MGI Editions

Navigating the Shifting Tides: America’s Ambition to Reclaim Maritime Might in a China-Dominated Era

For decades, the rhythm of global trade has been set by the hum of massive container ships and specialized carriers traversing the world’s oceans. Central to this intricate network is the shipbuilding industry, a sector that has long been a barometer of a nation’s industrial strength, economic competitiveness, and strategic reach. While shipbuilding once stood as a pillar of American manufacturing prowess, the landscape has dramatically shifted.

Today, the yards of China hum loudest, commanding an overwhelming share of the global market, with South Korea and Japan holding distant, albeit significant, second and third positions. The United States, a nation with vast coastlines and significant maritime interests, finds its shipbuilding industry a shadow of its former self, holding a mere 0.2% of global vessel capacity, with virtually no presence in the critical container ship sector.

This stark reality has ignited a renewed sense of urgency in Washington, prompting a series of policy maneuvers aimed at revitalizing domestic shipbuilding and pushing back against China’s surging maritime dominance. This piece will delve into the currents shaping this critical industry, examining the historical context of the US decline, the specifics of recent American policy interventions, the complex dynamics of global competition, and the potential future trajectories for the United States and its allies in the vital maritime domain.

The Ebb of American Shipbuilding: Decades in the Making

The decline of the US shipbuilding industry is not a recent phenomenon. While the sector experienced boom periods, particularly during times of conflict when naval expansion and cargo capacity were paramount, structural challenges have eroded its competitiveness over many decades. High labor costs in the United States, compared to emerging shipbuilding powerhouses, played a significant role. Furthermore, domestic policies, while intended to protect the industry, may have inadvertently contributed to its isolation from global market dynamics.

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly known as the Jones Act, is perhaps the most prominent example. This law mandates that cargo transported by water between US ports must be carried on ships that are built in the United States, owned by US citizens, and crewed by US seafarers. While the Jones Act aimed to ensure a domestic shipbuilding base and a pool of trained mariners for national security purposes, critics argue that it created a protected, less competitive market, limiting innovation and increasing costs compared to the global industry.

Compounding these challenges was the rise of heavily state-supported shipbuilding industries in other nations. China, in particular, strategically designated shipbuilding as a priority industry in its 11th Five-Year Plan (2006-2010) and subsequently invested colossal sums – estimated at around $90 billion by 2013 – in subsidies and support for its shipyards.

This sustained government backing, coupled with lower labor costs and a focus on scaling production, allowed China to rapidly expand its market share, moving from a minor player to the undisputed global leader in just over a decade. The impact on traditional shipbuilding nations like South Korea and Japan has been significant, with both countries seeing their market share shrink as China’s has soared.

A Wake-Up Call: Geopolitical Shifts and Economic Realities

The growing realization in the United States of the strategic implications of relying on foreign shipyards, particularly those in a geopolitical rival like China, has served as a critical wake-up call. China’s burgeoning naval power, coupled with its dominance in commercial shipbuilding and control over key nodes in global supply chains, is increasingly viewed through a national security lens in Washington. The ability to build and maintain a robust naval fleet is directly linked to a nation’s capacity to project power and protect its interests globally. Furthermore, control over commercial shipping and port infrastructure provides significant economic and strategic leverage.

The COVID-19 pandemic further underscored the vulnerabilities inherent in complex, globally dispersed supply chains, including those related to maritime transport. Disruptions at ports and challenges in shipping highlighted the potential economic fragility that could arise from an over-reliance on foreign-controlled maritime assets. This confluence of geopolitical competition and economic vulnerability has created a bipartisan impetus in the US to address the long-term decline of its shipbuilding and maritime sectors.

Policy Countercurrents: Washington’s Multi-Pronged Approach

In response to these concerns, the Biden administration has initiated a series of policy actions aimed at revitalizing the US maritime industry and countering China’s dominance. A key move was the initiation of a Section 301 investigation into China’s shipbuilding, maritime, and logistics sectors. This trade tool allows the US to investigate and potentially take action against foreign trade practices deemed unfair or discriminatory. The investigation concluded that China’s practices, including extensive subsidies, have indeed harmed the US industry.

