shared that information.

Sailors know good leadership. Sailors know how to be good leaders. Sailors know how to do their jobs, and they can think of ways that whatever they’re doing could be done a little better if we would tweak things. You have to give them that power, let them know you’ve heard them, and take their suggestions and ideas seriously. I think we do a pretty good job of that, but it can always be done better.

“There’s always a better way. The challenge is to find it.”

Question 2: What’s the biggest barrier to rebuilding America at sea?

Mark Tempest: I think the biggest barrier is that we are suffering from short-sightedness. Some people call it sea blindness, when it comes to what the Navy and what America need to be doing at sea.

We gave up our merchant shipping because it was cost-effective to let cheaper carriers bring the goods we needed to our country. The people who took advantage of that were low-cost providers like the Chinese, who developed shipyards of amazing capacity and produced a huge percentage of the ships now afloat, carrying everything from container ships to tankers. You name it, they’ve done it. And now they’ve developed a heck of a good navy, a large navy, one that may be even larger than the United States Navy.

They show a great deal of innovation. If you read what they’re up to, you’ll see they’re developing drone carriers and all kinds of things, and they do it quickly. They have an advantage in that they’re not a democracy. The boss at the top can say “I want this done,” and they all run around and do it. We’re a little different, and as a result we don’t always get things done the same way. But we really need to encourage industry to seize the moment. This is a time for experimentation, a time for industry to come forward and not just do the same old thing, but do new things, do them well, and let us experiment with them.

For years we’ve been arguing about drones. The U.S. Navy developed both aircraft and surface drones for some time, abandoned those projects for a variety of reasons, and now we’re getting back into it. That’s great. We need to think more like that.

One of the problems is we haven’t had a united message. We need to unite in saying the seas around our country matter. Our country is huge, and we cover a lot of the surface of the Earth. In the Western Pacific we have a territory, Guam, full of American citizens, with a large Navy base, a large Air Force base and a growing Marine presence. We have a lot of other islands out there that are part of a defense structure we’ve put in place, and the people there look to us for protection. We need to contemplate what that means.

Look at the size of Alaska and how far it extends across the globe and up toward the North Pole. We need to think about how to protect that. Look south, where Florida dips toward the Caribbean and Texas sits on the Gulf. We need to pay attention to that, too.

We are a big country with a lot of water around us. That’s both a blessing and a curse. It’s a blessing that has provided protection up to now. It’s a curse in that you have to have a fleet and forces large enough to defend it from anybody who wants to get aggressive.

It’s important to understand how vital it is for us to have a large merchant marine and sustainment shipping. When I talk about sustainment shipping, I mean this: if there’s a war in the Western Pacific, we’ll have to send our ships across, and they have to be supported. They need fuel for aircraft and for the ships, food for the crews, personnel changes, weapons reloading and repair.

In the 1920s, the General Board of the United States Navy looked at how to sustain a force that had to go to the Western Pacific, against Japan in that case. They developed the concept of large floating dry docks. We don’t have any of those anymore that we can hook to a tug and tow across the ocean to a relatively safe location where a damaged ship could be repaired. We’ve lost a lot of time that needs to be recaptured by an urgent program to rebuild that capacity.

Do we need hospital ships? Yes. Do we need tenders that take care of the smaller jobs required to keep ships going? Yes. We need them for destroyers, for smaller ships and for submarines, and we need them where we can move them around and put them where they do the most good. Do we need floating dry docks? Yes, we do. Do we have enough other sustainment shipping? We have some. It’s all in the Military Sealift Command. When I was on active duty, it was part of the Navy fleet. I think we need a bigger mix.

We also need to think about how to protect a logistics sea train of ships carrying all the sustainment goods we need to keep a force in the Philippines, on the islands of the South Pacific, and to help our Australian, Japanese, Singaporean and Philippine allies and the islands that belong to the United States or our allies in the Western Pacific.

The threat we know is China. That’s the one we’re worried about now, although Russia continues to be active, with a fleet in Vladivostok. And we have to counter new weapons: unmanned vessels, surface, subsurface and in the air. They all require special attention and innovation, with weapon systems designed to take them down, from lasers and other energy weapons to kinetic weapons, everything from the CIWS concept to small, very cheap anti-drone rockets or missiles.

Finally, we need to worry about how we escort ships across the ocean. In the past, the Navy has told the shipping industry and Military Sealift Command that we don’t have enough ships to provide escorts. Well, we don’t have enough ships. We spend a lot of money on ships that are fundamentally not useful for the kinds of warfare we are currently facing. So we need to think outside the box. We could provide escorts using the drone technology we’re already developing. Let’s develop it more. Let’s escort ships with unmanned vessels coordinated through a small communications box that can be put on any merchant or MSC hull. Let’s use long-range aircraft that can accompany these ships on a voyage, including helicopters, which already exist on some MSC ships.

These problems are not insurmountable, but we need to act now. This is a strategic problem, and this is not the place for the management techniques we’ve fallen prey to, like “just in time,” where the parts arrive just in time to be put on the next vehicle. Strategic and tactical operations don’t work that way. You have to have a force in being that can be called on. Bean counters hate forces in being, because they don’t want to pay for an asset that may never be used. But when you need that asset, you need it right away. You can’t wait for it just in time.

“When you need that asset, you need it right away. You can’t wait for it just in time.”

People are taking steps. Some allies are building or improving shipbuilding facilities in the U.S., and some companies are opening operations in Texas, Louisiana and other places. We have a lot of water in this country where we can build ships, and if we adopt the right technologies, we can build wonderful ships and get them out where we need them. And we need them right now.

Question 3: If you could fix one thing first, what would it be?

Mark Tempest: The one thing I would fix is getting rid of this just-in-time concept. Let’s think strategically, let’s act strategically, and let’s get the ball rolling. That’s what I’m proud to say this Stronger Navy effort is all about. Thank you.

“Let’s think strategically, let’s act strategically, and let’s get the ball rolling.”

About America at Sea: Voices That Matter

America at Sea: Voices That Matter is a conversation hosted by Americans for a Stronger Navy with U.S. Maritime Action and moderated by Capt. Brent Sadler, USN (Ret.). Shipbuilders, mariners, industry, the Navy community and policy experts answer the same three questions about rebuilding America at sea. Views expressed are the speaker’s own, and featuring a view is not an endorsement.

Join the conversation on X. What’s working? What’s in the way? What would you fix first?

Posted on

Who Leads America at Sea? With Sal Mercogliano

America at Sea: Voices That Matter continues with Dr. Sal Mercogliano, maritime historian, former merchant mariner and host of What’s Going On With Shipping? Sal is a professor at Campbell University, where he chairs the Department of History, Criminal Justice and Political Science, and he teaches maritime industry policy at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy [1]. He answers the same three questions we ask everyone.

New to the SHIPS for America Act? Start with our plain-English primer.

Join the conversation. Reply to the post above on X and tell us what’s working, what’s in the way, and what you’d fix first.

What we heard

What’s working: the small and mid-size yards. Sal doesn’t want to be “the Debbie Downer.” The U.S. fleet of deep-draft oceangoing ships has fallen from about 450 when he graduated in 1989 to 180-some today, but he sees real strength in inland and coastal shipping, tugs and ferries, and the yards that build them. Build more at that level, he says, and you rebuild the steel, pipefitters, electricians and suppliers that bigger ships need. Add automation and new propulsion like small modular nuclear reactors, and technology can offset higher U.S. costs.

What’s in the way: a market tilted against us. After World War II, America chose not to dominate shipping and helped allies build their yards. That opened the door to China, which Sal says went from building 5% of the world’s ships in 1999 to 70% today.

“The free market doesn’t work when the other sides are putting their foot on the scale.” — Dr. Sal Mercogliano

He suggests a target of five to 10 percent U.S.-built, U.S.-flag ships in American international trade, up from about 2% now. And he pushes back on blaming the Jones Act: in 1920, he says, it was part of a whole national security strategy, and over the past century we took the rest of that strategy apart.

What he’d fix first: leadership. Sal says the SHIPS Act’s national maritime advisor is what’s needed, because authority today is spread across agencies.

“I think we need one. I really do. We need someone who can sit there and direct it, because what we have right now is diffusion.” — Dr. Sal Mercogliano

He points to history: Edward Hurley at the U.S. Shipping Board in World War I, and Adm. Emory S. “Jerry” Land in World War II, who between them oversaw thousands of ships. Since the 1980s, he notes, the House lost its Merchant Marine Subcommittee, and today each advocacy group speaks for its own slice. “There’s really no one doing it for the entire sector holistically.” (For more on Land, see our Backstory post, The Last Time One Person Led America at Sea.)

Why education matters. “I’m an educator,” Sal says. “What you’re doing here with America at Sea is an important element… we need to be educating people about this. We’re a maritime nation.”

The three questions

1. What’s working right now that we should do more of?
2. What’s the biggest barrier to rebuilding America at sea?
3. If you could fix one thing first, what would it be?

Transcript

Lightly edited for readability.

Bill Cullifer: Bill Cullifer here with Americans for a Stronger Navy. Welcome back to America at Sea: Voices That Matter. Today we’re here with Sal Mercogliano, maritime historian, former merchant mariner and host of What’s Going On With Shipping? Same three questions for everyone: what’s working, what’s in the way, and what he’d fix first. Sal, over to you.

Introduction

Sal Mercogliano: I’m Sal Mercogliano. I’m a professor at Campbell University and chair of the Department of History, Criminal Justice and Political Science. I’m a former merchant mariner. I sailed and worked ashore in the industry. And I’m adjunct at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, where I teach a course in maritime industry policy. Five years ago now, I started a YouTube channel called What’s Going On With Shipping, where I talk about all global shipping, logistics, U.S., international, you name it, along with a little history thrown in there.

What’s working right now that we should do more of?

