AWO Discusses Jones Act Waiver on Newell Normand Show - November 2026
Newell Normand: Our next guest, Jennifer Carpenter, President and CEO of the American Waterways Operators, has been on the show several times talking about a very important issue: the Jones Act waiver and its implications. The most recent waiver, I think, is due to expire November 15, if my memory serves me correctly. Jennifer, welcome to the show.
Jennifer Carpenter: Thanks so much, Newell. Good to be here.
Newell Normand: When does that waiver expire? Is it the 15th of November?
Jennifer Carpenter: Your memory serves you correctly. Yes, it’s due to expire on the 15th, and it really cannot end a moment too soon.
Newell Normand: We’ve had a lot going on, and I’ve heard a lot of different stories, some of which you’re going to tell us about, as to why we really need this to go away. Let’s jump into it. First, let’s lay out for the listening audience why this is important.
Jennifer Carpenter: Sure. I want to back up and make sure everybody listening knows what the Jones Act is. It’s a law that says waterborne cargo moving by ships or barges between two points in the U.S., whether that’s on the Mississippi River or offshore between, say, Texas and Florida, needs to go on vessels that are owned by American companies, built in American shipyards, and crewed by American mariners. It’s very similar to the laws that govern other modes of transportation: aviation, trucking, and rail.
Since March, we have had a waiver of the Jones Act, which has allowed foreign vessels, a substantial number of them tied to China and some tied to Russia, to move cargo in domestic waters in ways that put U.S. security at risk and take work from American mariners and American shipyards. This waiver has also sent a really disturbing signal to the folks who would like to invest money in doing what the Trump administration says it wants to do, which is revitalize the American maritime industry. Nobody feels confident investing in new vessels or shipyard expansion when they see the law basically put on the shelf for political reasons.
Newell Normand: So why does the president speak with a forked tongue on this issue? I don’t know how else to say it. On the one hand, how are we going to stimulate shipbuilding in this country when we’re not doing the things necessary to encourage this industry?
Jennifer Carpenter: It was a political decision, and it’s just a disconnect from the administration’s objectives. I liken it to saying, “I want to talk about the awesome third-floor balcony I’m going to build on my house.” Well, we can’t do that if the foundation is weak, and the Jones Act is the foundation of the American maritime industry. We can restore American maritime dominance, which is the president’s term, but not while we’re sending a signal to investors, to mariners, and to folks who want to make their careers in this industry that the law is an optional thing.
We are pushing hard for the waiver to end on November 15, which is the other side of the midterm election. We now have eight months of data showing that this waiver did not deliver what it was promised to. It did not bring down gas prices. I talked to an economist just a couple of weeks ago who said that at best, the waiver had an impact of a tenth of a cent a gallon. Nobody sees that. Meanwhile, $2.6 billion or more in shipyard investment is at risk. Friends of mine in the dredging industry told me that $700 million of potential investment in new U.S. dredges, which is work for Americans, is on the shelf, waiting to see what happens with this waiver. It needs to end.
Newell Normand: I’m going to say it, and I don’t know if you can say it this strongly: the fact of the matter is, it didn’t reduce gas prices because it was all based on a lie. It all started out with the claim that we didn’t have enough capacity and enough boats to go from port to port to deliver these goods. As I reached out to some of my friends in the shipping industry, I learned much to the contrary: that was in fact not the case.
Jennifer Carpenter: Exactly. We have a domestic maritime industry that has grown up in this country to serve the demand that exists. Vessel owners have made investments to serve the existing market.
One troubling, unintended consequence of this waiver is that it puts a cap on the growth of the domestic fleet. Say new markets open up because of new global trading patterns. There could be opportunities for American vessel owners to build ships to serve those emerging markets. They’re not going to do that as long as this waiver is there. If we don’t have the Jones Act protections, we’re never going to have them, as long as there is this out clause, which discourages investment. So it’s counterproductive. Not only is it unhelpful and has it not delivered what it was promised, it is counterproductive, and it’s making it so that we cannot achieve the administration’s goals.
Newell Normand: Let’s pivot to the homeland security perspective. This changed eight months ago, and we didn’t have an infrastructure set up to monitor foreign shipping moving from port to port, because those vessels were never allowed to do so. I don’t know how we were able to ramp up, but my understanding is that we found out somewhat horrific things were going on right under our nose in the immediate aftermath of the first waiver, and those only increased in number. Now it’s a real, legitimate, and growing concern.
Jennifer Carpenter: Absolutely. A couple of examples for your listeners: COSCO, the Chinese state-owned shipping company, which our own Department of War has said is a Chinese military company. COSCO vessels have moved domestic commerce, taking work away from American companies and American mariners. Meanwhile, bipartisan members of Congress have said there is evidence that COSCO vessels are conducting surveillance while in U.S. waters. So this is absolutely counterproductive.
