The White House is pushing a new strategy to rebuild America's naval fleet by borrowing from Finland's shipbuilding playbook, but the plan is already hitting political headwinds in Congress.
In a recent memorandum, President Trump directed the Navy to adopt what he calls the "Finland Model" for constructing warships. The approach, formalized under the Icebreaker Collaboration Agreement (ICEPact) among the U.S., Canada, and Finland, is designed to accelerate the production of anti-submarine surface ships, cargo replenishment tankers, and roll-on/roll-off vessels.
The ICEPact program has already shown early results. The Coast Guard's first Arctic Security Cutter is on track for delivery from Finland's Sata shipyard, with seven more to be built in American yards. A parallel project at Bollinger Shipyard in Louisiana is also underway, marking the first time in decades that U.S. workers are assembling icebreaker hulls.
Under the memorandum, foreign builders must establish a significant U.S. presence, hire American workers, and license their proprietary technologies to domestic yards. They must also build U.S.-based supply chains for maintenance and future construction. The goal is to create a durable industrial base that can churn out ships at scale—something the current system has failed to do.
"The situation is dire: We need to stop thinking primarily about protecting jobs and start thinking about producing ships at scale," said Dov Zakheim, a former Pentagon comptroller and senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Zakheim argues the Finland model offers a path to serial production, advanced propulsion systems, and a resilient supplier network. It would also train a new generation of welders, electricians, and naval architects—skills that are in short supply today.
But implementation faces significant hurdles. The State Department's International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) restrict the transfer of technical data needed for foreign yards to build to Navy specifications. Additionally, ships built abroad would need to meet rigorous Navy survivability standards and be outfitted with combat systems at U.S. ports.
Congress is the bigger obstacle. Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), whose district includes Bath Iron Works, has inserted a provision into the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act that would bar using funds to buy battle force ships built overseas. He argues the move protects American jobs, a sentiment echoed by lawmakers from other shipbuilding states.
Those concerns may be misplaced. The Government Accountability Office testified in April that shipyards are already behind schedule on existing contracts, and backlogs are not the issue. With China projected to field 435 ships by 2030—versus the Navy's goal of 381 by 2045—the need for rapid expansion is urgent.
Zakheim contends that adopting the Finland model would not only deliver ships faster but also create more domestic jobs in the long run. "It would actually accomplish what those members are seeking: more jobs at home for an expanded and well-trained American workforce," he said.
As the debate unfolds, the administration's Arctic security priorities and broader infrastructure challenges underscore the stakes. The question is whether Congress can look beyond parochial interests to embrace a model that could reshape the Navy's future.
