Trump Issues Maritime Action Plan

The Trump administration’s newly released Maritime Action Plan is a serious attempt to restore American shipbuilding capacity. This has both economic and national defense implications. Currently, the United States accounts for less than 1% of global shipbuilding.

What is the “Bridge Strategy” fee proposed in the Maritime Action Plan? And how much revenue is it expected to generate? The “Bridge Strategy” calls for a fee of 1% per ton on cargo delivered to U.S. ports on ships built in China. Over ten years, the fee is projected to raise about $66  billion.

This revenue stream is expected to go into the Maritime Security Trust Fund. This money will be earmarked for shipyard revitalization, infrastructure, and workforce programs.

What role will Congress play in all this? The plan dovetails with the Shipbuilding and Harbor Infrastructure for Prosperity and Security (SHIPS) for America Act, which would establish the Maritime Security Trust Fund. Its goal is to jump-start investment, workforce training, and supplier development and create “maritime prosperity zones” to attract private capital.

This program will work with other key defense allies, including the Republic of Korea and Japan. How? It will work with Korea’s Maritime Action for Sustainable Growth and Advancement (MASGA) proposal. This is a $150 billion plan for joint initiatives between these two countries.

Strategically, these plans appear to be a response to China's shipbuilding. Currently, China accounts for 50% of world output.

What are the cost differences between U.S.-built ships and those built in South Korea, Japan, or China? Right now, a Korean shipyard can build a 3,000‑TEU (Twenty‑foot Equivalent Unit) feeder ship for $40 million. These transport containers are shipped from major shipping hubs to smaller ports. The same ship would cost $120 million in the United States.

The U.S. cost for Compensated Gross Tonnage (CGT) is 2 to 4 times higher than those is Asia. This is a standardized metric used by the shipbuilding and shipping industries to compare the productive capacity of different types of vessels on an equal footing. America is at a clear cost disadvantage. Can economies of scale from increased production under this plan compensate for this?

You can read the entire plan here.

The proposal sidesteps the Jones Act. The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 states that any vessel transporting goods or passengers between two U.S. ports must be owned and crewed by Americans and built in the United States.

Given the current cost differences in construction, shipping between domestic ports is expensive. This impacts those not living in the 48 contiguous states.

Will the Maritime Action Plan restore U.S. shipping, and in the long run, bring down costs? Perhaps. But this is a very long-term project. By the 1950s, ships built in the United States accounted for 3 to 5% of world output. Shipyards were closing fast after the post-World War II arsenal-of-democracy output.

In 2024, Congressional Research Service said “the United States builds about 0.2 % of the world’s tonnage today” and that the country’s share “has long been minuscule.” Trump clearly sees the problem. Can his action plan reverse it?

Join PJ Media VIP today and get 60% off with promo code FIGHT. Join now to support this news site, go ad-free, and comment as you see fit.