Tag: Charting the Course

Posted on

Six Weeks That Decide the Fleet

Part 1 of 4 in our series, “Six Weeks That Decide the Fleet: September 24 to November 9 — what happens to a fee meant to protect American shipyards.”

What This Series Covers

– How a 2024 labor petition turned into a real trade penalty on Chinese shipping — and why it barely survived a week
– Who’s financially backing the fight to kill that penalty, and what’s separately been reported about that same company
– What to watch for when President Trump hosts Xi in Washington on September 24
– What the people actually building ships and running unions told Congress this month, in their own words
– What happens on November 9 — the day the fee’s one-year suspension runs out

Where Things Stand, Briefly

For readers who want the fuller picture: three years in, there’s real progress and real gaps. On the plus side — an executive order creating a national maritime strategy, a $65.8 billion Navy shipbuilding request for FY2027, and a new submarine-component factory in Alabama already producing parts. On the other side — the U.S.-flagged oceangoing fleet actually shrank to 178 ships last year, the Maritime Security Trust Fund still isn’t law, and the industrial base has lost up to 40% of its waterfront facilities over two decades. Read the full three-year accounting →

A fee designed to protect American shipbuilding jobs lasted six days before someone made it disappear. This is the story of who did it, and why it should bother you even if you’ve never thought about a shipyard in your life.

Three years ago, we started asking a simple question: who pays for American naval readiness? Congress. Taxpayers. Shipyard workers who show up at 5am to weld hulls in the summer heat. That question is the whole reason Americans for a Stronger Navy exists.

This year we learned there’s a second question hiding behind the first one: who pays to make sure we never have to.

Two facts below are worth reading side by side. We’ll let you draw your own conclusion.

Let’s walk through it.

The Fee Nobody Remembers Was Labor’s Idea

This didn’t start in Washington. It started with the people who actually weld the hulls.

In March 2024, five American labor unions — not a think tank, not a senator, not us — petitioned the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate China’s dominance of global shipbuilding.[1] They’d watched it happen up close for years: American shipyards closing, skilled jobs disappearing, an entire industrial base hollowing out while China built ships by the hundreds. Nobody in Congress had acted on it yet. The workers went first anyway.

USTR agreed there was a real problem, opening a Section 301 investigation — a legal process the government uses to investigate unfair foreign trade practices. By early 2025, nearly a year after the unions first raised the alarm, the investigation confirmed what they’d been saying all along: China’s practices were “unreasonable” and burdened U.S. commerce.[2] The remedy: a modest port fee on Chinese-built and Chinese-operated vessels calling at U.S. ports — money that would help fund the rebuilding of America’s own shipbuilding capacity.[3]

The fees took effect October 14, 2025. Six days later, at a summit in South Korea, they became a bargaining chip.[4] By November 10, they were suspended for a full year — paused at $0, with the scheduled 2026 rate increase simply never happening.[5]

Two senators, one from each party, have since asked the obvious question: what exactly did the United States get in exchange for giving that leverage away?[6] As of this writing, nobody in the administration has given them a straight answer.

Who Wanted the Pause

We already knew part of this story. Our 2025 Navy year-in-review documented over $3 million in lobbying spent fighting the SHIPS for America Act and the fees meant to fund it — six times what was spent supporting it.[7] The National Retail Federation alone spent $2.27 million. The American Apparel & Footwear Association, the Consumer Technology Association, the Travel Goods Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce rounded out the list.

What we didn’t know then was how organized that campaign actually was. In March 2025, NRF and the Retail Industry Leaders Association — joined by more than thirty other organizations — jointly commissioned an economic study designed to make the case to USTR that the fees would hurt American consumers.[8] Their own words: “U.S. businesses and consumers will take the brunt of these service charges… many, if not all, of the leading ocean carriers capable of meeting U.S. shipping needs use Chinese-built vessels in their fleets.”

Read that sentence again. Their argument for keeping shipping cheap is that America has become so dependent on Chinese-built ships that we can’t afford to stop being dependent on them.

The Part Nobody’s Said Out Loud

Here’s what we found that nobody else has connected: the same interests fighting these fees include the company the fees were written to counter.

Companies are legally required to disclose who pays them to lobby the government — public paperwork anyone can look up. Those U.S. Senate filings show COSCO — China Ocean Shipping Company — and China Shipping Group are named directly, by address and by percentage of ownership, as the entities behind the World Shipping Council’s American lobbying activity.[9] Not a shell. Not an inference. Their names are on the federal paperwork, filed through two U.S. law and government-relations firms: Cozen O’Connor Public Strategies, and Shamrock Maritime Consultants.

