Can Trump’s Shipbuilding Order Compete With Chinese Investment?
from China Strategy Initiative
from China Strategy Initiative

Can Trump’s Shipbuilding Order Compete With Chinese Investment?

The autonomous ship "Sea Hunter" docked after its christening ceremony in Portland, Oregon, April 7, 2016.
The autonomous ship "Sea Hunter" docked after its christening ceremony in Portland, Oregon, April 7, 2016. Steve Dipaola/ Reuters

The administration’s executive order lays out an ambitious process while stretching the power of existing law. Without significant resource support from Congress, it may do little to improve U.S. maritime power.

April 10, 2025 9:11 am (EST)

The autonomous ship "Sea Hunter" docked after its christening ceremony in Portland, Oregon, April 7, 2016.
The autonomous ship "Sea Hunter" docked after its christening ceremony in Portland, Oregon, April 7, 2016. Steve Dipaola/ Reuters
Article
Current political and economic issues succinctly explained.

Sign up for a summary of global news developments with CFR analysis delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. Subscribe to the Daily News Brief.

More From Our Experts

Today, the Trump Administration signed a new executive order on shipbuilding: the first official action of the new “Office of Shipbuilding” that the President announced during his Joint Address to Congress in March. The office – formally established as a new directorate within the National Security Council – reports to National Security Advisor Mike Waltz under the official title of the “Maritime and Industrial Capacity Directorate.” Notably, all the activities directed in the executive order, including its implementation, will be coordinated through Waltz and the National Security Council.

More on:

China

Maritime Security

Before departing Congress to join the Trump Administration, Waltz collaborated closely with a bipartisan coalition of members, including Senators Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Todd Young (R-IN), on the development of the bipartisan SHIPS Act. Many of the actions directed in the order mirror the proposals outlined in that legislation, which focuses on the revitalization of American marine industrial capacity and supporting the nation’s merchant mariners. 

The President’s new executive order specifically (1) directs a sweeping array of government-wide actions that leverage existing tools and resources to support the nation’s shipbuilding and maritime industries; (2) requests the formal development and submission of new legislative proposals to Congress for resources and authorities; and (3) commissions in-depth reviews of existing shipbuilding-related activities (particularly on procurement and Arctic policy) to better position the United States to address the growing commercial and military dominance of the People’s Republic of China in the maritime domain. 

A National Maritime Strategy

The order starts by requiring the creation of a whole-of-government “Maritime Action Plan” that mirrors the National Maritime Strategy contemplated under the SHIPS Act. The plan will require the Departments of Defense, Commerce, Labor, Transportation, and Homeland Security to work together with the White House to coordinate their activities under the executive order to promote domestic shipbuilding. Particularly for the Department of Defense, which is unused and disinclined to coordinating the U.S. Navy’s >$32 billion dollar military shipbuilding budget with other government agencies, this plan could be a major change in the way the government organizes the shipbuilding and maritime activities of the nation – and mirrors the successful national-level shipbuilding strategies deployed by other governments to revitalize their own weakened shipbuilding industrial bases (e.g., Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy).

More From Our Experts

Executive Branch Actions  

The order explicitly directs a series of new actions using existing government tools and resources.

1.      U.S. Government Procurement Changes: Directs the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Transportation, Homeland Security, and the National Science Foundation – the five agencies that purchase most ocean-going vessels for U.S. government use – to submit a proposal to (1) publicly project their collective long-term demand for U.S.-built vessels, (2) change acquisition staffing to accelerate vessel procurement activity, (3) remove “layers of approval” in the vessel acquisition process, and (4) elevate the use of commercial practices in military and government shipbuilding like modular construction and design. These changes will be challenging to implement. Structural adjustments to acquisition regulations and processes will also require more flexibility from appropriators in Congress, who equally contribute to the perpetuation of the bureaucratic processes that the American government uses to design and build ships. Controversially, the order also directs Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to conduct its own separate review of the procurement processes at the two largest ship purchasing agencies: the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. These two agencies have long histories of struggling to remain on-time and on-budget during major vessel acquisition programs.

More on:

China

Maritime Security

2.      New Funding: Directs the Department of Defense to use Defense Production Act and Office of Strategic Capital (OSC) authorities and resources to invest in commercial and military shipbuilding, ship repair and marine transportation, port infrastructure, and the adjacent workforce. In practice, this direction likely means (1) the administration uses some existing DPA funding to provide grants and loans to commercial or military shipyards and (2) the FY26 OSC loan program’s recipients will include some number of shipyards or related marine manufacturing companies. For this current fiscal year, the Department of Defense has the authority to spend up-to $1 billion in DPA resources – though the Trump Administration may need to submit a supplemental request to Congress for DPA funding and spending authorities given their recent over-reliance on this tool. Even if an aggressive 30-50% of “no-year” DPA funds and FY26 OSC loans could be redirected to shipbuilding and maritime projects, these investments would likely total less than $1 billion in new available capital for projects in this notoriously capital-intensive sector of the economy. For scale, that is about the cost to build or upgrade one shipyard.

3.      Trade Action: Directs the U.S. Trade Representative to continue to review whether additional remedies are necessary under the Biden-era “Section 301 Investigation of China’s Targeting of the Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors for Dominance.” This investigation is currently the justification for a proposed port fee on Chinese ocean carriers and Chinese-built vessels, but the direction under the order indicates an explicit interest by the Trump Administration in additional restrictive trade action on maritime products like shipping containers and heavy lift equipment (e.g., ship-to-shore gantry cranes). The Biden Administration applied a 25% tariff to Chinese cranes under a separate 301 investigation, but the Trump administration has teased broadening this effort to include a wider array of products like containers. Today, Chinese companies produce over 70% of port cranes and 95% of shipping containers, but the underlying technology for these products was invented in the United States over fifty years ago.  

4.      Harbor Maintenance Tax Enforcement: Directs U.S. Customs & Border Protection to apply an additional “service fee” to goods moving across land borders from Mexico and Canada with a point of origin in a third country. While difficult to implement, the signaling is clear to shipping companies and ocean carriers that offloading cargo destined for U.S. markets at Canadian and Mexican ports will be subject to a 10% penalty.  While good news for U.S. ports, particularly in the Pacific Northwest, this could cause significant financial pain for ports in British Columbia.  

5.      Collaboration with Allies and Partners: Directs the Secretaries of State and Commerce to begin engaging other countries about aligning their trade restrictions on maritime products, including ships, with the United States to fence out PRC-based companies from western markets. This direction is an unusual recognition by the Trump administration that it needs help – and may fall flat following the recent tariff announcements. Ultimately, the Trump Administration needs to choose whether imposing economic costs on China is more or less valuable than imposing economic costs on U.S. allies, whose help the administration needs to limit China’s dominance in maritime industries. The order noticeably also includes a strong solicitation for foreign shipbuilders to invest in U.S. shipyards – a tacit endorsement of recent activity by Korean shipbuilders investing or seeking to invest in the United States. This component of the executive order also comes on the heels of a high-profile visit by Hyundai leadership to the White House and their newly announced partnership with Huntington Ingalls Industries.

6.      Merchant Marine Academy: Directs the Secretary of Transportation to reprogram existing resources to support upgrades the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy – and, in consultation with DOGE, develop a capital improvement plan.

Legislative Proposals

The order directs the development and submission of proposals to Congress for new resources and authorities. These proposals should be considered medium-to-long-term policy goals for the Administration, but some proposals could find their way into this year’s reconciliation bill, National Defense Authorization Act, or the FY26 appropriations process.

1.      Maritime Security Trust Fund: This mirror of the fund proposed in the SHIPS Act would use tariff revenue from maritime-related tariffs (e.g., the proposed port fees) to fund new or existing programs that support domestic shipbuilding like the U.S. Maritime Administration’s (MARAD) grant and loan programs for shipyards and vessel construction. It is unclear whether the revenue generated from these proposed tariffs would be sufficient to adequately capitalize the trust at the scale required to materially support the American shipbuilding industry. Additional discretionary resources may still be needed on an annual basis to fund these programs.

2.      Shipbuilding Financial Incentives Program: The Secretary of Transportation must deliver a proposal for a new program with broad flexibility to “incentivize private investment” in shipbuilding and related maritime supply chains. It is unclear whether this program would replace existing MARAD programs that currently fund similar activities. 

3.      Maritime Prosperity Zones: The order directs the development of a map of areas that could be targeted for tax and regulatory relief to promote shipbuilding activity. Like the concept of Opportunity Zones, Congress would need to grant special dispensation to these areas, theoretically mapped out by the Trump Administration, under the tax code, National Environmental Policy Act, or other existing law.

4.      U.S. Flagged Vessels: The order directs the Secretaries of Defense and Transportation to create a legislative proposal to fund the growth of the U.S.-flagged fleet, though the order itself is light on details as to how this proposal should be structured. The proposal will likely draw from existing SHIPS Act proposals to the same effect.

Reports on Maritime Issues

The proposal sets up a number of multi-year policy processes by directing a series of reports on maritime-related topics.

1.      Maritime Industry Needs Assessment: This 90-day report would review existing shipbuilding and maritime programs, procurement rules, and regulations (including cargo preference requirements) that could “better sustain and grow supply and demand for the U.S. maritime industry.”

2.      Cargo Preference Review: The order directs a review and report on cargo preference requirements that can be changed via executive action – including by eliminating any existing waivers under these requirements. Tightening cargo preference requirements could significantly harm the ability of U.S. agricultural producers to export goods and the delivery of humanitarian aid, though these changes would be supported by the coalition of supporters behind the continuation of the Jones Act.

3.      Mariner Training and Education: This 90-day report requires the Secretaries of State, Labor, Transportation, Education, Defense, and Homeland Security to report on the state of the U.S. mariner workforce – and recommend changes including reducing requirements for “credentialling mariners that are unnecessary”. Based on this report, the same group of departments must then submit a draft legislative proposal to the White House to address workforce gaps and expand scholarships for maritime-related education.

4.      Arctic Waterways: The order directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a new strategy for maintaining a U.S. military presence in Arctic waterways. This may be an early indication of the Trump Administration’s interest in supporting the growth of U.S. defense spending on polar issues – and potentially pulling the mission outside of the U.S. Coast Guard’s traditional remit altogether. Currently the U.S. Coast Guard, not the U.S. Navy, is the lead for Arctic presence operations.  

5.      Shipbuilding Review: The order directs the five agencies that procure ocean going vessels to work together to assess the capacity of U.S. shipyards within 45 days. This may be a precursor to forcing these agencies to work together to allocate vessel construction work across different yards based on varying levels of national capacity.

6.      Deregulation Review: The order directs the Secretaries of Defense, Transportation, and Homeland Security to conduct a 30-day review of all regulations on shipbuilding activity that could be eliminated.

7.      Inactive Reserve Fleet: The order directs the Secretary of Defense to review and propose new guidance on the “funding, retention, support, and mobilization” of an inactive reserve fleet.

While in certain cases this executive order stretches the power of existing law, the Trump Administration has now articulated its long-term approach to revitalizing American shipbuilding and maritime industrial capacity. However, without a significant influx of resources from Congress to support this agenda, a single executive order alone is unlikely to improve the position of the United States as a maritime power – particularly when compared against the level of investment by People’s Republic of China in these industries. Earlier this year, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz stated in an interview with the Financial Times that the administration plans to submit a new emergency funding request to Congress on this topic. No proposal has yet materialized. A successful maritime industrial strategy – one that results in a durable improvement in the competitiveness of American shipbuilding – will require government investment at scale, targeted adjustments to tariffs alongside America’s allies, and the relaxation of protectionist regulations and procurement rules that get in the way of competitiveness.

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Sudan

As Sudan plunges into another chapter of fighting, the country is enduring the world’s worst humanitarian crisis at a time of drastically shrinking foreign aid.   

Military Operations

The administration’s “anti-DEI” campaign targets vital expertise and experience in government agencies.  

United States

CFR experts provide insights and context around President Donald Trump’s recent enactment of tariffs, global reactions, and what his plans mean for the future of the global economy.