And despite Democratic pledges to curb the use of fossil fuels, there has been record domestic oil production. Although this is due more to the war in Ukraine, soaring consumer demand and technology advancements than to Biden policies, record oil production over the past four years has benefited the bottom line of oil companies as well as inland barge operators that carry petroleum products.
The administration has also taken steps to open up the clogged, post pandemic supply chain, and to counter cyber threats in the maritime domain.
What could be the fate of federal maritime programs should Donald Trump get a second chance to “Make America Great Again?”
As president from 2017-2020, Trump took steps to boost maritime industries, such as efforts to grow defense spending and rebuild the Navy which helped shipyards, rollback burdensome regulations that impeded maritime commerce and vessel and port operations, increase energy production, which helped domestic shipping, and launch a national maritime cybersecuritiy plan.
But Trump also set in motion tariff and trade wars, primarily against China, that hurt international shipping. His campaign has promised more of the same if he’s elected — perhaps tariffs as high as 60% on Chinese imports and 10% on imports from other countries.
New tariffs on China may alarm U.S. farmers and the river barge operators that carry agricultural goods from the heartland for export. They might remember being hit by retaliatory Chinese tariffs on grain exports, which caused China to shift its soybean purchasing to Brazil.
Trump is also no fan of “horrible” offshore wind development, having vowed a few months ago to halt such projects “on day one” of his second term.
Meanwhile, Trump has pledged to facilitate oil and natural gas drilling on federal lands and offer tax relief to U.S. energy producers, while lifting the Biden administration’s hold on LNG projects. He has also said he wants to revive the domestic coal industry. Such initiatives could benefit U.S. tug and barge companies that move energy products.
Neither Trump nor Biden, however, has succeeded in developing a national maritime policy that advocates say is necessary to counter China’s maritime dominance and reinvigorate American maritime power.
A conservative playbook for Trump 2.0 would impact maritime
Focus has recently turned to Project 2025, a conservative blueprint for a second Trump presidency that would extensively reshape the reach and role of the federal government and consolidate power under a future President Trump.
The 922-page document would eliminate many federal programs and agencies, further curb access to abortion, limit Medicaid coverage, secure the southern border and deport illegals, among other policy changes.
It was drafted by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington-based think tank, and is backed by more than 100 conservative organizations and many former members of the first Trump administration. The project bills itself as “an historic movement… to take down the Deep State and return the government to the people.” It calls its policy playbook “A Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” and “The Presidential Transition Project.”
While Democrats, including Kamala Harris, have tried to tie Trump to the tenets of the document, the former president has distanced himself from it. He has disavowed any involvement or knowledge of it, at one point calling it a “lunatic project” that could hurt his campaign. But some of the architects of it are said to be in line for key positions in a Trump White House, bringing with them the document’s policy positions.
Project 2025 proposes sweeping changes in government, from environmental protection to maritime programs (page 637). It would move the Maritime Administration and the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security (now home of the U.S. Coast Guard) or to the Defense Department should DHS be eliminated.
“In this way the two agencies charged with oversight and regulation of the maritime sector — MARAD and the U.S. Coast Guard — would be aligned under the same department where operational efficiencies could be realized more easily,” the document says. Critics, however, fear such a move will isolate the merchant marine, lead to budget cuts as maritime functions get deprioritized and put merchant vessels into harm’s way as they will be perceived as military ships.
Instead, “the Maritime Administration needs to be revamped and given the same oversight as the Federal Aviation Administration has, which oversees licensing of pilots and airports and helps set up traffic control. The MARAD administrator should have the same kind of power” over the maritime industry, said Sal Mercogliano, a maritime historian and former merchant mariner, who runs a YouTube channel called “What is Going on in Shipping?” He added that the Coast Guard and MARAD are very different entities, with the Coast Guard being a regulatory agency and MARAD involved in commerce, transportation and mariner training.
Eliminate the Jones Act?
Perhaps the document’s most egregious proposal for the maritime industry is “repealing or substantially reforming” the Jones Act, which is considered the cornerstone for protecting the domestic shipping industry, especially vessels operating along America’s rivers and coasts. In place since 1920 and known as America’s cabotage law, the Jones Act requires cargo moving between two U.S. points to be carried by American-built, owned and crewed vessels. Supporters say the law is critical for national security and for the country’s ability to maintain a U.S.-flag merchant marine.
But Project 2025 sees it differently. “The economic costs of the Jones Act, which is notionally in place to promote a robust Merchant Marine, vastly exceed its effect on the supply of domestic ships,” the document said. “If there are genuine concerns about U.S. fleet capacity in absence of the Jones Act, it would be possible to do so through an expansion of the Defense Reserve Fleet.”
Mercogliano said authors of the blueprint “don’t fully understand” the maritime industry. He acknowledged that the Jones Act needs some modern reforms, but said on his show that repealing it “would kill what is left of the merchant marine” because the nation’s ports, Great Lakes, coastal waters and inland waterways would be open to foreign vessels.
Attacks against the Jones Act are nothing new and have been part of the political landscape for years. Critics, including Trump, have said the law is a barrier to the free movement of goods and makes goods more expensive for many Americans, especially after natural disasters like hurricanes when it’s hard to find American vessels to deliver aid. It was reported in 2020 that Trump sought to reform the Jones Act but backed off under political pressure from Congressional Republican supporters of the law.
Any change to the Jones Act must be approved by Congress, and supporters believe they have enough bipartisan support to stop an overhaul or repeal of the law. If Trump wins in November, they also point out that the purpose of the Jones Act fits in with his “America First” platform.
The Jones Act is more than a cabotage law as it extends the Federal Employees Liability Act to mariners, permitting injured sailors to sue their employer in federal or state court, and extending the right to a jury trial to mariners. The law further requires employers to offer benefits to injured mariners.
Project 2025 also recommends dismantling and downsizing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which includes the Office of Coast Survey, which makes nautical charts, the National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Center, and privatizing some of the agency’s functions. “Together, these form a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry, and as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity,” the blueprint said.