When you look at what’s working in the United States, there’s a couple of things. I don’t like to be the Debbie Downer here all the time. In truth, during my entire career — I graduated from the State University of New York Maritime College in 1989 — the maritime industry in many ways has been on the decline. We’ve gone from 450 ships when I graduated down to 180-some ships today, deep-draft oceangoing vessels involved in both international trade and the Jones Act.

But there are certain areas where we’re pretty robust: inland waters, coastal waters, the tug and ferry industry. We have good small and medium-sized shipyards. Where we’re at odds is really on the international scope, building deep-draft vessels that compete on the international market. And in truth, that was never an objective of the United States. The U.S. came out of World War II never wanting to be the dominant shipper on the planet. We didn’t want to take the role of the British. Instead, we very much believed it was better for everyone if you had a diverse shipping fleet out there. Ownership was diverse, nationalities were diverse. And what we focused on was the U.S. Navy, making sure the seas were protected.

Unfortunately, what we’re seeing today is that’s the problem. We’re seeing a challenge to freedom of the seas, and most importantly, in the United States our maritime industrial base has largely shifted since the ’80s to just supporting the U.S. Navy and not a commercial industry.

I think we need to look at how we do shipbuilding on a smaller and medium scale and ramp that up. What are we doing with tugs? With small to medium-sized vessels? If we start building at that level even more, I think we can start building at a larger level. That starts building the industrial base: the steel industry, the pipefitters, electricians, pumps, all those elements we can use to build larger ships.

We also need to look at technology, which is a big thing for the United States. Our big shipyards are so far behind that we can completely modernize them. Automation and autonomy are systems we could be using to build new shipyards or add-ons to existing ones. And we could be bringing forth new technology for ship propulsion, such as small modular nuclear reactors. That could be a game changer. What I’ve seen historically is that technology allows the U.S. to compete over the costs associated with the United States, which tend to be a little bit higher. So I think we’ve got to lean in to that technology.

What’s the biggest barrier to rebuilding America at sea?

What’s in the way is a lot of things that we structured and created ourselves. The United States created the open registries on the international market. We facilitated the European, Japanese and Korean shipyards to build up, and in many ways that’s the barrier today, because they’re very efficient, especially the Japanese and Korean yards. And one of the problems is we opened the door for the rise of China. We’ve seen China go from building 5% of global ships in 1999 to building 70% here in 2026. That’s a major impediment.

We have got to get into our mindset that we are competing in shipbuilding and sailing ships on an international market, and the free market doesn’t work when the other sides are putting their foot on the scale. If you want to use free-market capitalism in international shipping, you’ve got to do something to remove the advantages that China, Korea, Japan, the Liberian flag, the Marshall Islands and Panama have. Otherwise it’s not a fair measurement. You can say it costs three to five times more to build a ship in the United States. Well, give us the advantages and incentives these other countries have, and that cost goes down tremendously. It’s still going to be expensive, but not as expensive as that.

One of the big things in the way is recognizing that shipping is a national security issue. What we did in the 1980s was offshore our shipbuilding base. Now we’re coming to realize that’s a problem, and we need to bring that back onshore. I’m not talking about building 100% of all ships in international trade in the U.S. But we should have a good target: somewhere between five to 10 [percent of] ships carrying American trade internationally should be U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged vessels. We’re at 2% right now. We can also buy ships on the international market and put them into international trade. That’s not coastal. That doesn’t violate the Jones Act.

At the same time, we need to revitalize domestic shipbuilding. The cabotage provision of the Jones Act, the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, was never intended to be sufficient to sustain U.S. shipbuilding on its own. It was part of a larger whole. That’s the argument I have with lots of people who say the Jones Act is the problem. The Jones Act, as created in 1920, was a holistic act. It was a national security strategy. What we’ve done over the past 106 years is dismantle it. So we’ve got to start fixing some of those provisions and putting them back in place.

We should also be looking at how other countries go about their shipbuilding and maritime strategy, China, Japan and Korea particularly, and see what we need to emulate. And one of the biggest things we need to do is get Congress to act, to push through legislation that’s sitting there right now, things like the SHIPS Act. That needs to be done.

If you could fix one thing first, what would it be?

If Sal was king for a day — and I said this in testimony before Congress — there needs to be leadership. One of the things the SHIPS Act has is a national maritime advisor, kind of a maritime czar. I think we need one. I really do. We need someone who can sit there and direct it, because what we have right now is diffusion. The Maritime Administration has a very narrow view and control over what it has. Same thing with the Navy’s shipbuilding office.

We really need someone who can be the advocate here, up on the Hill in congressional offices, out there in the public, out there with businesses, talking about this maritime issue. I’m an educator. I think we need to do more. What you’re doing here with America at Sea is an important element, because we need to be educating people about this. We’re a maritime nation. We’ve been a maritime nation since we were 13 little colonies looking out at the Atlantic. And even though we became a massive continental power, we’re still dependent on trade. We’ve seen recently how easily trade can be disrupted, by nations and even by non-nations like the Houthis.

If you look at the two big shipbuilding programs in the history of the United States in the 20th century, you had a guy like Edward Hurley, who headed the U.S. Shipping Board. He revitalized it and was able to produce about 2,700 ships during and after the First World War. Then in World War II, you had Emory S. Land, Jerry Land, in charge of the U.S. Maritime Commission, along with the War Shipping Administration and the U.S. Maritime Service. He was able to build 5,777 ships from 1937 to 1945.

So I just think we need some leadership here, someone advocating for the merchant marine and the maritime sector on a continual basis. I do it, but it’s not a full-time job for me. You’re doing it. Others are doing it. But what we definitely need is somebody out there making the call. Since the 1980s, we’ve seen this kind of curtailment. We lost the Merchant Marine Subcommittee in the House, which was a great place for it, because there was a lot of expertise on that committee. Today what we have are advocacy groups advocating for their slice of the maritime sector, but really no one doing it for the entire sector holistically. And I think that’s what’s been missing.

While we argue, China plans. It’s time we started building.

Americans for a Stronger Navy is a nonpartisan organization. America at Sea is educational and does not urge support for or opposition to any legislation. Views expressed by guests are their own.

References

[1] FreightWaves, speaker profile, “Salvatore R. Mercogliano, Ph.D.”: https://live.freightwaves.com/event-speakers/salvatore-r-mercogliano-ph-d

Posted on

America at Sea: Glenn Mallo on People, Ownership and Results Over Effort

Welcome back to America at Sea: Voices That Matter. Today we hear from Glenn Mallo, Command Master Chief, U.S. Navy (Ret.). He came up through the Navy’s nuclear power program and spent most of his career aboard aircraft carriers and with forward-deployed naval forces. Today he works in the defense industrial base, so he sees the same problems from the other side. Same three questions as everyone: what’s working, what’s in the way, and what he’d fix first.

What we heard

What’s working: People. Sailors, shipbuilders, engineers, tradespeople and government civilians deliver when they are trained, mentored and led. New technology helps, but “we need people to know how to put it to work.”

The biggest barrier: A system that separates responsibility, authority, incentives and consequences. Workforce, supply chain and infrastructure problems are real, but leaders also have to ask which contracting practices and management incentives let those problems persist.

“A for effort, but D minus for results. The system has got to stop measuring effort as though it was readiness.”

Fix first: Ownership of delivery. Try many approaches, fail fast, learn fast, and hold leaders accountable for results without lowering standards. He welcomed the “First Breakfast” approach to working with industry [1], a play on the 1993 “Last Supper” that set off defense industry consolidation [2].

New to the Last Supper and the First Breakfast? Read our explainer: [LINK TO FIRST BREAKFAST POST]

Full transcript

Lightly edited for clarity.

Bill Cullifer: Bill Cullifer here with Americans for a Stronger Navy. Welcome back to America at Sea: Voices That Matter. Yesterday we heard from a merchant mariner about the people who sail our ships. Today, a retired Command Master Chief on the people who build them, fix them and crew them. Two different worlds, same message: you can’t rebuild America at sea without the people. And as he puts it, effort isn’t the same as results. Glenn Mallo, over to you.

Introduction

Glenn Mallo: Thanks, Bill. Thank you so much for this opportunity. I’m humbled and honored to join you in this conversation.

I’m Glenn Mallo, a retired United States Navy Command Master Chief. I spent most of my career serving aboard aircraft carriers and with forward-deployed naval forces. I started in the Navy’s nuclear power program and had the privilege of serving in engineering, shipyard, industrial and training environments.

As I got more senior in the Navy, I was privileged to be selected for senior enlisted assignments. I served aboard the USS Ronald Reagan pre-commissioning unit, the carrier USS Enterprise, and the USS George Washington twice: once here in Norfolk, Virginia, and again when she was forward-deployed in Yokosuka, Japan. I also had the great honor of leading the chiefs mess aboard the USS Carl Vinson during the carrier’s refueling and complex overhaul.

Now I work in the defense industrial base, where I see the other side. The same foundational principles apply, and that reinforces what I strongly believe: America’s maritime strength depends not just on our ships, but on our sailors and the industrial base that supports and sustains the whole ecosystem.

Question 1: What’s working right now that we should do more of?

Glenn Mallo: I’d start with our people. And truly, it’s not just the sailors. As I alluded to in my intro, it’s everybody: our civilian counterparts, now that I’m on the commercial side, as well as our government people who make everything work.

Having spent much of my career aboard aircraft carriers and with forward-deployed naval forces, I know what American sailors can accomplish when they are properly trained, mentored and led. I believe that same concept extends to our shipbuilders, our engineers, technicians and tradespeople, and the government civilians who support the whole ecosystem.

One thing the Navy taught me is that we have got to invest in our people. Coming up through the nuclear power training pipeline, where high standards, technical competence and accountability were not optional, I learned that we have to train people, invest in mentoring and equipping them, and set them up for success. We’d all be surprised by what they can deliver.