In April 2025, Maritime Executive ran a headline that should have gotten more attention than it did: “Shipping Industry Joins with China Calling for U.S. to Reconsider Port Fees.”[10] The World Shipping Council’s objections and Beijing’s official objections were, functionally, the same argument, published within days of each other.

What Kind of Company Is Paying for This

Separately: just over a week ago, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies reported that COSCO uses concealed equipment aboard its own ships to intercept U.S. military communications near American coastlines.[11] The Pentagon put COSCO on its list of companies linked to the Chinese military back in January 2025.[12] Chinese law requires companies like COSCO to support state intelligence work whether they want to or not.

We’re not going to tell you what to make of those two facts sitting next to each other. Americans can draw their own conclusions.

What Wasn’t Said at Hudson

On September 16, the Hudson Institute hosted senators, industry, and labor to talk through the SHIPS Act’s path forward. Heritage’s Brent Sadler raised Chinese state shipping as an espionage vector, in general terms.[13] Sen. Todd Young described, without naming anyone, an uncomfortable conversation with congressional colleagues who wouldn’t answer whether they were comfortable continuing to route cargo through Chinese-owned shipping companies given what’s now known about tracking and targeting systems aboard some of those vessels.[14]

Nobody drew the line all the way through. Nobody said: the resistance you’re describing has a name, an address, and a line item on a federal disclosure form.

We’re Not Anti-Business. We’re Pro-Paying-Your-Share.

We’ve said from the start that this isn’t about picking a fight with retailers or the shipping industry. Companies are allowed to lobby for their interests — that’s how the system works, and we’re not interested in relitigating that.

What we’re saying is simpler than that: here are the facts, here’s who’s named on the paperwork, and here’s what’s been separately reported about that same company. Judge for yourself what it means that they line up the way they do.

The Clock

The fee suspension expires November 9, 2026. That’s the next real decision point — not a hearing, not a letter, an actual expiration date with a binary outcome: reinstate, extend, or let it lapse further.[5]

There’s an earlier date worth watching first. On September 24 — 46 days before that expiration — President Trump hosts Xi Jinping in Washington for their second summit of the year. The first time these two men met at a summit, the port fees became a bargaining chip within six days.[4] The Heritage Foundation’s own pre-summit brief argues this meeting should be judged by whether China shows “measurable progress on its previous commitments,” not by how many new deliverables get announced.[16] We’d add the obvious corollary: that standard should apply to what the United States gives up, too.

If the port fee comes up again on or around September 24 — as a “goodwill gesture,” a “de-escalation step,” or anything else dressed up as diplomatic progress — that won’t be a new development. It will be the same pattern repeating, with the same question still unanswered: what did the first suspension buy us?

Sen. Mark Kelly put the underlying stakes plainly at Hudson: 400 U.S. oceangoing ships during Desert Storm. Eighty today.[15]

Three years in, we’ve learned who’s supposed to pay for rebuilding the fleet. This year we learned who’s paying, quietly, to make sure that never happens.

Next in “Six Weeks That Decide the Fleet”: what to watch for when Trump hosts Xi in Washington on September 24 — and whether the same trade happens twice.

References

[1] Petition to USTR, five national trade unions, March 12, 2024, cited in Clyde & Co, “USTR Section 301 Fee and Tariff Measures and Their Impact to Charterparties.”
[2] USTR, Section 301 investigation determination, January 16, 2025.
[3] Federal Register, “Notice of Action and Proposed Action in Section 301 Investigation,” April 23, 2025.
[4] White House Fact Sheet, November 1, 2025; Hellenic Shipping News, “US-China Port Fee Truce.”
[5] Federal Register, “Notice of Modification of Section 301 Action,” November 13, 2025.
[6] Sens. Mark Kelly and Elizabeth Warren, letter to USTR Ambassador Jamieson Greer, June 2026.
[7] Americans for a Stronger Navy, “2025 U.S. Navy Year in Review — Follow the Money: Who’s Fighting Against American Shipyards.”
[8] Textile World / National Retail Federation, “Retailers Submit Comments In Opposition To USTR Shipping Remedies Proposal,” March 24, 2025.
[9] U.S. Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings, Cozen O’Connor Public Strategies and Shamrock Maritime Consultants, LLC, client World Shipping Council.
[10] Maritime Executive, “Shipping Industry Joins with China Calling for U.S. to Reconsider Port Fees,” April 18, 2025.
[11] Foundation for Defense of Democracies, “Yes, China’s State-Owned Shipping Giant Is Spying on the United States,” September 9, 2026.
[12] U.S. Department of Defense, list of companies linked to the Chinese military, January 2025.
[13] Hudson Institute, “Fixing Shipping and Shipbuilding: Plotting the Course Ahead,” September 16, 2026.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Andrew Harding, “Xi Comes to Washington: Expectations for the Trump-Xi Summit,” The Heritage Foundation, September 9, 2026.