Based on the findings of the Section 301 investigation, the USTR announced new measures targeting Chinese-built vessels. Initially, a proposal included significant port fees on Chinese-built ships and even on ships owned by Chinese companies or those that had ordered vessels from China. However, acknowledging concerns from US industries that rely on maritime transport – who feared that such fees could increase shipping costs and negatively impact exports like agricultural goods and coal – the final implemented measures were somewhat modified. The final rule imposes port fees on Chinese-built vessels, though with certain exemptions and a phased increase. For instance, empty vessels loading US agricultural products or petroleum, ships below a certain size, those engaged in short-sea shipping, US-owned or controlled vessels, and specialized carriers for liquid chemicals are exempt from the fee. Additionally, companies that order and take delivery of US-built vessels of similar or larger size can receive a waiver on the fee for up to three years.

While the measures targeting Chinese-built commercial vessels were somewhat tempered, the administration signaled a strong intent to bolster specific segments of the US maritime industry and leverage alliances. Notably, the policy expanded port fees to all non-US built vehicle carriers and introduced a requirement for a certain percentage of US LNG exports to be transported on US-built vessels, starting at 1% in 2028 and increasing to 15% by 2047. This LNG requirement, in particular, is a significant step aimed at creating demand for US-built LNG carriers, a market segment where South Korean shipbuilders currently hold a strong competitive edge.

Beyond trade actions, there has been legislative activity in the US Congress reflecting a desire to strengthen the domestic maritime sector and enhance naval readiness. Several bills have been introduced, including the “SHIPS for America Act,” “Ensuring Naval Readiness Act,” and “Ensuring Coast Guard Readiness Act”. These proposed laws aim to rebuild the US merchant fleet, enhance shipbuilding capacity, and explore options for more efficient and cost-effective acquisition of naval and coast guard vessels, potentially including allowing construction in allied nations under specific conditions. While the passage of these specific bills remains uncertain, their introduction underscores a growing consensus on the need for action. Previous attempts to amend the Jones Act or pass significant shipbuilding legislation have faced hurdles, indicating the political complexities involved in enacting transformative change in this sector.

Most recently, an executive order on “Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance” was issued, outlining a comprehensive strategy to revitalize the US maritime industry. This order emphasizes countering China’s maritime power, strengthening alliances, rebuilding the US shipbuilding industrial base, and developing the necessary workforce. It directs various government agencies to assess expansion options for the maritime industry, including shipbuilding, repair, and port infrastructure, potentially leveraging tools like the Defense Production Act. The order also explicitly calls for exploring financial incentives to encourage investment in US shipyards and attract allied nation companies to establish a presence in the US. Furthermore, it addresses the critical issue of workforce development, calling for comprehensive plans to expand training institutions, streamline qualification requirements, and implement training and scholarship programs.

The Global Chessboard: China’s Dominance and Allied Dynamics

China’s dominance in global shipbuilding is not merely a matter of market share; it has significant strategic implications. China’s control over a vast shipbuilding capacity provides it with a crucial advantage in rapidly expanding and modernizing its naval fleet. This industrial capacity is a key enabler of China’s growing maritime assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region and its expanding global reach. Moreover, China’s influence extends to the broader maritime supply chain, including the manufacturing of critical port equipment like gantry cranes. This integrated control over both vessels and the infrastructure they rely on presents a significant strategic challenge to the United States and its allies.

For countries like South Korea, a major player in high-value shipbuilding segments like LNG carriers and large container ships, the US focus on revitalizing its own industry presents both opportunities and challenges. On the one hand, the US emphasis on strengthening alliances and encouraging investment in its maritime sector could open doors for Korean companies to participate in the US market, potentially through joint ventures or establishing US-based operations. Areas of potential cooperation include Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO) for US Navy vessels, construction of LNG carriers, and even collaboration on military shipbuilding. Korean shipbuilders have already made inroads into the US MRO market, securing agreements with the US Navy. The US Navy’s long-term shipbuilding plan, which envisions acquiring hundreds of new vessels over the next three decades, presents a substantial opportunity, particularly if US regulations on foreign construction for military vessels are eased.