In naval nuclear power, we were trained to understand our systems, take ownership of our responsibilities and operate safely under demanding conditions. We need more of that across the maritime industrial base. Set up apprenticeships and technical education. Get the senior folks to provide mentorship and opportunities for young Americans, so they can see and believe that they can build meaningful careers in this industry.

I am encouraged by the advances in robotics, advanced systems and autonomy, and by different approaches to shipbuilding and maintenance, like Korean shipbuilders coming here to work with us. Those are novel concepts. But technology, in my humble opinion, is not the answer by itself. We need people who know how to put it to work.

Leadership matters too. Throughout my career I learned that you cannot lead from behind a desk. Our leaders have got to get out where the work happens, understand the challenges and take care of the people. With good people, the right training, leadership and the mission, we’re going to be amazed at what our people can deliver.

Question 2: What’s the biggest barrier to rebuilding America at sea?

Glenn Mallo: I think the biggest barrier is really the system. Right now, in my opinion, it separates responsibility, authority, incentives and consequences.

I’ve heard the workforce shortages, the supply chain problems and the aging infrastructure described eloquently many times. Those deserve attention. But we also need to ask leadership what decisions, contracting practices and management incentives are allowing those problems to persist. I’ve read about the Last Supper, and now I’m very excited about the First Breakfast.

We cannot keep asking the waterfront to overcome the instability and friction created upstream from the deck plates. More money and more technology will not deliver their full value if we do not address the root causes. The underlying execution system has got to change.

The standard should be operational results. I’ve seen it, and you know it, Bill. We have to deliver qualified components, build and repair ships, and deliver on time. And the Navy has to have sailors ready to operate them. Not just activity that looks like progress.

Across the seven chiefs messes where I served as command master chief, I’m guilty of giving a performance assessment that said, “A for effort, but D minus for results.” Effort matters. But in my experience, effort alone did not mean we had accomplished the mission.

“The system has got to stop measuring effort as though it was readiness.”

Question 3: If you could fix one thing first, what would it be?

Glenn Mallo: I’d continue with what we’re doing right now. I’m excited about the First Breakfast approach. One thing I would emphasize is that there are many different solutions, and I’m all in on that. Let’s experiment and try them all. It’s not going to be one size fits all, where somebody says, “This is what we’ve got to do. Contract it this way.” We have to try them all.

Most importantly, though, we have to fix the ownership of delivery. It’s results, not excuses. Leadership matters a lot. Marshal all those different ideas, run them through experimentation, then tweak. If we don’t see the right results, let’s try something else. We have to do that fast. We should not be afraid to fail, as long as we fail fast, learn from it and turn it around quickly.

I keep going back to my naval nuclear power experience, where quality, safety and accountability are not in conflict. They’re inseparable. And when I had the opportunity to lead sailors, we had to take care of them and set them up for success.

In the world we’re in right now, with leadership taking charge and a maritime czar who will marshal all this and be accountable for the results, I think the same principles I’ve seen apply directly to rebuilding America at sea. Give capable people room to work, remove the obstacles, and hold leaders accountable for results.

We cannot lower our standards. Fail fast, fail often and learn, yes, but that means we get better and apply those lessons. We’ve been repeating the same lessons. It’s time to look at the results, ask what we haven’t been doing correctly, and get it done.

“Clear ownership, disciplined execution, measurable results. That’s where I believe we should start. It’s fixing the system.”

About America at Sea: Voices That Matter

America at Sea: Voices That Matter is a conversation hosted by Americans for a Stronger Navy with U.S. Maritime Action and moderated by Capt. Brent Sadler, USN (Ret.). Shipbuilders, mariners, industry, the Navy community and policy experts answer the same three questions about rebuilding America at sea. Views expressed are the speaker’s own.

Join the conversation on X. What’s working? What’s in the way? What would you fix first?

References

[1] Josh Kirshner and Jonathan Green, “The ‘Last Supper’ era is over — it’s time for the ‘First Breakfast’,” Breaking Defense, December 2024. https://breakingdefense.com/2024/12/the-last-supper-era-is-over-its-time-for-the-first-breakfast/

[2] “Last Supper (defense industry),” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Supper_(defense_industry)

Posted on

America at Sea: Nick Littlepage on Mariners, Build Cycles and the Supply Side of Shipbuilding

Welcome back to America at Sea: Voices That Matter. Today we hear from Nick Littlepage, a former merchant marine engineer and a 2008 graduate of the California Maritime Academy. He spent 13 years at sea, rising from third assistant engineer to first assistant engineer, mostly on Jones Act tankers with a few years on foreign-flagged oil and gas vessels. Same three questions as everyone: what’s working, what’s in the way, and what he’d fix first.

What we heard

What’s working: More people are speaking up for the maritime industry, and that is driving legislation like the SHIPS for America Act. He points to the Maritime Security Program, the Tanker Security Program and the Cable Security Fleet as proof that targeted commercial programs work, and to the brown-water fleet of tugs, barges and supply boats, whose yards keep delivering steadily and cost-effectively.

The biggest barrier: “Out of sight, out of mind.” Beyond that, shipbuilding costs, a commercial build cycle that comes only every 10 to 20 years so yards can’t keep their crews and expertise between orders, and a shortage of mariners as shoreside pay catches up.

“Every new construction project feels like starting from scratch, leading to costly layoffs and lost expertise.”

Fix first: Revisit maritime policy using real data on what works and what doesn’t. He lays out his own four-pillar proposal, the Maritime Infrastructure Resilience Act (MIRA), which he says is aimed at the supply side, where the SHIPS Act focuses on demand.

Full transcript

Lightly edited for clarity.

Bill Cullifer: Hello, Bill Cullifer here with Americans for a Stronger Navy. Welcome back to America at Sea: Voices That Matter. We’ve got a great lineup this week. This series is the platform for voices across the maritime world, including ones that don’t always agree with each other, or with us for that matter. That’s the point. Today we hear from Nick Littlepage, a Cal Maritime grad who spent 13 years in engine rooms, mostly on Jones Act tankers, and worked his way up to first assistant engineer. Same three questions as everyone: what’s working, what’s in the way, and what he’d fix first. Nick, over to you.

Introduction

Nick Littlepage: Hello, my name is Nick Littlepage. I’m a former merchant marine engineer and a graduate of the California Maritime Academy, class of 2008.

I come from the commercial side of the industry. I spent 13 years working on a variety of vessels, starting as a third assistant engineer and eventually reaching the rank of first assistant engineer. I spent most of my time sailing on Jones Act tankers, with a couple of years on foreign-flagged oil and gas vessels. That gave me experience on a variety of ships and exposure to how things operate under different flag registries.

Even though I’m now in power generation, I’m a big supporter of a strong merchant marine, which is key to maritime sovereignty and a foundation for a powerful Navy. The recent Jones Act waivers rekindled my passion and made me realize I needed to voice my support much louder.

Connecting with Clay Wirsing and his U.S. Maritime Action platform opened up my world to how much support is growing in the maritime sector. Huge thanks to Bill at Americans for a Stronger Navy for creating the America at Sea campaign, a platform for anyone to voice their support for the maritime industry.

Question 1: What’s working right now that we should do more of?

Nick Littlepage: The number of people who have spoken out in support is growing. These are people willing to take the criticism that comes with being at the forefront of a movement. That leads to conversations and exposes this little-known industry to the general public. It has led to legislation such as the SHIPS Act, which is a comprehensive reform of our maritime policy.

Other areas where we’re succeeding are the Maritime Security Program, the Tanker Security Program and the Cable Security Fleet. We’ve been maintaining them by cycling in newer tonnage to replace older tonnage. The Tanker Security Program is relatively new, and Congress’s recent authorization to double the fleet to 20 vessels proves that targeted commercial mechanisms work.

The brown-water fleet is an often overlooked sector of the maritime industry. It makes up the largest part of the U.S.-flag fleet, including tugboats, barges, supply boats and many other small craft. Those yards consistently meet the steady demand for smaller vessels while staying cost-effective.

Question 2: What’s the biggest barrier to rebuilding America at sea?

Nick Littlepage: The first big barrier is the out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach to America’s maritime policy. It has historically been this way until something major happens and the country gets caught with its proverbial pants down. It wasn’t until the last 15 years that people really knew much about America’s maritime sector. Ironically, the maritime industry is a massive jobs multiplier that few people know about.

Shipbuilding costs, to me, are one of the biggest barriers to rebuilding America at sea. As much of a Jones Act supporter as I am, it’s hard to face the evidence that the commercial fleet has been slowly declining. The double-edged sword of the Jones Act has been the protected market, where the few shipyards understand there is a commercial build cycle every 10 to 20 years because U.S. shipping companies have to come to them. Coupled with less advanced, smaller-footprint shipyards, you end up with expensive ships that are delivered slowly.

This compounds because demand isn’t steady. Domestic shipyards can’t bridge build cycles, so every new construction project feels like starting from scratch, leading to costly layoffs and lost expertise.

The lack of qualified mariners is another big issue for all U.S. shipping companies. Shoreside wages have caught up, and shoreside jobs often have greater growth potential and better benefits, even compared to the maritime unions. Often the raises don’t reflect the sacrifice of being away for six to eight months. That makes it hard not only to attract a workforce but to retain one.

“The raises don’t reflect the sacrifice of being away for six to eight months.”

Question 3: If you could fix one thing first, what would it be?

Nick Littlepage: The first thing I would fix is that we need to start revisiting our maritime policies, with actual data on what is working and what isn’t. We need to modernize what isn’t working to reflect global changes in supply lines and the industrial ecosystem.

I personally developed a four-pillar proposal called the Maritime Infrastructure Resilience Act, or MIRA. It’s designed to be a pragmatic combination of ideas that are out of the box and controversial to both Jones Act purists and Jones Act abolitionists. The goal of MIRA is to refine the supply side of the industry to attract private capital without direct cash government subsidies. Where the SHIPS Act focuses on demand, MIRA focuses on making American shipbuilding economically viable, so that vessels get built to fulfill that demand.