Posted on

My 9/11 Story: Windows of the World & Let’s Roll

Two Weeks Before

In late August 2001, I was in Manhattan, kitty-corner from the Twin Towers, to deliver a web design course to community college instructors. I was there on behalf of the World Organization of Webmasters — WOW, for short an organization I founded in 1996. 

On the final day of the course overview to the program managers, around 5:30 in the evening, I walked into the World Trade Center and rode up to the Windows of the World, the restaurant on the 106th and 107th floors of the North Tower. I was still wearing my WOW blue denim. The staff took one look at the shirt, assumed I was a friend of the owner, and treated me like one — a glass of wine, an open table, no questions asked. I sat there taking in the whole of Manhattan below me, having no idea what that room, and that building, would mean to the country two weeks later.

The Week Everything Changed

That week, the course was taught to the Borough of Manhattan Community College web design instructors — BMCC, just blocks from the towers. It would become a command center within hours of the attack.

My two trainers that week were themselves community college instructors, my partners on a national train-the-trainers program run in collaboration with Apple Education and Cisco Systems, part of a $1.2 million U.S. Department of Education grant. Within an hour of the first plane hitting, my instinct took over: get them in a rental car and get them out of the city, to family in Pennsylvania. That drive — through a Manhattan that no longer had a skyline, past a country that didn’t yet know what was happening to it is a memory I still carry.

I think about that room at Windows of the World often. The wine, the view, the ordinary kindness of strangers who thought I belonged there — and then, seventeen days later, a building full of people who did belong there, gone.

Let’s Roll

Todd Beamer was a passenger on United Flight 93 that morning, a civilian with no training for what came next. When the hijackers took the cockpit, he got on an airphone with a GTE supervisor named Lisa Jefferson, learned what had already happened on the ground, and then turned to the passengers around him. His last recorded words were simple: “Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.” [1] Minutes later, Flight 93 went down in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania — the only hijacked plane that day that didn’t reach its target. [2]

Beamer a devoted husband and father wasn’t Navy. He wasn’t a first responder. He was a father of two who saw what needed doing and organized the people around him to do it. That’s the whole of the “Let’s Roll” campaign at Americans for a Stronger Navy: not a slogan borrowed for effect, but a standard. When something needs doing — for a shipmate, a fleet, a country — you don’t wait to be asked twice.

Why I Still Tell This Story

I didn’t lose anyone I loved on 9/11. I lost a room I’d sat in two weeks earlier, and I spent that week getting two people I was responsible for out of a city that had just become a battlefield. That’s a small story next to the ones this country carries from that day. But it’s mine, and it’s why “Let’s Roll” isn’t an abstraction to me — it’s a debt.

Beamer saw the writing on the wall before anyone else on that plane did, and he acted. That’s the point of this story, and it’s the point of everything we do at Americans for a Stronger Navy: the world isn’t getting safer, and the Navy is going to carry more of the weight of that fact, not less. The 2026 National Defense Strategy says as much. We don’t have the luxury of waiting to see how it plays out. Every year on this day, I pay a little of that debt forward — it’s time to roll.

“Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.”
— Todd Beamer, United Flight 93, September 11, 2001

Non sibi sed patriae. Not self, but country. Let’s roll.

References

[1] “Let’s roll,” Wikipedia, accessed September 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_roll
[2] Daily Herald, “‘Let’s roll’: Todd Beamer’s father on the valiant fight for Flight 93,” accessed September 2026, https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20210910/lets-roll-todd-beamers-father-on-the-valiant-fight-for-flight-93

Posted on

THE CASE FOR A MARITIME SECURITY ADVISOR

WHAT IS THE SHIPS FOR AMERICA ACT?

For readers new to this: the SHIPS for America Act (S. 1541 / H.R. 3151) is a bipartisan, bicameral bill—introduced by Sen. Mark Kelly, Sen. Todd Young, Rep. Trent Kelly, and Rep. John Garamendi—aimed at reversing decades of decline in the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base and the American-flagged merchant fleet. Its core provisions include rebuilding domestic shipyard capacity, growing and training a maritime workforce, expanding cargo preference requirements that favor U.S.-flagged vessels, and establishing a Maritime Security Trust Fund to reinvest industry fees back into maritime infrastructure. Its core provisions are currently riding inside the FY27 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 8800), which passed the House in July but remains stalled in the Senate as of this writing. One of its most structurally important provisions is the subject of this piece: the creation of a Maritime Security Advisor and Maritime Security Board inside the White House.