However, challenges remain for Korean companies looking to deepen their involvement in the US market. The US shipbuilding industrial base faces significant hurdles, including outdated infrastructure, a shortage of skilled labor, and high production costs compared to Asia. While the US executive order aims to address these issues through investment incentives and workforce development programs, overcoming decades of underinvestment and decline will be a considerable undertaking. Furthermore, the US emphasis on using domestically sourced components, such as steel, engines, and other critical equipment, could increase costs for foreign companies establishing production in the US.

The US policy of imposing port fees on non-US built vehicle carriers also poses a potential challenge for Korean and Japanese automakers, as it could act as a de facto tariff on imported vehicles, particularly given the limited number of US-built vehicle carriers that meet the stringent domestic content requirements.

Despite these challenges, the strategic alignment between the US and South Korea on countering China’s maritime influence and the US desire to leverage allied capabilities present a compelling case for increased cooperation in the shipbuilding and maritime sectors. For South Korea, navigating this landscape will require a strategic approach that balances capitalizing on potential US market opportunities with addressing the inherent complexities and challenges of operating within the US industrial ecosystem.

Futuristic Forecasts: What Lies Ahead on the Maritime Horizon?

Looking ahead, the trajectory of the global shipbuilding industry and the role of the United States will be shaped by a confluence of technological, economic, and geopolitical factors. Several futuristic predictions can be made:

1. The Rise of Autonomous and Semi-Autonomous Vessels: The development of autonomous and semi-autonomous shipping is accelerating. While fully autonomous global shipping is still some time away due to regulatory and safety considerations, we can expect to see a significant increase in the deployment of vessels with advanced automation capabilities for navigation, cargo handling, and engine room operations in the coming years. This will have profound implications for crew requirements, port operations, and maritime safety regulations. The US, with its strong technological base, could become a leader in developing and implementing these advanced maritime technologies, potentially creating a new competitive edge for its industry.

2. The Decarbonization Imperative and the Evolution of Ship Propulsion: The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has set ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from shipping, including a 100% reduction goal by 2050. This is driving a rapid shift towards alternative fuels and propulsion systems. While LNG has emerged as a popular transitional fuel, the future will likely see a diversification of options, including ammonia, methanol, hydrogen, and potentially electric or hybrid systems for short-sea shipping. South Korea is currently a leader in building LNG-fueled vessels, and its expertise in this area, as well as in developing ships capable of running on other alternative fuels, positions it well in this evolving market. The US focus on LNG exports and the requirement for US-built LNG carriers could stimulate domestic capacity in this specific segment, but a broader adoption of diverse green technologies will be crucial for long-term competitiveness.

3. Increased Digitalization and Data-Driven Operations: The maritime industry is becoming increasingly digitized, with a greater reliance on data analytics, artificial intelligence, and the Internet of Things (IoT) for optimizing vessel performance, predicting maintenance needs, and improving logistical efficiency. Future ships will be highly connected, generating vast amounts of data that can be used to enhance safety, reduce fuel consumption, and streamline port calls. The US, with its strengths in software and data science, could play a significant role in developing the digital platforms and services that will underpin the future of shipping.

4. Shifting Global Supply Chains and Nearshoring/Reshoring: Geopolitical tensions and the lessons learned from supply chain disruptions are prompting companies to re-evaluate their manufacturing and sourcing strategies. This could lead to a degree of nearshoring or reshoring of manufacturing activities, which in turn could influence maritime trade routes and potentially increase demand for smaller vessels engaged in regional trade. A revitalization of US manufacturing could, therefore, have a knock-on effect on demand for domestic or regionally built ships.