I believe many of the problems facing the commercial maritime industry can be addressed through MIRA. The highlights include:

Using techniques such as distributed manufacturing for shipbuilding, much like the airline industry, to scale the fleet in a timelier manner.

Creating a foreign-built ratio system, where one domestic build allows one foreign-built sister vessel into the Jones Act trade, under very tight structural safeguards.

Federal tax exemptions for mariners who work on U.S.-flag vessels in commercial trade, to attract and retain a workforce.

And finally, accelerated tax write-offs for companies that build ships in the United States or do their maintenance, repair and overhaul work in U.S. shipyards or lay berths. The idea is to create a circular shipbuilding ecosystem.

Closing

Nick Littlepage: Throughout history, people coming together for a common cause have often brought about very positive change. In this instance, we’ve been presented an opportunity to have our collective voices heard, with not just critiques but realistic solutions. Together, we will see legislation take shape that will usher the United States into regaining its maritime sovereignty.

“Not just critiques but realistic solutions.”

About America at Sea: Voices That Matter

America at Sea: Voices That Matter is a conversation hosted by Americans for a Stronger Navy with U.S. Maritime Action and moderated by Capt. Brent Sadler, USN (Ret.). Shipbuilders, mariners, industry, the Navy community and policy experts answer the same three questions about rebuilding America at sea. Views expressed are the speaker’s own, and featuring a proposal is not an endorsement.

Join the conversation on X. What’s working? What’s in the way? What would you fix first?

Posted on

America at Sea: Clay Wirsing on Momentum, Shipyard Capacity and Building What We Know

America at Sea: Voices That Matter continues with Clay Wirsing, founder of U.S. Maritime Action. Clay started his career as a welding engineer at Newport News Shipbuilding. He answers the same three questions we ask everyone, from the shipyard floor up.

New to the SHIPS for America Act? Clay gets into the details, so you may want to start with our plain-English primer.

Join the conversation. Reply to the post above on X and tell us what’s working, what’s in the way, and what you’d fix first.

What we heard

What’s working: momentum. Clay sees real energy behind the SHIPS for America Act and more public attention to maritime policy than ever. He calls it “an overwhelmingly positive bill for the maritime industry.”

What’s in the way: shipyard capacity. Clay walks through j JM mmthree parts of the bill and asks whether our yards can deliver. The cargo rules for government cargo, imports from China and LNG exports would each call for more U.S. ships than today’s yards can build quickly. The yards that build commercial ships produce about five ships a year at peak, many are tied up with government work, and there’s already a shortage of welders and other tradesmen.

“I like the initiative behind this. I think it’s just getting a little bit ahead of ourselves.” — Clay Wirsing

What he’d fix first: start with what we know how to build. Begin with standard tankers, container ships and bulk carriers, including bulk carriers to secure supply chains like rare earth elements, before moving to complex LNG carriers. Phase the government cargo requirement in, at something like 75 to 90 percent, as the fleet grows.

The long view. China revisits its maritime policy every five to ten years. The United States hasn’t made a major update since the Merchant Marine Act of 1970. “It’s long overdue,” Clay says, and the work shouldn’t stop with one bill.

The three questions

1. What’s working right now that we should do more of?
2. What’s the biggest barrier to rebuilding America at sea?
3. If you could fix one thing first, what would it be?

Transcript

Lightly edited for readability.

Bill Cullifer: Bill Cullifer here with Americans for a Stronger Navy. Welcome back to America at Sea: Voices That Matter. Today we hear from Clay Wirsing, founder of U.S. Maritime Action in San Diego. He started his career on the shipyard floor in Newport News, Virginia. Same three questions as everyone: what’s working, what’s in the way, and what he’d like to fix first. Clay, over to you.

Introduction

Clay Wirsing: My name is Clay Wirsing. I started off as a welding engineer back in 2017 at Newport News Shipbuilding. At the time I really didn’t have any idea what the global situation was with shipbuilding or maritime. And I can remember about a year after I started, some high-level officials from the Navy came in and talked to us about speeding up the pace of our shipyard in order to compete with China. That was kind of my first introduction to how far we’ve fallen behind as a maritime nation, especially in shipbuilding.

Unfortunately, not a lot has changed since then in terms of actual shipbuilding capacity, but we do now see a ton of momentum, which has been great to see, with the SHIPS for America Act, and a lot more public recognition of what’s going on. And so I just want to continue to contribute to that, and hope to see more people join the movement and let our politicians know that maritime is an important space for both our economy and national defense, and we need to have the right laws and policies that allow us to succeed in that domain.

What’s working right now that we should do more of?

I love the momentum that’s being built up behind the SHIPS for America Act. It’s great to see that there’s a lot of attention to our maritime policy and laws, and that’s becoming more recognized by the public. And I think we need to just continue to join that discussion and get as many people involved, to let our politicians know that maritime policy is an important part of our country.

The SHIPS for America Act is an overwhelmingly positive bill for the maritime industry. I think there are some little tweaks that I would urge our politicians to consider, to better suit the needs of our maritime industry and also have realistic policy.

What’s the biggest barrier to rebuilding America at sea?

In section 412 of the bill, there is a mandate for 100% U.S. government cargo preference going to U.S.-flag ships. I think this is a great initiative, but we might be a little bit ahead of ourselves just because of the small size of the U.S. fleet. If we increase this more modestly, to something like 75% or even 90%, then it does give us a little bit of flexibility when we don’t have U.S. ships available to take our government cargoes. And I think that’s something we could revisit down the line. Assuming our fleet does grow, we will be able to have 100% government cargo preference in the future.

Section 415 mandates that within 15 years, 10% of all cargo imported from China to the U.S. will be carried on U.S.-flagged vessels. Currently there are about a million TEU, twenty-foot equivalent containers, shipped from China to the U.S. each year. We’re only carrying about 2 to 3% of that trade currently, and that’s all through Matson’s CLX line. So to carry 10% of that trade, I think we’re looking at either 10 very large ships or around 50 container ships. And the shipyards we have doing commercial work right now aren’t really large enough to build these huge container ships. It’ll basically lead to a point where we need to build a lot of ships in a very short amount of time, which I don’t think is realistic. Again, I like the initiative behind this. I think it’s just getting a little bit ahead of ourselves.

Another section that might be problematic is section 420, which requires that 15% of total seaborne LNG exports be carried on U.S.-flag vessels by 2043. This is going to require somewhere between 15 and 25 LNG ships, depending on their size. LNG ships these days are quite large. They’re actually much bigger than the ships currently built at General Dynamics NASSCO or Hanwha Philly Shipyard, and those shipyards are building about five ships per year in total at their peak capacity. We currently see a lot of these shipyards tied up with government contracts, so I don’t think there’s a lot of capacity to take on LNG work. On top of that, LNG vessels are pretty complex to build, especially their containment tanks. And we already have shortages of welders and other tradesmen, which will make it difficult to build these in a cost- and time-effective manner.

If you could fix one thing first, what would it be?

I think it would be better to start off with a more reasonable ship type, things that we’ve already built: standard oil tankers, container ships, or maybe even a simple ship type like bulk carriers to secure our rare earth elements or other parts of our supply chain, rather than going straight for the complex LNG vessels. Again, I like the sentiment behind this. I just think we’re not quite where we need to be with yard capacity to pull off some of the shipbuilding requirements laid out in this bill.

A lot of countries, especially China, are revisiting their maritime policy every five years, maybe a decade or so. The U.S. hasn’t really had a major effort in revisiting or revising its policy since the Merchant Marine Act of 1970. So it’s long overdue. I hope to see some bills like the SHIPS for America Act come through and pass in Congress, and then, not only that, but as we continue to move forward as a nation, that we continually revisit these issues and make sure that our maritime laws and policies are appropriate for the conditions we face in our current period.

While we argue, China plans. It’s time we started building.

Americans for a Stronger Navy is a nonpartisan not for proft organization. 

Posted on

Americans for a Stronger Navy Launches “America at Sea: Voices That Matter,” a 45-Day National Conversation on Rebuilding American Sea Power

Underwritten by Americans for a Stronger Navy, supported by U.S. Maritime Action and moderated by Capt. Brent Sadler, USN (Ret.), the series asks shipbuilders, mariners, veterans, industry and Navy leaders the same three questions, and will publish a common-ground report at the end of November.

October 21, 2026 — Americans for a Stronger Navy, a nonpartisan not-for-profit organization, has launched America at Sea: Voices That Matter, a 45-day national conversation about how the United States rebuilds its strength at sea. The series runs from October 18 through the end of November 2026, as Congress works to finish this year’s defense bill.

The series is underwritten by Americans for a Stronger Navy, supported by U.S. Maritime Action, founded by former shipyard engineer Clay Wirsing, and moderated by Capt. Brent Sadler, USN (Ret.), a former nuclear submarine officer and longtime maritime strategist.

The stakes are clear. Last year China built more than half of the world’s new commercial ships, while the United States built about one-tenth of one percent. China’s navy has more than 370 ships and is headed to 435 by 2030; the U.S. Navy has about 290. Almost everyone agrees America needs more ships. The arguments are over which ships, who builds them and who pays. America at Sea starts instead with what people already agree on.

“The people who know this best rarely get heard outside Washington,” said Bill Cullifer, founder and executive director of Americans for a Stronger Navy and a former destroyer sailor. “While we argue, China plans. We’re starting with what shipbuilders, mariners, labor and the Navy community already agree on, because arguments stall and common ground moves.”

“It’s not just something for a few technocrats here in Washington, D.C., because that’s not going to work. It’s never worked in the past,” said Capt. Sadler in the series’ opening conversation.

Clay Wirsing, who began his career as a welding engineer at Newport News Shipbuilding, said: “Not a lot has changed since then in terms of actual shipbuilding capacity, but we do now see a ton of momentum.”