BACKGROUNDER — FIRST IN A SERIES

This is the first in a series examining the Maritime Security Advisor role created by the SHIPS for America Act—a new White House post that could end up mattering more than almost anything else in the coming maritime revival. This piece lays the groundwork: what the role actually controls, why it was created, and why the decision about who leads it deserves public attention now, before it’s resolved one way or another. Later pieces in this series will look more closely at the landscape of who could fill it, how it fits into the broader package of maritime legislation moving through Congress this fall, and what coordination work is already happening inside the administration to prepare the ground for it.

Most of the public debate over the SHIPS for America Act has focused on ships—fleet targets, funding mechanisms, shipyard capacity. Getting far less attention, though it’s been argued for by the people actually working this issue for well over a year, is a provision in Title I of the bill that may end up mattering as much as any of that: the creation of a new Maritime Security Advisor, housed in the Executive Office of the President. If the bill becomes law, this single office could do more to fix America’s maritime coordination problem than any funding mechanism in the bill.

The Problem This Position Is Designed to Solve

Right now, no single person in the federal government is responsible for American maritime strategy as a whole. The Navy, the Coast Guard, the Maritime Administration, and Military Sealift Command all operate in their own lanes, reporting up through different departments, with different budgets and different priorities [1]. The National Security Council has directors for regions and for functional issues like counterterrorism—but nobody with a standing brief to ask “what is America’s maritime strategy?” and get everyone else in the building to answer to it [1].

The Heritage Foundation’s own analysis of the maritime legislative landscape makes a related structural point: with four separate bills moving through different committees—SHIPS for America, the Shipbuilding Investment and Workforce Act, the FLEETS Now Act, and the Ready Reserve Force Modernization Accountability Act—the risk isn’t a shortage of good ideas. It’s that good ideas arrive at conference as competing claims on the same floor time rather than as a coordinated package [2]. A standing coordinating office would help avoid that same fragmentation once bills become law and start needing joint implementation.

What the Job Actually Controls

The bill text gives the Maritime Security Advisor real authority, not just a podium. As a Special Advisor to the President, the position chairs a Maritime Security Board that spans every federal agency with a stake in the maritime domain [3]. Its responsibilities include:

— Developing, updating, and implementing the National Maritime Strategy [3]
— Setting fleet-size targets for the U.S.-flagged commercial fleet [3]
— Independent oversight of federal cargo preference programs [3]
— Coordinating the national maritime workforce buildout [3]
— Setting R&D priorities for next-generation shipbuilding technology [3]
— Aligning federal policy to favor U.S.-flagged vessels in international commerce [3]
— Protecting U.S. vessels from physical and cyber threats [3]

Put simply, this office doesn’t just advise on maritime policy from the sidelines—it runs point on it, across every department that touches a ship, from the Pentagon to the Department of Commerce to the Federal Maritime Commission.

A position with real cross-agency authority is only useful if the person in it can actually use that authority—which means the credentials and judgment of whoever fills this chair will matter as much as the statute that creates it.

Why This Is Bigger Than It Looks

It’s worth being precise about scale here. The Maritime Administrator at MARAD is a real and important job—but it’s a single-agency post inside the Department of Transportation, with authority bounded by MARAD’s own statutory mission. The Maritime Security Advisor sits above that, in the West Wing, with a mandate that spans defense, commerce, transportation, and diplomacy simultaneously. It’s the closest thing the American maritime enterprise has ever had to a single point of accountability.

This Office Doesn’t Need to Wait for Congress

Here’s what’s easy to miss: the President doesn’t need the SHIPS Act to sign this office into existence. In a July 2025 Heritage Foundation report, Senior Research Fellow Brent Sadler argued exactly that—the President “should not wait for the [SHIPS Act] to reach his desk” and could name a Maritime Security Advisor directly, tied to the interagency framework already called for in his April 2025 executive order “Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance” [5]. On that reading, the SHIPS Act doesn’t create this idea so much as it would make permanent, by statute, something the executive branch already has the authority to stand up on its own.

Where the Legislation Actually Stands

The House passed its version of the FY27 NDAA (H.R. 8800) on July 22, 216–212. The Senate’s companion bill (S. 4784) has stalled: a cloture vote to begin floor debate failed 50–46 on July 14, and as of early September, the Senate had taken no further procedural steps to bring it up [4]. Recent NDAA cycles have often skipped a formal conference committee in favor of informal House-Senate negotiation, so even “conference” may understate how this ultimately gets resolved.

None of that changes the underlying stakes. If anything, a stalled bill is exactly the moment when it’s worth being public about what’s riding on it—and a reminder that the executive branch doesn’t have to wait on the Senate to act.

