Trump’s America First betrayal reveals security blind spot: maritime expert

In an attempt to ease the economic blowback from his spiraling war with Iran, President Donald Trump has leveraged a strategy that not only betrays the “America First” principles held by his followers, but that poses “troubling” national security implications as it empowers U.S. adversaries. This is according to an op-ed penned by former Federal Maritime Commissioner William P. Doyle and published on Monday by the conservative newspaper the Washington Examiner. In it, Doyle explains why Trump’s decision to suspend the Jones Act — a law requiring that cargo shipped between U.S. ports be carried by ships that are built, owned and crewed by American citizens — is both hypocritical and dangerous.

“The Trump administration acted quickly after the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, temporarily waiving the Jones Act in hopes of easing pressure on American fuel markets,” writes Doyle. “That was an emergency decision. The question now is whether the facts still justify it. They do not.” The administration is now considering extending the waiver, which expires on August 16, but according to Doyle, “After nearly five months and almost 200 foreign vessel voyages, there is no public evidence that the waiver has delivered any savings at the gasoline pump.”

This situation allows foreign ships and crews to perform work that is legally “reserved for American-built, American-owned, American-crewed and American-flagged vessels,” which Doyle asserts raises “troubling” national security implications. For example, he writes that “the waiver has allowed a Chinese-owned, Chinese-operated, Chinese-built and Chinese-crewed vessel to carry cargo between Baltimore and Mississippi. It has also allowed a Russian crewed vessel to operate between Florida and Louisiana,” all the while extending tax exemptions to foreign shipping that places domestic companies at a disadvantage. According to Doyle, “That is difficult to reconcile with an America First economic and national security agenda.”

“The broader damage will be measured not only in cargoes lost today, but also in ships never built tomorrow,” he argues. “Investors, lenders and vessel operators will not commit billions of dollars to American shipyards if they believe the federal government will suspend the Jones Act whenever an international crisis disrupts global markets, even when the disruption has no connection to the availability or capacity of the domestic maritime industry. Uncertainty in federal policy can freeze long-term investment. Markets respond to clear rules. So do shipbuilders, vessel operators, lenders and the skilled workers they employ.”

Doyle notes that White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett has long been a vocal critic of the Jones Act, recently defending the move as a means of reducing gas prices. But according to Doyle, “The waiver should be judged by results, not theory. The promised consumer benefit has not been demonstrated. Foreign operators have gained domestic cargoes. American mariners have lost work. And uncertainty is discouraging investment in the maritime industrial base that Trump has pledged to rebuild.” All of this, notes Doyle, is “also inconsistent with Trump’s Maritime Action Plan,” which “calls for rebuilding shipyards, expanding the U.S.-flagged fleet, and strengthening the nation’s maritime workforce. Those goals cannot be achieved while federal policy transfers domestic cargo to foreign ships and discourages investment in American vessels.”

But according to Doyle, “The administration does not have to choose between national security flexibility and maritime jobs." Congress already provided a narrower alternative: 46 U.S.C. § 501(b), which allows for the issuance of a waiver for a specific vessel when the president determines that it is necessary in the interest of national defense and the Maritime Administration determines that qualified U.S. vessel capacity is unavailable. That way, “the government can respond to a genuine emergency without turning an exceptional waiver into a standing invitation for foreign operators to enter routine domestic commerce.”

Doyle concludes with a warning, writing, “Trump’s goal of restoring America’s maritime industrial base cannot succeed if investors believe blanket Jones Act waivers may become the new normal. Allowing the current waiver to expire, while relying on the targeted authority Congress provided for genuine needs, would send a powerful signal. Emergency powers remain available when truly necessary, but America’s domestic commerce belongs to American ships, American companies, and American mariners. That is what America First should look like.”