5. The Growing Importance of Arctic Shipping Routes: As climate change leads to the melting of Arctic ice, new shipping routes are becoming increasingly viable, particularly for transit between Asia and Europe. While significant infrastructure and technological challenges remain, the Arctic could become a more important artery for global trade in the future. This could create new demands for specialized ice-class vessels and pose new strategic considerations for nations with Arctic coastlines, including the United States.

6. Continued Geopolitical Competition Shaping Maritime Strategy: Competition for influence and control in the maritime domain between major global powers, particularly the US and China, is likely to intensify. This will continue to drive investment in naval capabilities and influence policies related to commercial shipping and port infrastructure. The US will likely continue to leverage alliances to counter China’s growing maritime power, leading to increased collaboration on shipbuilding, MRO, and maritime security with partners like South Korea and Japan.

7. The Evolution of the Jones Act: The increasing pressure to revitalize the US maritime industry and address competitiveness concerns could lead to renewed debate and potential modifications to the Jones Act. While outright repeal remains politically challenging, there might be incremental reforms or specific waivers considered to address critical needs, such as the availability of specialized vessels or the high cost of US-built ships.

8. Workforce Development as a Critical Bottleneck and Opportunity: A significant challenge for the US shipbuilding industry is the shortage of skilled labor and an aging workforce. The success of any revitalization effort will heavily depend on the ability to attract and train a new generation of shipbuilders, engineers, and mariners. Future initiatives will likely focus on vocational training programs, apprenticeships, and educational pathways to build a sustainable talent pipeline. Addressing this bottleneck is crucial for the US to translate policy ambitions into tangible shipbuilding capacity.

9. Increased Focus on Maritime Cybersecurity: As vessels become more connected and reliant on digital systems, maritime cybersecurity will become an even more critical concern. Protecting ships and port infrastructure from cyberattacks will require significant investment in technology, training, and international cooperation. The US, with its expertise in cybersecurity, could play a leading role in developing standards and solutions for a more secure maritime ecosystem.

10. The Interplay of Commercial and Military Shipbuilding: The lines between commercial and military shipbuilding are likely to become more blurred. Technologies developed for commercial vessels, such as automation, green propulsion, and digital systems, can have applications in military ships. Conversely, innovations in naval shipbuilding can find their way into the commercial sector. A successful revitalization of the US shipbuilding industry will likely require a holistic approach that fosters synergies between these two segments.

Navigating Towards a Resurgent American Maritime Future

The path to revitalizing the US shipbuilding industry and reclaiming a more prominent position in the global maritime landscape is fraught with challenges. Decades of decline, coupled with the formidable dominance of state-backed competitors, cannot be reversed overnight. However, the increased political will, the strategic imperative to counter China’s influence, and the potential for leveraging technological advancements and allied partnerships offer a glimmer of a potential resurgence.

The recent policy actions by the US administration, including the Section 301 measures, the executive order on maritime dominance, and proposed legislation, signal a clear intent to act. While the effectiveness of these measures will depend on their implementation and ability to overcome structural hurdles within the US industry, they represent a significant step towards prioritizing the maritime sector.

For allies like South Korea, the evolving US approach presents a complex but potentially rewarding environment. Opportunities for collaboration in high-value segments like LNG carriers and MRO exist, but navigating the US regulatory landscape, addressing cost differentials, and overcoming workforce challenges will be critical.

The future of global shipbuilding will be characterized by intense competition, rapid technological change, and the increasing interplay of economic and strategic considerations. The United States is attempting to catch a favorable tide, but the success of its efforts to rebuild its maritime might will ultimately depend on sustained investment, effective policy implementation, a commitment to workforce development, and the ability to forge strong, mutually beneficial partnerships in a rapidly changing world. The journey will be long and challenging, but for a nation with such deep historical ties to the sea, the ambition to navigate towards a resurgent maritime future is a powerful one.

https://www.kelly.senate.gov/wp-content/u

https://mgiedit.org/2025-market-turbulence/