Skip to main content
Uncategorized

How Will the Jones Act Impact U.S. Maritime Push?  

leahMay 6, 2025

America’s maritime industry has been getting a lot of attention lately. The recent surge in activity includes the SHIPS for America Act that was introduced in December 2024, President Trump’s Executive Order to restore American maritime dominance signed April 9, and the reintroduction of the SHIPS for America Act on April 30. 

But another key piece of maritime legislation is one that’s been on the books since 1920: the controversial Jones Act. As discussions ramp up about how to best optimize America’s maritime industry, proponents say it must stay — but opponents insist on throwing it overboard.    

What is the Jones Act?

A 2019 Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report authored by John Frittelli notes that the Jones Act is part of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 and “requires that vessels transporting cargo from one U.S. point to another U.S. point be U.S.-built, and owned and crewed by U.S. citizens.”

Although the Jones Act provides a “significant degree of protection for U.S. shipyards, domestic carriers, and American merchant sailors,” Fritelli also notes that “some experts argue that it leads to high domestic ocean shipping costs and constrains the availability of ships for domestic use.”

Some of the historical dynamics he describes related to the law include:

  • “The Jones Act has come into prominence amid debates over Puerto Rico’s economic challenges and recovery from Hurricane Maria in 2017; in the investigation into the sinking of the ship El Faro with 33 fatalities during a hurricane in 2015; and in discussions about domestic transportation of oil and natural gas.”
  • “Defense officials have stated that while the Jones Act helps preserve a baseline of shipyard capability, the dwindling size of the fleet indicates a need to reassess current policy.”
  • “The U.S. Maritime Administrator has credited the law for ensuring the employment of the majority of U.S. merchant mariners.”
  • “Since 1920, Congress has enacted provisions that could be said to tighten Jones Act requirements as well as provisions that exempt certain maritime activity from the requirements.”
  • “Congress has enacted numerous exemptions or exceptions to the Jones Act. In some cases, Congress has enacted an exemption if there are no Jones Act-qualified carriers interested in serving a particular market (e.g., passenger travel to and from Puerto Rico).”
  • “Congress has allowed waivers of the Jones Act for national defense reasons, which most often have been executed to speed fuel deliveries to a region after a natural disaster disrupted normal supply lines.”

Interpreting Jones Act requirements

Additionally, Frittelli says regulatory interpretations about what constitutes a “U.S.-built” vessel, what constitutes “transportation” between two U.S. points, and what are “U.S. points” have been significant: 

  • “The Coast Guard has determined that a U.S.-built vessel can be assembled with major foreign components such as engines, propellers, and stern and bow sections. This interpretation has been consistent from the late 1800s.”
  • “Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has determined that cruise ship voyages that involve visits to foreign ports in addition to a domestic port are not domestic transportation and therefore not subject to the Jones Act. This interpretation also dates to the late 1800s.”
  • “CBP’s interpretations of what constitutes domestic transportation and U.S. points are significant to the offshore oil industry, as some of the vessels supporting that industry must be Jones Act-compliant while others need not be.”

The Jones Act and the U.S. military

The Jones Act also plays a major role in military preparedness. 

“By long-standing agreement, the military is to utilize U.S.-flag commercial ships for sealift before it utilizes government-owned vessels in its reserve fleet,” Frittelli writes. “Jones Act mariners are expected to crew sealift ships when needed, and thus the decades-long shrinkage of the oceangoing Jones Act fleet and mariner pool has been raised as a concern.”

In a September 2024 post for the U.S. Naval Institute, author Joe Greco provides additional context to the original intent of the Merchant Marine Act, aka the Jones Act.

“Following World War I, the Merchant Marine Act attempted to regulate cabotage—the transport of products between ports within a nation’s domestic boundaries—by foreign transport operators,” Greco writes. “Today, more than 45 nations restrict cabotage to protect their national security, support their ship manufacturers, and maintain employment in these industries.”

He says the three “main elements” of the Jones Act aim to address these issues by requiring: 

  • At least 75 percent U.S. vessel ownership
  • At least 75 percent of the crew to be U.S. citizens or permanent residents
  • Vessels to have been “built or rebuilt in the United States”

“Only qualified ships are permitted to transport cargo between U.S. ports, including those in Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, and Puerto Rico,” Greco says. 

Some of the most vocal opponents to the Jones Act are those impacted within such noncontiguous regions of the U.S. — and they’re demanding change.

Proposed legislation to reform the Jones Act

On February 14, U.S. Congressman Ed Case (D-HI-01) and U.S. Congressman James Moylan (R-Guam) announced they are leading re-introduction in Congress of three legislative proposals to reform the Jones Act, which is “widely recognized as creating domestic shipping monopolies that artificially inflate the cost of critical imported goods to the non-contiguous parts of the United States (Hawai‘i, Guam, Northern Marianas, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and Alaska.)”

“Our three bills aim to end a century of federally-created, monopolistic, closed-market domestic cargo shipping to and from our isolated and shipping-dependent homes,” said Case. “In doing so, they target one of the key drivers of our astronomically high costs of living: domination of our lifelines to the outside world by a small group of federally-protected shipping companies that are shielded from any effective competition for service and rates, forcing us to pay far more for both shipping and goods than virtually anywhere else in the world.”

“The Jones Act has unreasonably affected thousands of Americans living in the Pacific-most areas of the United States for years. Created long before Hawaii became a State or Guam became a modern territory, the Jones Act has punished both based on their location,” said Congressman Moylan. “This tyranny of distance is not a new challenge for us, so I am happy to lead this bill with my friend, Rep. Case. As we continue to support partners and opportunities in the Pacific, I encourage my colleagues to recognize the damage the Jones Act does in the Pacific.”

Case and Moylan said their three measures and the proposed amendments to the Jones Act are the:

  • Noncontiguous Shipping Relief Act — which “exempts all noncontiguous U.S. locations, including Hawai‘i and Guam, from the Jones Act”
  • Noncontiguous Shipping Reasonable Rate Act — which “benchmarks the definition of a ‘reasonable rate’ which domestic shippers can charge as no more than ten percent above international shipping rates for comparable routes”
  • Noncontiguous Shipping Competition Act — which “rescinds the Jones Act wherever monopolies or duopolies in noncontiguous Jones Act shipping develop”

“These long-overdue reforms are of the utmost importance to our unique noncontiguous localities which have been left undefended to bear the brunt of the Jones Act for reasons which don’t hold up to the reality of the modern world,” Case said. “If the Continent wants to keep the Jones Act for whatever reason, where alternatives to shipping at least provide some insulation from monopolistic shippers, go ahead. But don’t expect us to pay through the nose for your privilege.”

For more about the pros and cons of the Jones Act, please see: