The Jones Act, a 1920 protectionist maritime law, has long been defended with warnings that relaxing its restrictions would open U.S. shipping lanes to Chinese dominance. However, recent waiver data tells a different story, suggesting that reform could actually benefit American businesses and consumers while posing no significant security threat.
Since March 17, the law—which requires ships transporting goods between U.S. ports to be American-built, flagged, owned, and crewed—has been suspended for fuel and fertilizer shipments. President Trump initially issued a 60-day waiver citing national security concerns related to Iran, then extended it twice, most recently on Aug. 10 with additional conditions and a narrower list of eligible fuels.
The waiver has provided real-world evidence of how Jones Act restrictions have been limiting domestic shipping. As of Sept. 17, 200 ships completed 259 voyages under the waiver, delivering gas, oil, and other commodities within the U.S.—trips that would not have occurred otherwise.
Notably, only seven of those voyages (less than 3%) were made by Chinese-owned ships. In contrast, ships owned by companies from Denmark, Greece, Japan, and Singapore accounted for 50% of the waiver movements as of Aug. 31, with other foreign carriers adding about 20%. Even U.S.-based companies that don't fully comply with all four Jones Act requirements moved about 25% of the shipments.
These waiver shipments have also given U.S. companies, consumers, and farmers better access to domestic products. For example, nine shipments of anhydrous ammonia—a key fertilizer—moved between Gulf Coast ports, a feat impossible under normal rules because no liquified petroleum gas tanker exists in the Jones Act fleet. Similarly, Puerto Rico benefited from bulk propane deliveries, and Hawaii received fuel from Houston and the Gulf Coast, with one propane shipment meeting more than half of its annual needs.
The data clearly shows that U.S. companies would purchase more domestic goods if Jones Act supply restrictions were lifted. Yet defenders continue to argue that reform would advantage China. The waiver numbers contradict this, and other evidence reinforces the point.
Hawaii, for instance, frequently receives goods from ships not subject to the Jones Act, with most arriving on vessels owned by Japanese, Singaporean, and Greek companies—only 7% come on Chinese or Hong Kong-owned ships. The U.S. Virgin Islands, never subject to the law, receives cargo primarily on U.S.-owned carriers like Crowley and Tropical Shipping.
So even legal shipping outside the Jones Act isn't dominated by Chinese interests. Instead of using China as a pretext to preserve the status quo, Congress and the administration could open domestic shipping to vessels from allied nations, expanding options for businesses and consumers while strengthening ties with European and East Asian partners.
With the current waiver set to expire Nov. 15, lawmakers and the president should consider permanent reforms. The evidence from this waiver period makes a compelling case that easing Jones Act restrictions would serve American interests—without the feared Chinese takeover.