References
[1] Heritage Foundation research on maritime coordination gaps across Navy, Coast Guard, MSC, and MARAD.
[2] The Heritage Foundation, “Maritime Legislation: Explainer and Next Steps,” Factsheet No. 285, August 12, 2026.
[3] SHIPS for America Act of 2025 (S. 1541 / H.R. 3151), Sec. 101, Title I—Oversight and Accountability; Senate Commerce Committee, “SHIPS for America Act Section-by-Section,” Apr. 30, 2025.
[4] H.R. 8800 (FY27 NDAA), House passage 216-212, July 22, 2026; S. 4784 cloture failed 50-46, July 14, 2026; no further Senate floor action as of Sept. 2026.
[5] Brent D. Sadler, “Reviving America’s Maritime Strength: Comprehensive by Necessity,” The Heritage Foundation, July 24, 2025.

Posted on

One Committee, One Conference, One Chance: Why Congress Needs a Select Committee for Maritime Industrial Revival

By Bill Cullifer | Americans for a Stronger Navy

The Heritage Foundation published a factsheet this month that does something rare in this space: it lays out, in plain language, exactly where the nation’s maritime revival stands and exactly what Congress needs to decide next [1]. We want to highlight one recommendation in particular, because we think it’s the single most important structural fix available to Congress right now and because it’s the kind of nonpartisan, process-focused idea a nonpartisan organization like ours can endorse without reservation.

Heritage recommends that, whether or not the Senate consolidates the current maritime bills into one, congressional leadership should create a Select Committee for Maritime Industrial Revival to coordinate across the committees that currently have jurisdiction [1]. We think that recommendation deserves support from anyone who has watched this effort unfold over the past three years.

The Problem the Committee Would Solve

The maritime revival effort is not lacking for good bills. The April 2025 version of the SHIPS for America Act carries genuine bipartisan support — 29 Senate cosponsors (15 Republican, 14 Democrat) and 140 House cosponsors (75 Democrat, 65 Republican) as of its last recorded action [1]. Alongside it sit the Shipbuilding Investment and Workforce Act, the FLEETS Now Act, and the Ready Reserve Force Modernization Accountability Act — each addressing a different piece of the same problem, each sponsored by different members, and each currently routed through different committees [1].

That’s not a failure of ideas. It’s a failure of coordination. A House amendment to the FY27 NDAA passed with two of these maritime provisions attached, and the whole package is now headed to House-Senate conference in September [2]. Conference is exactly the moment when overlapping, uncoordinated bills either get reconciled into something workable or get quietly dropped in the scramble to close out a defense authorization. A Select Committee — standing up now, ahead of that conference — is the difference between these bills arriving as a coordinated package and arriving as competing claims on the same limited floor time.

Why This Matters Beyond the Bills Themselves

We’ve spent three years arguing that naval readiness is fundamentally a “who pays” problem — allied burden-sharing through the Gulf Act, and a debt-neutral corporate demand signal through the SEAS Act’s Strategic Technology Responsibility Contribution [3]. Neither of those mechanisms competes with what’s already in SHIPS for America. Heritage’s own factsheet shows SHIPS for America’s funding model leans on shipping-side fees — non-U.S.-flagged vessel fees and Section 301 penalties tied to Chinese-built ships feeding a self-sustaining Maritime Trust Fund [1]. That’s a shipping-side answer to “who pays.” The SEAS Act is a corporate-side answer. The Gulf Act is an allied-side answer. None of these ideas need to compete for the same dollars or the same bill number — but they do need a body capable of seeing all of them at once, which is precisely what a Select Committee would provide.

What We’re Asking

We’re not asking Congress to adopt any specific funding mechanism in this post — ours or anyone else’s. We’re asking Congress to create the structure that would let good mechanisms be evaluated on the merits rather than lost to committee turf. A Select Committee for Maritime Industrial Revival, stood up before September conference, would let Congress treat this as the “generational task” Heritage rightly calls it [1], instead of a jurisdictional scramble.

The nation’s maritime revival has been, in Heritage’s words, a bipartisan, bicameral effort since its inception [1]. It should stay that way through conference. A Select Committee is how it does.

References

[1] The Heritage Foundation, “Maritime Legislation: Explainer and Next Steps,” Factsheet No. 285, August 12, 2026.
[2] H.R. 8800 (FY27 NDAA), House passage with maritime amendments, 2026; expected House-Senate conference, September 2026.
[3] Americans for a Stronger Navy / Center for Maritime Strategy, “Defense Reinvestment as Naval Strategy,” March 2026.

Posted on

A Clear Pretext for Occupation: Philippines Pushes Back on China’s Nature Reserve Claim

.

Philippine Officials Raise the Alarm
Top Philippine defense and maritime officials have condemned China’s recent declaration of a “nature reserve” at Scarborough Shoal, calling it a “clear pretext for occupation.” This bold response comes in reaction to Beijing’s move to designate the disputed shoal—known locally as Bajo de Masinloc and internationally ruled to be within the Philippine EEZ—as a Chinese national marine reserve.

