Two thoughts: first, it’s interesting that this was something I had not heard of at all. I’d obviously heard about the port fees but, but the restriction of 20% of export ships to Jones Act compliant ships is something that had not crossed my transom at all, and I work in a industry related to shipbuilding (we’re suppliers of a major component to ships).
Second: I think that there is some opportunities to be had in trying to convince the shipbuilders and other people who are most advantaged by the Jones Act to support its removal, by pairing it with the return of shipbuilding subsidies. The truth is that every shipbuilding industry in the world but the US is supported by government subsidies, and, yes, we’d probably be uncompetitive against China even without that, but that’s what makes it the total rout that it is.
Also, I recommend you try submitting articles to trade publications - write a 3000 word article for USNI Proceedings or Naval Engineers Journal (the navy ones - I presume there are also civilian shipbuilding and maritime ones that I don’t know). People do read those, and just being able to point to an article is worth doing
"In response, they got rid of almost the entire thing. (More about that in the next section.)"
Congratulations, and Many Thanks!
( Re: "It was the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (responsible for a wide swathe of trade functions including advising the president on trade issues) that was proposing the above policies." Grr. While there are a few actions that the Trump administration has done and is doing that I'm happy with, my overall impression is that they are _sloppy_, not thinking through policies, not implementing what they want intelligently. )
Here's o3's summary of the post, IMO having something like this in the beginning as "executive summary" would be great: it made me want to go read the full thing & I think otherwise Balsa's awesome efforts wouldn't get as much attention as they deserve:
===
**Essence**
* **Threat spotted.** In Feb 2025 the USTR floated a rule forcing *20 % of all U.S. exports* onto U.S-built, U.S-flagged ships. Fewer than 100 such vessels exist (≈1 000 needed); current fleet can move only *~2 %* of export volume, so the rule would have choked 90 %+ of maritime exports.
* **Balsa intervenes.** Jennifer Chen (Balsa Research) found industry was fixated on a separate port-fee proposal, drafted written comments (22 Mar) and testified at USTR hearings (26 Mar), making the capacity-gap argument.
* **Result.** A month later the USTR scrapped almost everything: only LNG exports are still targeted, starting at *1 % in Apr 2029* and ratcheting up. Impact shrinks from ~$600 B of trade to ~$30-40 B, and many sector groups are now opposing the LNG piece.
* **Credit & next focus.** Balsa claims ~1-3 % of the credit for the reversal and is pivoting back to its core mission—full Jones Act repeal, hiring D.C. staff and funding analyses.
RE: The American Cargo for American Ships Act (HR2035) - This is similar to Jones Act and requires 100% of transportation project [DOT related] materials to go on US ships, supposedly strengthening the supply chain!? I posted about this on LinkedIn a couple weeks ago. Federal-aid, DOT highway and bridge projects move only a fraction of their components by ship; most travels by land from domestic mills and quarries. Even these assumptions put accessible waterborne tonnage at under one percent of total US seaborne trade. Too little to finance a wave of new ship builds (even if there was capacity) or close the qualified mariner labor gap. Another dumb bill.
The link to the USTR Testimony google doc currently allows suggestions - you may want to change this to view only.
Two thoughts: first, it’s interesting that this was something I had not heard of at all. I’d obviously heard about the port fees but, but the restriction of 20% of export ships to Jones Act compliant ships is something that had not crossed my transom at all, and I work in a industry related to shipbuilding (we’re suppliers of a major component to ships).
Second: I think that there is some opportunities to be had in trying to convince the shipbuilders and other people who are most advantaged by the Jones Act to support its removal, by pairing it with the return of shipbuilding subsidies. The truth is that every shipbuilding industry in the world but the US is supported by government subsidies, and, yes, we’d probably be uncompetitive against China even without that, but that’s what makes it the total rout that it is.
Also, I recommend you try submitting articles to trade publications - write a 3000 word article for USNI Proceedings or Naval Engineers Journal (the navy ones - I presume there are also civilian shipbuilding and maritime ones that I don’t know). People do read those, and just being able to point to an article is worth doing
"In response, they got rid of almost the entire thing. (More about that in the next section.)"
Congratulations, and Many Thanks!
( Re: "It was the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (responsible for a wide swathe of trade functions including advising the president on trade issues) that was proposing the above policies." Grr. While there are a few actions that the Trump administration has done and is doing that I'm happy with, my overall impression is that they are _sloppy_, not thinking through policies, not implementing what they want intelligently. )
I'm impressed, this is great work.
Here's o3's summary of the post, IMO having something like this in the beginning as "executive summary" would be great: it made me want to go read the full thing & I think otherwise Balsa's awesome efforts wouldn't get as much attention as they deserve:
===
**Essence**
* **Threat spotted.** In Feb 2025 the USTR floated a rule forcing *20 % of all U.S. exports* onto U.S-built, U.S-flagged ships. Fewer than 100 such vessels exist (≈1 000 needed); current fleet can move only *~2 %* of export volume, so the rule would have choked 90 %+ of maritime exports.
* **Balsa intervenes.** Jennifer Chen (Balsa Research) found industry was fixated on a separate port-fee proposal, drafted written comments (22 Mar) and testified at USTR hearings (26 Mar), making the capacity-gap argument.
* **Result.** A month later the USTR scrapped almost everything: only LNG exports are still targeted, starting at *1 % in Apr 2029* and ratcheting up. Impact shrinks from ~$600 B of trade to ~$30-40 B, and many sector groups are now opposing the LNG piece.
* **Credit & next focus.** Balsa claims ~1-3 % of the credit for the reversal and is pivoting back to its core mission—full Jones Act repeal, hiring D.C. staff and funding analyses.
===
RE: The American Cargo for American Ships Act (HR2035) - This is similar to Jones Act and requires 100% of transportation project [DOT related] materials to go on US ships, supposedly strengthening the supply chain!? I posted about this on LinkedIn a couple weeks ago. Federal-aid, DOT highway and bridge projects move only a fraction of their components by ship; most travels by land from domestic mills and quarries. Even these assumptions put accessible waterborne tonnage at under one percent of total US seaborne trade. Too little to finance a wave of new ship builds (even if there was capacity) or close the qualified mariner labor gap. Another dumb bill.