Retired Navy commander and naval writer CDR Salamander put it simply: “People are policy. People run programs. People work budgets.”

How it works. The series covers the whole fleet America depends on at sea: the Navy’s combat ships, the support and auxiliary ships that keep them supplied, and the civilian merchant fleet that carries our cargo. It also covers the shipyards that build and repair them, the mariners and skilled workers behind them, and the industrial base and funding that keep it all going. Each voice gets about ten minutes and the same three questions:

  1. What’s working right now that we should do more of?
  2. What’s the biggest barrier to rebuilding America at sea?
  3. If you could fix one thing first, what would it be?

Episodes post at StrongerNavy.org/blog and on X (@StrongerNavy), where the public is invited to weigh in. Guests include shipbuilders, merchant mariners, labor, ports, industry, veterans, the Navy and Coast Guard community, and policy experts. The series has also explained the SHIPS for America Act, the bipartisan maritime bill whose provisions passed the House this summer as part of the defense bill.

What’s next. At the end of November, Americans for a Stronger Navy will publish a common-ground report: where these voices agree, in their own words, and where they differ. Organized by theme and noting the sector and state of each voice, the report is written for policymakers, their staffs and the public, and will note where shared views relate to maritime provisions now under consideration. Maritime professionals interested in taking part can record by Zoom or on their own time.

About Americans for a Stronger Navy

Americans for a Stronger Navy works to help Americans better understand the importance of maritime strength, naval readiness, and the industrial base that sustains the fleet. It connects experts, veterans, historians and policy voices through two initiatives: Charting the Course, an ongoing series of more than 800 articles and analyses, and America at Sea: Voices That Matter. The organization is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) based in Folsom, California. America at Sea is educational and does not urge support for or opposition to any legislation. StrongerNavy.org

About U.S. Maritime Action

U.S. Maritime Action, founded by Clay Wirsing, works to build public support for a strong American maritime industry.

Posted on

The SHIPS Act, Explained: A Primer for Families and Veterans

You’ll hear a lot about the SHIPS for America Act in our America at Sea series. If you’ve never read a bill, you’re not alone. This primer is for American families and veterans who want to understand what it is, what it would do, who pays, what’s being debated, and where it stands, in plain words.

What is it?

SHIPS stands for the Shipbuilding and Harbor Infrastructure for Prosperity and Security for America Act. It’s a bipartisan bill, led by Sens. Mark Kelly and Todd Young and Reps. John Garamendi and Trent Kelly, to rebuild America’s commercial shipbuilding, its U.S.-flag merchant fleet, and the workforce behind both [1][2]. It was first introduced in December 2024 and reintroduced in April 2025 [3].

Why should my family care?

Much of what you buy comes to this country by sea. Today, less than 1 percent of new commercial ships are built in the United States [4]. China builds more than half of the world’s new commercial ships [5]. In a crisis, the ships that carry our goods, and the fuel and supplies our forces need overseas, mostly fly other countries’ flags.

For veterans, this is personal. The Navy can’t fight far from home without the support ships and merchant mariners that keep it supplied. And the shipyards that build commercial ships are part of the same industrial base that builds and repairs the fleet.

When America ships, America wins.

What’s in it?

The bill is big, about 100 sections in its latest House version [6]. Here’s what it would do, in six parts:

1. Leadership. A Maritime Security Advisor in the White House and a Maritime Security Board of every agency with a stake at sea, so one person owns the whole picture and keeps a national maritime strategy [2].

2. Money that lasts. A Maritime Security Trust Fund, so shipbuilding doesn’t start over every budget year [2].

3. Ships. A Strategic Commercial Fleet of 250 U.S.-built, U.S.-flag ships, supported by long-term government contracts and ready to serve in a crisis [2].

4. Shipyards. Modernized financing and grants to build ships and upgrade the yards that build them [2][6].

5. Cargo. More cargo on American ships: more government cargo, and, phased in over years, a small but growing share of imports from China and of U.S. oil and LNG exports [2].

6. People. Training for the mariners, welders, shipfitters and naval architects we’re short on [2].

Who pays?

This is the question that usually gets skipped, so here’s the honest answer: it’s still being worked out.

The Senate bill would fund the trust fund mostly from fees, not new taxes on families. Those include customs duties and penalties, tonnage taxes, and new fees on ships owned or operated by China and other “foreign entities of concern,” starting at $5 per net ton [2].

The House version that passed this summer caps the trust fund at $20 billion but doesn’t name where the money comes from. House rules pushed the revenue pieces into a separate bill [6][7]. The White House’s Maritime Action Plan, released in February, proposes a fee on foreign-built ships calling at U.S. ports that it says could raise “tens of billions of dollars over a decade.” That fee would also need Congress to act [4].

What’s being debated?

A fair primer gives both sides. Here’s what’s being debated [2]:

Cost: building in the U.S. can cost several times more than in Asia. One estimate puts a U.S.-built LNG carrier at two to four times the cost of a Korean one.
Prices: requiring U.S. ships could raise freight rates and slow cargo, costs that can reach consumers.
Capacity: our yards may not be able to build ships this fast. Shipbuilder Clay Wirsing told us some targets get “a little bit ahead of ourselves” given today’s yard capacity [8].
Trade partners: business groups warn that limiting access to ships could hurt U.S. companies and global supply chains.

Supporters answer that doing nothing has its own cost: a country that can’t build or crew its own ships depends on others in a crisis.

Where does it stand?

This summer, the House passed a rewritten SHIPS Act as part of the defense bill [6]. The Senate hasn’t passed its version. The final defense bill is expected after the November election, and which maritime pieces survive is still open [6][7].

The bottom line

The SHIPS for America Act is the biggest effort in decades to answer a simple question: can America build, crew and sustain its own ships again? Reasonable people disagree on the details and the cost. Our job isn’t to tell you what to think. It’s to make sure you understand what’s being decided, while there’s still time to get it right.

Join the conversation. Reply on X and tell us: what’s working, what’s in the way, and what would you fix first?

While we argue, China plans. It’s time we started building.

Americans for a Stronger Navy is a nonpartisan not-for-profit organization.

References

[1] Sen. Todd Young, “Young, Kelly Introduce SHIPS for America Act,” April 2025: https://www.young.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/young-kelly-introduce-ships-for-america-act-to-revitalize-u-s-shipbuilding-and-commercial-maritime-industries/
[2] Troutman Pepper Locke, “Charting a New Course: The SHIPS Act of 2025 Reintroduced”: https://www.troutman.com/insights/charting-a-new-course-the-ships-act-of-2025-reintroduced/
[3] Brent Sadler, “Maritime Legislation: Explainer and Next Steps,” Heritage Foundation, August 12, 2026: https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/maritime-legislation-explainer-and-next-steps
[4] Holland & Knight, “White House Releases America’s Maritime Action Plan,” February 2026: https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/02/white-house-releases-americas-maritime-action-plan
[5] CSIS, “Are U.S. Policies Eroding China’s Dominance in Shipbuilding?”: https://www.csis.org/analysis/are-us-policies-eroding-chinas-dominance-shipbuilding
[6] CrossGov, “US Shipbuilding Push Rides on the NDAA,” October 11, 2026: https://crossgov.com/us-shipbuilding-push-rides-on-the-ndaa-ships-act-provisions-a-20-billion-trust-fund-and-koreas-150-billion-pledge/
[7] Seatrade Maritime News, “Reshaping the industry,” July 28, 2026: https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/regulations/reshaping-the-industry-progress-on-us-maritime-legislation
[8] Clay Wirsing, U.S. Maritime Action, interview for America at Sea, October 2026: https://strongernavy.org/blog

Posted on

The SHIPS for America Act in Six Parts, and the Group That Started It,

When we asked Capt. Brent Sadler, USN (Ret.), how the SHIPS for America Act came together, he named a group most people have never heard of: Revolution in Shipping.

“It became very clear we had to do something, and formed a group called Revolution in Shipping, which is the seed corn, and basically still active in the background on putting together and crafting things like the SHIPS for America Act.” — Capt. Brent Sadler, USN (Ret.) [1]

Here’s what we know so far about the idea, the people behind it, and how it grew into the most comprehensive maritime bill in decades.

It started with a report

In May 2023, Brent and Heritage Foundation economist Peter St Onge published Regaining U.S. Maritime Power Requires a Revolution in Shipping [2]. The title became the name of the effort.

Paste this right after the opening paragraph that ends “…the most comprehensive maritime bill in decades.” That puts the video near the top, the same as your other posts: “`
“` This post didn’t have a link placeholder, so it goes in that spot. If the video doesn’t show in the editor, check the live page. 80-85

The report laid out the problem in plain numbers. America had fewer than 200 U.S.-flagged merchant ships, down from 636 at the end of the Cold War. U.S. yards had delivered no more than 20 large commercial ships a year since 2017, most of them for government. China, meanwhile, built more than 40% of the world’s new ships by tonnage and paid its shipbuilders $132 billion in direct subsidies from 2010 to 2018 [2].

“Nothing short of a revolution in U.S. shipping is required to compete with China’s world-class merchant fleet.” [2]

The answer it proposed wasn’t to copy China. It was a “blue ocean strategy”: build a new kind of American shipping and logistics where we can lead, not chase the old model where we can’t [2].

What it called for

The 2023 report asked Congress and the administration for five things [2]:

1. A national maritime strategy, replacing the 1989 sealift directive
2. A maritime innovation incubator, run through the Defense Department
3. Training, stipends and a fellowship for mariners and naval architects
4. Opportunity zones at ports and intermodal sites
5. Stronger tools against China’s unfair practices, including a better-resourced Federal Maritime Commission and waived port fees for U.S.-flagged ships

The people behind it

Revolution in Shipping isn’t a think tank or a lobby. As Brent describes it, it’s a working group of about a dozen people from industry, academia, government and the military, pulled together in Washington to work out “what would be the most workable, but most importantly effective, approach to reviving America’s maritime industrial base” [1].