There was another vessel, a Maltese-flag vessel. Malta is a flag of convenience; you basically pay to get on their registry. That vessel had Russian officers and Russian cadets, and it was sailing right by MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. I don’t think we know the full scope of the problem.
A couple of months ago, press reporting brought to light that a substantial number of vessels engaged in voyages under the waiver had not complied with the requirement to report the completion of their voyage to the U.S. Maritime Administration. If you can’t be bothered to do the paperwork, to file a report with the government that says, “Yep, I moved cargo from here to there,” I have zero confidence that you’re paying your taxes, or that you have properly credentialed crew members on your vessel and not illegal aliens operating on visas that do not qualify them to work in domestic trade. So I think this is the tip of a law-violation iceberg that we do not yet fully have our hands around, and we’re seeing members of Congress say they intend to ask some tough questions about it.
Newell Normand: But unless you collect the data, unless you’re paying attention to that data and actually doing the investigatory work, you have nothing to report to Congress, and I’m afraid that’s exactly what’s going to happen.
Jennifer Carpenter: It was interesting to see that after some of these reports came out, there was a flurry of late reporting: “Oops! Here we go. We did complete this voyage.” Now we have members of Congress asking, “Okay, we know who you are. You’ve completed this voyage. We would like to see evidence that you are in compliance with these other laws.” So I think that reckoning is coming. Those voyages have taken place, and if those vessel owners and shippers were not in full compliance with the law, they’re going to have to face the music.
We absolutely need to end this waiver so that we don’t have a proliferation of these problems. There’s no reason to keep it going. It hasn’t lowered prices for American consumers. It has not been necessary to meet a national defense emergency. It is chilling American investment. It needs to end.
Newell Normand: Let’s delve into your crystal ball. What happens on the 15th?
Jennifer Carpenter: We are pushing hard to end the waiver, and what we are saying to the administration is that this can be a win-win. The waiver going away is going to be good for maritime investment and good for American workers. It is not going to result in an increase in consumer prices; we have the data to show that. And you have the flexibility under existing law that if there truly ever were an emergency that American vessels couldn’t meet, you have the ability to issue a very narrow, case-specific waiver.
Incredibly, there are some folks who have long disliked the Jones Act who are calling on the administration to go back to a broader blanket waiver. That is nuts. So we are pushing hard to tell the administration: don’t try to split the difference. Don’t think there is a nice middle ground between expanding the waiver, the way some of the Jones Act haters are calling for, and ending it, which is to keep the current waiver structure in place. That is not a win-win. That is a lose-lose. Consumers aren’t gaining, the maritime industry is losing, and the administration’s own maritime dominance objectives are getting cut off at the knees. My crystal ball has gotten pretty cloudy over the years, so I can tell you what I hope will happen, but I don’t know what will happen.
Newell Normand: What’s interesting to me is that we know certain things can happen. Let’s talk about shipbuilding for a second. It’s cheaper overseas than it is here. We understand why: the cost of labor and a whole host of other issues, predominantly labor. What I don’t like is the cherry-picking we do. We’ll recognize this for that, but we won’t recognize this for this.
In the case of the Jones Act, because we know we’re at a competitive disadvantage, it would seem to me that we would want to maintain it so that we at least have a toe in the water in shipbuilding, and can survive as shipping companies. On the labor issue we’re going to lose all day long, and on some of the supply chain issues we’ll lose all day long as well, because we don’t produce much steel anymore and others do. I don’t understand why they don’t see this. If we held to the standard that they can fill the need cheaper, they can do this, they can do that, across the board, we wouldn’t do anything in this country any longer. Am I missing something?
Jennifer Carpenter: No, you’re not. You nailed it. The administration says, “We want to build more vessels in this country.” Great, we do too. And then they waive the Jones Act, which sends a chilling demand signal that ensures they’re never going to have that. Not only are they not going to get the expansion of the fleet that they want, they are putting at risk the modernization and replacement of the fleet that we do have. Companies are saying, “Wait a minute, a vessel lasts a long time. It’s a durable good.” If I’m going to make an investment in something that’s going to be around, and that I’ll be paying the financing on for a couple of decades or more, I need to know there is work for that vessel. And what the Jones Act waiver says is, “Don’t be so sure.”
If it sounds like a disconnect, if it doesn’t make sense, that’s because there really is a disconnect, and we really need the president to resolve this. Again, the election is tomorrow, so please, let’s not play politics with this. Certainly the politics haven’t worked. Let’s get serious about our security and our maritime future.
Newell Normand: Neither the politics nor the economics. As always, we really appreciate you joining us. Jennifer Carpenter, President and CEO of the American Waterways Operators, thank you so much, and have a great week.
Jennifer Carpenter: Thanks so much, Newell. You too. Bye-bye.