Philippine officials aren’t mincing words. Former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio, former Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, and Coast Guard Commodore Jay Tarriela are among those warning that the “reserve” designation masks a broader strategy: to lock down access, increase Chinese presence, and project power deep into Southeast Asia’s maritime heart.

Part 1 — Broken Promises and Growing Risks
In 2012, after a tense naval standoff, the U.S. brokered a deal: both China and the Philippines would withdraw their ships from Scarborough Shoal. The Philippines complied. China didn’t. The U.S. didn’t press the issue. The result? Beijing solidified its control and sent a message that international mediation wouldn’t be enforced.

Part 2 — International Law Ignored
In 2016, an international tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines, stating clearly that China had no legal claim to Scarborough Shoal. Beijing ignored the decision, accelerating militarization and disrupting Filipino fishing. Once again, global rule of law was challenged—and left unenforced.

Part 3 — The “Nature Reserve” Play
Now, in 2025, China has unveiled a new maneuver: using environmental language to advance military and political objectives. The creation of the “Huangyan Island National Nature Reserve” is being widely viewed as part of a creeping campaign to normalize Chinese administrative control.

Despite the label, this is not about conservation. China has repeatedly blocked Filipino fishermen, driven out environmental research vessels, and deployed maritime militia under the radar. Calling this a “preserve” is like calling a fortress a flower garden.

Why Americans Should Care

  • Strategic Sea Lanes: The South China Sea is a maritime superhighway. If China controls it, they can control access to vital markets and resources.
  • U.S. Credibility Is on the Line: American influence is measured by what we protect—not just what we promise.
  • Civic Responsibility: Understanding how foreign policy, trade, and defense intersect isn’t just for experts. It’s for every American who relies on secure energy, stable prices, and a functioning global order.
  • Environmental Lawfare: Americans should be wary of tactics that exploit noble causes—like conservation—to advance authoritarian control.

Implications for the Navy
The U.S. Navy has long played a vital role in ensuring freedom of navigation and stabilizing flashpoints. But gray zone tactics like these require more than just ships—they require intelligence, strategy, and public support. The Navy cannot succeed without a civilian base that understands the stakes.

Implications for Our Allies
This isn’t just a Philippine problem. What happens at Scarborough sends ripples across the Pacific. Taiwan, Vietnam, Japan, Australia—all are watching to see whether the U.S. will back its allies when it counts. So are our adversaries.

Call to Action
The future of maritime freedom—and American leadership—may hinge on places like Scarborough Shoal. When China tests the limits, Americans need to respond—not just with ships, but with awareness and resolve.

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

Let’s roll.

Posted on

Charting the Course, Navigating the Future of Naval Power: The Navy’s Role in America’s New Warfighting Doctrine

Bill Cullifer. Founder

Today, we introduce the U.S. Navy’s new warfighting doctrine. According to the U.S.Navy, the doctrine not only reinforces the commitment to securing maritime freedom but also strengthens collaborative ties, ensuring the Navy remains a vanguard of global stability and security.

Introduction

The unveiling of the new joint warfighting doctrine signifies an evolution, not a departure, from the traditional “peace through strength” stance. It reaffirms the U.S. Navy’s pivotal role as the global guardian of the seas, adapting to modern challenges while maintaining its foundational principles.

What’s New

This doctrine introduces a multi-domain approach, integrating land, air, sea, space, and cyber capabilities. It emphasizes agility, technological innovation, and a proactive stance in the dynamic security landscape.

Why Americans Should Care

The doctrine, according to the U.S. Navy ensures the U.S. remains at the forefront of global security, safeguarding national interests, and promoting international peace and stability.

  • Integration Across Domains: It advocates for seamless operations across all military domains, enhancing responsiveness and effectiveness.
  • Innovative Approaches: The focus is on harnessing cutting-edge technologies and concepts to stay ahead of adversaries.
  • Adapting to Modern Threats: It addresses the need to continuously evolve in response to emerging security challenges.

Implications for the Navy

The Navy is set to benefit from enhanced strategic direction, capability development, and operational planning, ensuring it remains a formidable force in protecting global maritime interests.

Implications for Our Global Partners

The doctrine fosters stronger alliances and interoperability among international partners, uniting efforts in maintaining a secure global environment.

Conclusion

The new doctrine is a testament to the enduring value of “peace through strength,” with the Navy continuing to serve as a cornerstone of global security and stability. Supporting a strong, adaptable Navy is more crucial than ever in navigating the complexities of contemporary and future threats.

Posted on

All Episodes Available Now! Dive Deep into the Future of Naval Power with “Charting the Course

Calling all members, friends, and naval enthusiasts!