The group works quietly, and we’re not naming its members here. Brent says it’s still active, helping shape the SHIPS for America Act and the administration’s executive orders on shipbuilding, and helping inform allies including Japan, South Korea, France and Australia as they invest in America’s maritime industrial base [1]. We hope to bring you some of those voices directly in the weeks ahead.

From vision to bill

The ideas kept growing after 2023. By 2025, Brent’s Heritage work had built them into a full program with five lines of effort (protect, ally, nurture, build and train). It called for a presidential maritime advisor, a dedicated trust fund paid for by fees on state-subsidized shipping, and a strategic commercial fleet of 250 ships over a decade [3].

The SHIPS for America Act was first introduced in December 2024 and reintroduced in April 2025 by Sens. Mark Kelly and Todd Young, with Reps. John Garamendi and Trent Kelly in the House [4]. Its core pieces will look familiar. Here’s what’s in it, in six parts [5]:

1. Leadership. A Maritime Security Advisor in the White House (Sec. 101), so for the first time one person owns the whole picture, from the Navy and Coast Guard to Commerce and Transportation.

2. Money that lasts. A Maritime Security Trust Fund (Sec. 201), so shipbuilding doesn’t start over every budget year.

3. Ships. A Strategic Commercial Fleet (Sec. 401) of American-built, American-crewed ships, about 250 over the next decade, ready to carry our cargo in peace and supply our forces in a crisis [3].

4. Shipyards. Grants and financing to build new ships and modernize the yards that build them.

5. Cargo. More government cargo moving on American ships (Sec. 411), which keeps those ships sailing and those crews working.

6. People. Training for the mariners, welders, shipfitters and naval architects we’re short on.

On July 22, the House passed its defense bill with a rewritten SHIPS for America Act of about 100 sections inside it [6]. House rules forced the revenue pieces into a separate bill, the Shipbuilding Investment and Workforce Act (H.R. 9911) [8]. The House version creates the Maritime Security Advisor and caps the trust fund at $20 billion, but it doesn’t yet name a source of money for it [9].

The Senate has not passed its version, and the final defense bill is expected after the November election. On October 9, the bill’s four sponsors, backed by maritime labor, asked Senate colleagues to urge leadership to keep the SHIPS provisions in the final bill [10].

In his July testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Brent noted that the bill’s proposed fees on Chinese shipping became a basis for later administration action [7].

Why it matters

Big laws rarely start in a committee room. They start with a few people who see a problem clearly, write it down, and keep working on it long after the first report is published. Revolution in Shipping is a reminder that rebuilding America at sea is a long game, and that it takes people willing to stay with it.

Hear Brent explain the SHIPS for America Act in his own words in our America at Sea introduction with Brent and Clay Wirsing.

Join the conversation. What’s working, what’s in the way, and what would you fix first? Tell us on X at @StrongerNavy.

While we argue, China plans. It’s time we started building.

Americans for a Stronger Navy is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization. This post is educational and does not urge support for or opposition to any legislation.

References

[1] Capt. Brent Sadler, USN (Ret.), interview, America at Sea: Voices That Matter, October 2026: https://strongernavy.org/america-at-sea-the-ships-act-the-shipyard-floor-and-why-it-matters/
[2] Brent D. Sadler and Peter St Onge, “Regaining U.S. Maritime Power Requires a Revolution in Shipping,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 272, May 15, 2023: https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2023-05/SR272.pdf
[3] Brent Sadler, “Reviving America’s Maritime Strength: Comprehensive by Necessity,” Heritage Foundation, July 24, 2025: https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/reviving-americas-maritime-strength-comprehensive-necessity
[4] Sen. Todd Young, “Young, Kelly Introduce SHIPS for America Act,” April 2025: https://www.young.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/young-kelly-introduce-ships-for-america-act-to-revitalize-u-s-shipbuilding-and-commercial-maritime-industries/
[5] S. 1541, SHIPS for America Act of 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119s1541is/html/BILLS-119s1541is.htm
[6] K&L Gates, “House Passes Historic NDAA Maritime Amendments,” July 24, 2026: https://www.klgates.com/thought-leadership/House-Passes-Historic-NDAA-Maritime-Amendments-7-24-2026
[7] Statement of Capt. Brent Sadler, USN (Ret.), House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific, July 22, 2026: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA05/20260722/119432/HHRG-119-FA05-Wstate-SadlerB-20260722.pdf
[8] Brent Sadler, “Maritime Legislation: Explainer and Next Steps,” Heritage Foundation, August 12, 2026: https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/maritime-legislation-explainer-and-next-steps
[9] CrossGov, “US Shipbuilding Push Rides on the NDAA,” October 11, 2026: https://crossgov.com/us-shipbuilding-push-rides-on-the-ndaa-ships-act-provisions-a-20-billion-trust-fund-and-koreas-150-billion-pledge/
[10] Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO, “Senate Sign-On Letter: Urge Congressional Leadership to Include SHIPS Act Provisions in FY2027 NDAA,” October 9, 2026: https://ttd.org/policy/letters-to-congress/senate-sign-on-letter-urge-congressional-leadership-to-include-ships-act-provisions-in-fy2027-ndaa/

Posted on

America at Sea: CDR Salamander on People, Bureaucracy and Focus

America at Sea: Voices That Matter continues with CDR Salamander, the retired Navy commander whose writing on naval affairs has been required reading for years [1]. He served 21 years on active duty, from Desert Storm to Afghanistan, and today he’s one of the sharpest independent voices on the Navy we have.

We asked him the same three questions we ask everyone. His answers go past the usual talking points to people, bureaucracy and focus. Watch below.

Join the conversation. Reply to the post above on X and tell us what’s working, what’s in the way, and what you’d fix first. Not on X? Reach us through StrongerNavy.org.

What we heard

What’s working: people. Everything in uniform, he says, funnels down to a young man or woman holding the line. Budgets and programs don’t matter without the right people. He points to the Navy and the other services meeting their recruiting goals early two years running, and to Navy retention above 100% across the first 14 years of service, by the figures he cites.

“People are policy. People run programs. People work budgets.” — CDR Salamander

What’s in the way: bureaucracy and the defense industrial base. We still run on a system built around Goldwater-Nichols in 1986, when the worry was the Soviet Northern Fleet. Consolidation in the 1990s left a few big prime contractors. And when billions go to stock buybacks, he says, that money isn’t going to higher pay for welders and shipfitters, better shipyards or capital investment.

“Like any other large object with a lot of inertia, when you stop pushing on it, it regresses to the mean. This is going to require sustained efforts.” — CDR Salamander

What he’d fix first: mindset and focus. Do it in a bipartisan way. Look at a map: America is a maritime and aerospace power, and that’s our competitive advantage. Fund and focus to match, out to space, and be willing to take risk elsewhere, including moving more ground forces into the Guard and Reserve and building up the Naval Reserve.

“We are a maritime and aerospace power. That also happens to be our competitive advantage.” — CDR Salamander

And the ships? More “holes in the water” follow from getting the focus right, he says. But the sealift, prepositioning and merchant marine we’d need to sustain a fight across the Pacific are in rough shape. He notes that two replenishment ships earned the Presidential Unit Citation for operations off Iran this year because they “did almost the impossible,” and says that shouldn’t have to be the expectation.

The three questions

1. What’s working right now that we should do more of?
2. What’s the biggest barrier to rebuilding America at sea?
3. If you could fix one thing first, what would it be?

We’ll post each new voice here over the coming weeks. At the end of November, we’ll publish a common-ground report: what these voices agree on, in their own words.

Transcript

Lightly edited for readability.

Introduction

I’ve been telling people for a long time, I’m kind of your standard issue. Retired U.S. Navy O-5, commander. I did 21 years on active duty, did a lot of deployments, and I left active duty in 2009. My first deployment was Desert Storm, so I’m one of the cohort of baby junior officers who got the last end of the Cold War, got to chase the Soviets around the Atlantic and the Mediterranean a bit, did the Desert Storm thing as well. My last deployment, back in 2009, I came home about four months before I went on terminal leave, after a deployment to Afghanistan. So I kind of did the broad, older-cohort Gen X standard issue. Nothing too dramatic, nothing very exciting. My experience was in line with kind of the center of the curve, so to speak.

What’s working right now that we should do more of?

What’s working? It’s always fun and exciting, and goodness knows I do it. Today I wrote a little bit about long-range anti-ship missiles and having the Air Force do a little bit of our sea control. Many people will go back to their comfort spot on the tactical level. I was an operational planner for years, so I love talking about courses of action and decisive points and stuff like that. But at the end of the day, and this may be a funny thing for a person from the Navy to say, everybody who wears a uniform or supports them, it all funnels toward a young man or woman standing on a street corner holding a long arm, looking around and going, “This is mine, not yours. I control it.”

That’s people. People are policy. People run programs. People work budgets. You can have great budgets and great programs, but if you don’t have the right people, you’re going to have some trouble. In the volunteer system that we have, nobody’s drafted. There are no great levies on the population to fill the spots that we need. You have to create an environment where people not only want to join, but they want to stay. And we are a type of society where people do have choices.

There are some people who wouldn’t know what to do if they ever got out of the military. I originally was one of those guys. I’m not an academy guy; I was a contract ROTC guy. I was going to do a few years because I didn’t like communists, and then I was going to go get a real job in the civilian world. And as my wife reminds me, I didn’t do that. I stayed in and made a full career out of it. But you have to have a situation where people not only have a job that they value, but they think is valuable and is worth staying in for. And not everybody has to make a career out of it. Sometimes people do one or two tours.

