Repeal the Jones Act
Is your wallet strained as you fill up the tank? There’s a lesser-known but important factor at play—and President Trump just made strides last week to ease the pain at the pump by putting a pause on the Jones Act.
The Jones Act is a century-old federal shipping law that mandates any goods transported between U.S. ports must travel on vessels that are American-built, American-owned, and American-crewed.
While originally justified on national security grounds, the modern economic reality shows that the law functions as a protectionist barrier that restricts supply and raises costs across the economy.
The domestic shipbuilding requirement has significantly reduced the number of eligible vessels. U.S.-built ships can cost several multiples more than those built abroad. The result is a constrained maritime market with fewer carriers and higher shipping costs.
These costs are not absorbed by industry but instead passed directly on to consumers and businesses.
For a state like ours, this has direct implications. Despite being a major energy producer, the Jones Act distorts domestic energy distribution. In some cases, it is more cost-effective to import fuel from foreign countries than to transport it between U.S. ports. As a result, this outcome undermines both economic efficiency and energy security.
Last week, President Trump’s decision to extend a waiver of the Jones Act reflects an acknowledgment of these structural problems. The waiver temporarily allows non-compliant vessels to transport fuel and goods between U.S. ports, increasing available shipping capacity. In doing so, it reduces bottlenecks, improves supply chain flexibility, and helps stabilize prices—particularly in energy markets.
This is a targeted, practical response to supply constraints and price pressures.
However, the need for repeated waivers underscores a broader policy failure. A law that must be routinely suspended during periods of stress is a law that is not functioning effectively under normal conditions.
Our grassroots activists have entered the policy debate to advocate for full repeal of the Jones Act, citing its role in raising costs and limiting competition. As highlighted in recent reporting, our grassroots activists’ position is that the law benefits a narrow set of protected maritime interests at the expense of consumers, workers, and broader economic growth.
From a policy standpoint, the case for reform is straightforward.
First, repeal would increase competition in domestic shipping markets, lowering transportation costs.
Second, it would improve energy distribution efficiency, ensuring that domestically produced resources can reach U.S. markets without artificial barriers.
Third, it would strengthen supply chain resilience by expanding the number of vessels available during emergencies, rather than relying on temporary executive waivers.
Finally, it would align U.S. maritime policy with broader free-market principles, reducing government-imposed distortions and allowing market forces to allocate resources more effectively.
The extended waiver provides immediate relief, particularly in the form of increased energy supply flexibility and potential cost reductions. More importantly, it provides a real-world demonstration of what happens when these restrictions are lifted: greater capacity, improved efficiency, and downward pressure on prices.
For policymakers and advocates, the implication is clear. Temporary waivers should not substitute for structural reform.
If the policy goal is lower costs, stronger energy security, and a more resilient supply chain, then permanent repeal of the Jones Act is the most effective path forward.
The good news: Congress can get to work today to repeal the Jones Act for good. Tell Congress: take a cue from President Trump and get to work to lower energy costs across the board!
Head to AmericansForProsperity.org to learn more.
This is Emily Brey, State Director with Americans for Prosperity-PA.