The wait is over! All 7 information packef episodes with an historical perspectives and series overview including our very own thought leaders, discussing the top issues prior to our acclaimed series, “Charting the Course: Navigating the future of American naval power.”

All Episodes Available Now! Dive Deep into the Future of Naval Power with “Charting the Course are available for FREE at https://strongernavy.org/category/charting-the-course/.

Please Note: The blogpost in this special category start from the 1st in the series at the bottom of the page and work their way up.

You can bounce around of course, but to get the most out of the series start with the bottom post and work your way up.

Here’s a glimpse into what awaits you:

Embark on a thought-provoking journey as we explore critical topics with renowned experts, delving into the challenges and opportunities shaping the U.S. Navy’s future

Series starts December 7, 2023 scrolll down the page to find: Echoes of History: Steering the Future in Charting the Course: Navigating the Future of American Naval Power – Reflecting on WWII’s Legacy in Current Naval History

Inaugural Discussion: Welcome to Charting the Course: Navigating the  Future of American Naval Power’ a podcast series that dives into the past, present, and future of the U.S. Navy and its impact on the world. This is the inaugural discussion of our series with Billl Cullifer, founder for Americans for a Stronger Navy and Dale A. Jenkins, Senior Advisor and Author of Diplomats and Admirals” where we will introduce the main themes, topics and the speakers that we will explore in the coming episodes an eight-week journey that delves into the intricacies of naval power and the pivotal issues shaping our future security and stability

Episode 1: Dr. Steven Wills: Dive into the anatomy of naval strategy and its crucial role in shaping the Navy’s future.

Episode 2: Dr. Bruce Jones: Explore the historical and global significance of maritime power, analyzing its past and present dynamics.

Episode 3: Dr. Sam Tangredi: Journey into the realm of AI and its transformative impact on naval warfare, examining its ethical, legal, and strategic implications.

Episode 4: Dr. Scott Savitz: Navigate the cutting edge with non-lethal weapons and uncrewed platforms, understanding their potential risks and strategic advantages.

Episode 5: Bryan Clark: Venture into the technological horizon of naval warfare, exploring emerging technologies’ integration challenges and strategic impact.

Episode 6: Seth Cropsey: Grapple with contemporary naval challenges, dissecting global rivalries and strategic insights for a comprehensive understanding.

Episode 7: Jon Rennie: Conclude the series with Jon Rennie, focusing on the crucial elements of leadership, culture, and the balance between tradition and modernization within the Navy.

Whether you’re a seasoned naval buff or just starting your exploration, this series offers valuable insights for anyone who cares about the future of American naval power.

Don’t wait! Dive into “Charting the Course” today and share your journey with friends and family. Together, we can chart a course for a secure and prosperous future.

Sincerely,

The Americans for a Stronger Navy Team

P.S. Visit https://strongernavy.org/category/charting-the-course/ for detailed episode descriptions and more information.

Don’t wait! Dive into “Charting the Course” today and share your journey with friends and family. Together, we can chart a course for a secure and prosperous future. Follow the link below and happy watching, reading and listening.

All Episodes Available Now! Dive Deep into the Future of Naval Power with “Charting the Course” Americans for a Stronger Navy Team

P.S. Visit https://strongernavy.org/category/charting-the-course/ for detailed episode descriptions and more information.

Posted on

Charting the Course: Navigating Leadership Seas – From Submarine Command to Corporate Vision

Welcome to ‘Charting the Course: Navigating the Future of American Naval Power’.

Today, we’re delighted to have Jon S. Rennie, a notable leader in both the naval and business worlds. 

Jon is the Co-Founder, President & CEO of Peak Demand Inc., a leading manufacturer of critical components for electrical utilities, and a former U.S. Navy Nuclear Submarine Officer who served during the crucial period of the Cold War’s final stages.

With his extensive experience from seven deployments on nuclear submarines to leading eight manufacturing businesses for three global companies, 

Jon brings a unique perspective to leadership. He is the author of best-selling leadership books like

 “I Have the Watch: Becoming a Leader Worth Following” 

and “All in the Same Boat: Lead Your Organization Like a Nuclear Submariner,” and he slso hosts the Deep Leadership podcast. 

Jon’s core belief is that leadership is a pivotal force that can significantly enhance any organization’s performance.

In our discussion, Jon will share insights on how his experiences in the Navy and the industrial sector have molded his leadership philosophy.

 We’ll delve into the key leadership principles he advocates, and how they’re applicable to the dynamic challenges faced by the Navy today.

Discussion Points:

The Intersection of Naval and Industrial Leadership: Jon will explore how his naval career and industrial business ventures have influenced his leadership style and philosophy.

Principles of Effective Leadership: We’ll discuss the core principles and practices Jon teaches in his books and their relevance to the evolving context of the Navy in the 21st century.