A primary indicator when things are not working is when you can’t get people to join, and when you can’t get the ones that you have to stay. And numbers matter. You don’t want just the bare minimum. You want more than the bare minimum so you can do a quality cut, where you don’t have to take everybody. Those that maybe don’t have the best indicators for future success in uniform can be invited to pursue excellence elsewhere: don’t bring them on board, or they don’t re-enlist.

We’ve heard recently that the Navy and the other services, for the last two years, have reached their recruiting goals early. That means they were bringing in new men and women, and for those that like demographics, every year there are fewer people you can recruit, just because there are fewer children than what we had seen previously. So that’s getting new people into the pipeline.

But especially in our military, which is very high tech, it requires a lot of training, years of training for some specialties, before you’re actually usable to the combatant commanders. Retaining your smart people is what you want to do. I dug around a bit and found these figures, and I think they’re pretty good. Officer figures are difficult to come by, but from what I’ve seen from the Chief of Naval Personnel, and I’m just focusing on the Navy here, there’s been a steady increase in officer retention over the last three years, which is where you want to go.

On the enlisted side of the house, everybody who’s been involved in mentoring sailors, bringing sailors up, giving them jobs, letting them know why their jobs are important and rewarding them, should all give themselves a pat on the back, or get a little gold anchor to hang off their door or something. Zone A, for those that aren’t familiar with the manpower side of the house, is people who’ve been in zero to six years: 108.9% retention. Zone B, six to 10 years: 117.9%, we’ll call it 118. And Zone C, 10 to 14 years in the service: 111.3%. So that, I think, is what’s working. We’re bringing in the people that we need, and we’re retaining more than what we need, which is good, because that way you have more people on the right end of the bell curve to put in your critical jobs.

What’s the biggest barrier to rebuilding America at sea?

So, okay, we’ve got the people coming in. We’re keeping people. So what tools are we giving them? That’s what I think is in the way. And this isn’t unique to the U.S. military or the U.S. government. There’s a reason for phrases like “Ottoman bureaucracy” or “that’s Byzantine,” or, for those who have had to deal with European bureaucracies, “I’m sorry, that’s not possible.” It’s just the nature of bureaucracies.

I think it’s kind of embarrassing that a communist government, the People’s Republic of China, seems to be experimenting and building and innovating a little bit faster than we are. Some of it might be Potemkin, but holes in the water are holes in the water. Compared to where they were 20 years ago, tremendous advancements. I think our bureaucracy is the thing that’s in the way, with these programs, these systems, and people you can’t fire. I almost wrote about it today, and I may do it next week: an IG report where, instead of one person accusing someone, you had dozens and dozens of people accusing a senior executive. It had been a known problem for years, and they just couldn’t get rid of her. When you read the summary, she worked in the IG’s office, of all things. It gives people a little flavor of how difficult it is to move people. Going back to the first point: people are policy. And civil service reform is a dead letter, for a variety of reasons.

We have laws, and we have policies, and we have instructions. The one I like to use is Goldwater-Nichols, 1986. That’s when our biggest worry was the Red Banner Northern Fleet, Admiral Gorshkov’s children coming over North Cape, west of Bear Island. We still live under that system, and since it came on board, it’s developed all these accretions, all these additions, all these refinements, so that it’s not really fit for the 21st century. Time flies when you’re having fun. We’re already in the second quarter of the 21st century, and we’re still living inside a construct whose foundation is based in 1986. So the bureaucracy has got to change.

We also have a big problem that’s the byproduct of Perry’s “Last Supper” in the 1990s, with defense consolidation. We have what we call the primes, our prime defense contractors, and there aren’t that many options. Boeing is going to be building both the F-47 and whatever we end up calling the new Navy fighter. You’ve got Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman. There’s not much competition there.

Corporate governance is important, because it establishes priorities and it establishes short-term and long-term requirements. One of the problems with the primes being publicly traded companies is their boards. I love my defense primes. Every time I talk to those folks, they have great professionals working for them. But I’d encourage everybody to go look at their boards of directors, look at the backgrounds of the board members, all publicly available, and look at who the primary shareholders are. Shareholders vote. If you own a pension fund, you’ve got BlackRock, you’ve got Vanguard, you’ve got Fidelity, and a couple of others in there. Their primary goal is not national defense. Their primary goal is shareholder value. General Dynamics is one of the companies that actually has a fair bit of private money coming in.

When you’re spending billions of dollars on stock buybacks, and that’s money coming from the federal government paying for weapons systems, you’re not paying larger salaries for your welders, your shipfitters, your staff. You’re not improving shipyards. You’re not doing capital investment. You’re buying back your own stock to get incremental, in some places fractions of a cent per share, advances in share price, because that benefits the shareholders, Vanguard and BlackRock, who own the majority of the stock and get to pick the board members who make those decisions. And I’ll give the administration credit: inside the last year, they’ve started some moves in that regard.

So those are the things I think are in the way. Our bureaucracy is not moving as fast as the executive branch and the legislative branch would like to see things move. There’s progress there. But like any other large object with a lot of inertia, a lot of mass, a lot of density, when you stop pushing on it, it regresses to the mean. So this is going to require sustained efforts.

If you could fix one thing first, what would it be?

The first thing is, and this needs to be done in a bipartisan way, both what’s in the way and what you’d fix first. Because if it becomes a partisan thing, national defense isn’t going to benefit, people wearing the uniform aren’t going to benefit, our allies aren’t going to benefit. Who’s going to benefit are those whose self-interest lies in other things besides national defense and allied defense.

So I would like a conversation that will upset people in Congress, too, because you’re going to upset some rice bowls. But it’s something I’ve advocated for a long time. And I know I wear blue and gold here. Fine. However, I put myself on equal footing with my boys in blue here.

I encourage everybody: everybody should have a map on the wall. If they don’t, they should definitely have a little globe, or a big globe. I have a big globe, about three feet in diameter, that I keep in my library. Look at the map. Go on Google Earth if you have to, and do a couple of great circle routes to where most of the threats to our national security lie. We are a maritime and aerospace power. That also happens to be our competitive advantage. Yes, the Chinese now have the world’s largest navy, but are their Type 055s the same as our Flight IIA Arleigh Burkes? Probably not, because we have a lot of combat experience, especially over the last few years, and we’ve been able to refine our systems. Our technology is the best. China’s trying to steal its way into a capability that looks like SpaceX, but they don’t have a SpaceX.

And when I say aerospace power, I’m not just talking about the B-21 Raider. I’m talking about low Earth orbit, cislunar space, I think is what the cool kids call it. We have to dominate space between here and the Moon, because if we don’t, the Chinese will. Do you want the rest of the solar system to run on the language, the culture, the policies and the rule of law of the U.S., the European Union, Japan, Australia and Korea? Or do you want it run by the authoritarian Chinese, with an assist from the Russians? I think you want the former. And to properly fund it, and not just fund it but focus the mind of everybody within a commute of D.C., whether you work in the Pentagon, at a think tank, as a congressional staffer, or you’re a member of Congress, you need to be thinking about the United States as a maritime and aerospace power.

We have to be willing to assume risk on what we are not. We are not a continental land power. We do not need huge standing armies. When you look at our obligations overseas through our alliances, not just NATO but our alliances with Japan, Australia and a few others, these are nations, especially on continental Europe, that are land powers, whether they want to spend on it or not. France, Germany and Poland should be able to hold the land just fine. We can help them in the aerospace and maritime domains. And if they do need our ground forces, we should have the balance of our ground forces, except for a few high-readiness, highly expeditionary forces, in the National Guard and the Reserves.

Does that mean, like we saw in Desert Storm, that it takes a while to get those units up to speed, compared to a large active-duty armored or infantry division? Sure does. And this is where my opinion gets unpopular with people. But that gives the American people and our government, as designed, with the executive and the legislative branch, time to decide together: yes, this issue, whatever and wherever it is, is worth the national effort, worth telling a whole bunch of constituents, “Shipmate, it’s not one weekend a month and two weeks in the summertime.” Though for the last 20 years that’s not been true either. You’re getting activated, and you’re probably going to war. That requires a lot more national buy-in than you have with a large standing ground force. I’d also like to see more in the Naval Reserve than what we’re doing. The Air Force recaptures a lot of its active-duty experience in the Reserve and the Air National Guard. The Navy, I think, has always shortchanged that capability.

So what I’d fix first is the mindset and the focus, toward a maritime and aerospace power, with extra emphasis on space. I grew up with Star Trek, and they were ahead of their time: it is the final frontier. If you look at it from a civilizational and a species point of view, 200 years from now I would much rather have the people managing resource extraction in the asteroid belt have a union, an appeals process and contracts subject to tort claims, than a system where if you don’t meet your quota, you wind up mining the asteroid yourself until you die, which is what you have in authoritarian systems.

Bill Cullifer: How about holes in the water?

Holes in the water, I think, will come as a byproduct of emphasizing that we’re a maritime and aerospace power. I remember one of my friends came back from being a third-tier junior officer at one of our large war games in the 1990s, updating our operations plan for Korea. He came back and said, “We don’t have enough to do what they want to do, but we’re going to pretend we do.” And I thought, that’s true. If we can get the focus right, we can get more holes in the water, and more shadows on the ramp.

Our commitments are mostly overseas, or across the Caribbean if you’re Venezuela, I guess. That requires strategic airlift and strategic sealift, and we barely have enough of that. We’re flying the wings off our C-17s as it is, and we don’t have a heavy-lift strategic airlifter in production. If you’re over 40, you may not have looked at what has happened to our Maritime Prepositioning Force, which existed in pretty good numbers as late as 2010, or the state of the merchant marine that is supposed to sustain us. It’s nightmarish, if you look at sustaining combat operations west of the International Date Line, which we’ll be required to do.

There’s a reason two replenishment ships received the Presidential Unit Citation, an award usually given to submarines that do things nobody can talk about, for operations off Iran this year. They did almost the impossible, and everybody should be really proud of what they did. But that shouldn’t be the expectation. We shouldn’t have to create miracles on a regular basis. We should have the funding and the foresight to have a merchant marine and auxiliary force that can actually support our forces forward.