Submarine Culture vs. Corporate Culture: Jon will compare and contrast these two distinct cultures, providing valuable lessons that could bolster America’s efforts to strengthen the Navy.

The Importance of a Strong Navy: We’ll delve into why a robust Navy is crucial for U.S. national security, economic prosperity, and global leadership, assessing the main challenges and opportunities ahead.

Supporting and Strengthening the Navy: Jon will offer his perspective on how we can bolster our Navy and the roles that different sectors of society play in this vital endeavor.

Join us as we navigate through Jon’s profound insights into leadership, drawing from his rich experiences in the depths of the ocean and the heights of corporate success, charting a course for a resilient and powerful future for the American Naval Power.

Posted on

Charting the Course – How to Secure America’s Naval Supremacy from Dr. Seth Cropsey.

Welcome to Charting the Course: Navigating the Future of American Naval Power’ a podcast series that dives into the past, present, and future of the U.S. Navy and its impact on the world.

Today, we are honored to welcome Dr. Seth Cropsey, a distinguished former U.S. Naval officer, political figure, author, scholar, and President of the Yorktown Institute. Dr. Cropsey comes to us with a wealth of experience in naval policy and history, having served as a U.S. Naval officer and a former U.S. Department of Defense official. He is the author of pivotal works such as “Mayday: The Decline of American Naval Supremacy” and “Seablindness: How Political Neglect is Choking American Seapower and What to Do About It”.

 His expertise is frequently sought after in esteemed publications and media outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, and The National Interest, among others.

My co-host Dale and I have previously laid the groundwork by introducing key themes and objectives of our series, including an in-depth conversation with Dr. Steven Wills, a respected naval historian and former U.S. Naval officer, in our episode ‘Developing and Implementing Effective U.S. Navy Strategies’ and Dr. Sam Tangredi, the esteemed Leidos Chair of Future Warfare Studies and Director of the Institute for Future Warfare Studies at the U.S. Naval War College. and Dr. Bruce Jones, Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology, Brookings Institution. – Maritime Power Through History and Future – January 4, 2025. Dr. Scott Savitz, a renowned senior engineer at the RAND Corporation.

In this episode, Dr. Cropsey will offer his expert insights on how to secure America’s naval supremacy, a subject that is paramount for our national security, economic prosperity, and global leadership. Building on the themes introduced in our series, such as effective U.S. Navy strategies and the historical and future significance of maritime power, Dr. Cropsey’s perspectives will deepen our understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the U.S. Navy today.

Drawing from his extensive background, Dr. Cropsey will discuss the importance of a stronger Navy in the face of global challenges and the strategies needed to ensure America remains a dominant maritime power. His analysis will cover the critical areas of naval readiness, innovation, and the significance of fostering strong alliances and partnerships, particularly in key strategic regions.

Posted on

Charting the Course: Navigating the Future of American Naval Power – Advancing Naval Superiority in the Age of Autonomous Warfare and Global Rivalry

Today, we are privileged to be joined by Bryan Clark, a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at the Hudson Institute.

My co-host Dale and I have previously laid the groundwork by introducing key themes and objectives of our series, including an in-depth conversation with Dr. Steven Wills, a respected naval historian and former U.S. Naval officer, in our episode ‘Developing and Implementing Effective U.S. Navy Strategies’ and Dr. Sam Tangredi, the esteemed Leidos Chair of Future Warfare Studies and Director of the Institute for Future Warfare Studies at the U.S. Naval War College. and Dr. Bruce Jones, Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology, Brookings Institution. – Maritime Power Through History and Future – January 4, 2025. Dr. Scott Savitz, a renowned senior engineer at the RAND Corporation.

Mr. Clark is a renowned expert in naval operations, electronic warfare, autonomous systems, military competitions, and wargaming. His extensive background includes distinguished service as a former U.S. Navy officer, analyst, and consultant.

Bryan Clark’s contributions to the field of naval warfare and strategy are substantial, demonstrated through his insightful reports and articles, including notable works like “Unalone, Unafraid: A Plan for Integrating Uncrewed and Other Emerging Technologies into U.S. Military Forces”.

In this session, Mr. Clark will share his invaluable perspectives on the current and future challenges and opportunities facing the U.S. Navy in the 21st century. 

With a keen focus on the escalating competition and rivalry from global adversaries such as China, Russia, and Iran, he will discuss strategies for the U.S. Navy to maintain and enhance its edge in terms of size, capability, readiness, innovation, and technology.

Additionally, Mr. Clark will address the crucial aspect of strengthening cooperation and coordination with allies and partners, particularly in strategically significant regions like the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East, and Europe. His insights will shed light on the vital role of the U.S. Navy in ensuring the freedom and security of the seas and the international order.