While we argue, China plans. It’s time we started building.

References

[1] CDR Salamander, Substack: https://cdrsalamander.substack.com

Posted on

America at Sea: The SHIPS Act, the Shipyard Floor, and Why It Matters

Yesterday we kicked off America at Sea: Voices That Matter. Today you’ll meet the two people who will be with us to the finish line: our moderator, Captain Brent Sadler, U.S. Navy, retired, and Clay Wirsing, founder of U.S. Maritime Action, which is hosting this series with us.

Brent explains the SHIPS for America Act, where it stands and how he came to this work. Clay talks about starting out in a shipyard, and why that got him into this fight. Watch below.

Join the conversation. Reply to the post above on X and tell us what’s working, what’s in the way, and what you’d fix first. Not on X? Reach us through StrongerNavy.org.

What we heard

The SHIPS for America Act is big, and that’s the point. Brent calls it the first serious effort since the Nixon years to revive America’s maritime industrial base: naval shipbuilding, ship repair, commercial shipping and the training behind all of it, from skilled shipyard workers to naval architects [2]. That reach is also what makes it hard to move. So many committees own a piece of it.

Where it stands. Parts of the bill passed the House this summer as amendments to the defense bill [1]. The Senate hasn’t acted yet, and the two chambers are expected to work it out in conference. Brent says support is wide and bipartisan, and the White House backs reviving the maritime industrial base.

“It’s not just something for a few technocrats here in Washington, D.C., because that’s not going to work. It’s never worked in the past.” — Capt. Brent Sadler, USN (Ret.)

Why more voices matter. Brent’s point is simple. A strong Navy needs a strong maritime industrial base, and getting there takes technical experts, business leaders, workers and the public, not just a few people in Washington.

From the shipyard floor. Clay started as a welding engineer at Newport News Shipbuilding in 2017. About a year in, Navy officials came to talk about speeding up the yard’s pace to compete with China. It was his first look at how far we’ve fallen behind as a maritime nation.

“Unfortunately, not a lot has changed since then in terms of actual shipbuilding capacity, but we do now see a ton of momentum.” — Clay Wirsing

A long time coming. Clay notes that China revisits its maritime policy every five to ten years. The United States hasn’t made a major update since the Merchant Marine Act of 1970.

How the series works

Over the next 45 days, we’ll post each new voice here. Everyone gets about ten minutes and the same three questions:

1. What’s working right now that we should do more of?
2. What’s the biggest barrier to rebuilding America at sea?
3. If you could fix one thing first, what would it be?

At the end of November, we’ll publish a common-ground report: what these voices agree on, in their own words.

Transcript

Bill Cullifer: Welcome to America at Sea: Voices That Matter. I’m Bill Cullifer with Americans for a Stronger Navy. Today I’m joined by two people who will be with us to the finish line. Our moderator, Captain Brent Sadler, U.S. Navy, retired, and Clay Wirsing, founder of U.S. Maritime Action, a not-for-profit organization based in San Diego. Thank you both for being here today. Brent, let’s start with the SHIPS for America Act. You’ll hear a lot about this. Do most Americans know what it is?

Brent Sadler: No, absolutely not. And I’ll try to be as concise… I mean, it’s a massive piece of legislation. Historic. It’s the first time since Nixon was in office that there’s been an effort to try to revive and update America’s maritime industrial base. So this is naval shipbuilding, it’s the repair, it’s our shipping industry, it’s the academics of that. So it’s the training of highly skilled blue-collar workers on robotic systems like welding, but also the naval architects, which we don’t educate enough, that do the design work and solve problems in the shipyard so that we can keep things moving.

So it’s a very comprehensive bill. It also makes it very hard to get through Congress, because it has so many committees that are responsible for parts of it. And so the origin of this, about a dozen or so folks pulled together here in D.C. from industry, academia, government, military, to put together what would be the most workable, but most importantly effective, approach to reviving America’s maritime industrial base. And as we know from the COVID recovery, the war in Ukraine, the war right now with Iran, shipping is extremely vulnerable, and it has a huge impact on our daily lives and economy, but most importantly also our security. And so this is all very deadly serious.

The bill itself right now has been passed by the House. The Speaker of the House pulled a few elements out of it for the revenue creation part, per House rules, so that they could put it as an amendment to the defense budget. So it’s sitting over with the Senate. They’re going to go into what’s called conference, and hopefully before Christmas have it on a floor vote.

As far as popularity of this bill, it started back in 2023, formally, and the first time it was brought to the floor, sadly, didn’t get a vote, was in December of 2024. And then it was brought forward again in April of 2025. Now it’s being revised and it’s coming again. The popularity of it, you know, set all that aside. It has wide bipartisan support. It definitely has the White House’s support. President Trump has been very strongly advocating for reviving America’s maritime industrial base, to be very clear. So if this was a vote today, set all the processes and Congress’s procedures aside, high confidence that it would pass. But it means that you’ve got to stay aware and get more and more awareness to keep that momentum going, because the historical consequences of not getting it right, or not doing this window of opportunity, will put us really in a bad situation.

Bill Cullifer: Thank you, Brent. That’s a lot of history in a short time. Why does it matter to bring all of these individuals and these voices together? And tell us a little bit about how you came into this work, please.

Brent Sadler: Well, thanks again for pulling together this effort. And the more voices and the more people that are engaged, technical experts, business leaders, political leaders, everyone coming together and continually updating themselves as to why we need to have a strong maritime industrial base and a strong Navy that’s enabled by that. It’s important and it requires a lot of participation. It’s not just something for a few technocrats here in Washington, D.C., because that’s not going to work. It’s never worked in the past. So thank you for your efforts on this very important and historic moment.

My own personal background: 26-year Navy veteran, retired at the height of COVID in 2020. And I’ve been at the Heritage Foundation here in Washington, D.C., and critically, when I left the military, I was able to get my own voice and to follow where the facts lead, and I had quite a lot of friends in industry, all the political tribes here in D.C., and it became very clear we had to do something, and formed a group called Revolution in Shipping, which is the seed corn, and basically still active in the background on putting together and crafting things like the SHIPS for America Act, the president’s executive orders on this, helping also inform some of our treaty allies like Japan and South Korea, the French, the Australians, all who have, in recent, like the last couple of years, started to get much more engaged in bringing billions of dollars into our maritime industrial base. So I’ve been involved in that for quite a while, at least since 2022, on this particular effort, reviving our American maritime strength.

Bill Cullifer: Thank you, Brent. Clay, you came from the shipyard floor. Tell us about your background and why does this matter to you.

Clay Wirsing: My name is Clay Wirsing. I started off as a welding engineer back in 2017 at Newport News Shipbuilding. At the time I really didn’t have any idea what the global situation was with shipbuilding or maritime. And I can remember about a year after I started, some high-level officials from the Navy came in and talked to us about speeding up the pace of our shipyard in order to compete with China, and that was kind of my first introduction there to how far we’ve fallen behind as a maritime nation, especially in shipbuilding. Unfortunately, not a lot has changed since then in terms of actual shipbuilding capacity, but we do now see a ton of momentum, which has been great to see, with the SHIPS for America Act, a lot more public recognition of what’s going on. And so I just want to continue to contribute to that, and hope to see more people join the movement and let our politicians know that maritime is an important space for both our economy and national defense, and we need to have the right laws and policies that allow us to succeed in that domain.

Bill Cullifer: Thank you, Clay. Here’s how this works. Over the next 45 days, we’ll post each new voice at the StrongerNavy.org blog. Everyone gets about 10 minutes and the same three questions. Question number one: What’s working? Number two: What’s in the way? And three: What would they do to fix first? At the end of November 2026, we’ll publish a common-ground report: what these voices agree on, in their own words, as well as a summary of the entire series. So with that, Brent, any closing thoughts?

Brent Sadler: Yeah, just to reiterate, I mean, the last time that America had been in a situation where there’s this much political, public, industry interest in our shipbuilding and shipping sector, Nixon was in the White House. But the challenges with China today are very real and very threatening this decade. So if we are effective at getting a stronger maritime industrial base, and things like the SHIPS for America Act are part of that, we’ll be able to better deter China, and if we get into a war, to be able to sustain a wartime economy and sustain the Navy that’s necessary to fight and win that war. So it’s a very real threat. It’s a very real time in our history that we have to all kind of appreciate the challenges, but also the risk of inaction. And so hopefully we’ll see things moving forward. And the more voices that are out there, the more people that are engaged, the better. And thank you again for pulling this together.

Bill Cullifer: Clay, what about you?

Clay Wirsing: Well said, Brent. And I’ll just add to that, that a lot of countries, especially China, are coming and revisiting their maritime policy every five years, maybe a decade or so. As you mentioned, the U.S. hasn’t really had a major effort in revisiting or revising its policy since the Merchant Marine Act of 1970. So it’s long overdue. I hope to see some bills like the SHIPS for America Act come through and pass in Congress, and then not only that, but as we continue to move forward as a nation, that we continually revisit these issues and make sure that our maritime laws and policies are appropriate for the conditions that we face in our current period.

Bill Cullifer: Brent, Clay, thank you both. To everyone watching, weigh in. Reply on X and tell us what’s working, what’s in the way, and what you would fix first. While we argue, China plans. It’s time to start building America. Let’s roll.

Coming up

Next, the voices start answering the three questions. We’ll post each one here as it comes in.

While we argue, China plans. It’s time we started building.

References

[1] K&L Gates, “House Passes Historic NDAA Maritime Amendments,” July 24, 2026: https://www.klgates.com/thought-leadership/House-Passes-Historic-NDAA-Maritime-Amendments-7-24-2026
[2] S. 1541, SHIPS for America Act of 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119s1541is/html/BILLS-119s1541is.htm