Editorial: Time to permanently sink the Jones Act

Las Vegas Review-Journal, Las Vegas Review-Journal on Jul 14, 2026

Published in Op Eds

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

Theories can be useful. But they’re even more useful if they survive real-world scrutiny.

In 1920, Congress passed the Jones Act. It mandates that only American ships are allowed to transport cargo between domestic ports. Sen. Wesley Jones, the bill’s namesake, was from Washington state. He wanted to ensure that his state’s shipping industry would have a competitive advantage in moving goods from Alaska. Today’s defenders of the Jones Act offer a similar rationale. They claim it is necessary to protect the domestic shipping industry.

After the war with Iran spiked oil prices, President Donald Trump suspended the Jones Act until mid-August. Late last month, dozens of Republican House members, including Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., sent Trump a letter urging him to let the waiver expire.

“The Jones Act waiver has become a loophole exploited by adversarial countries to erode America’s maritime dominance,” the letter states. This is a bipartisan desire. “I’m concerned that if this extended waiver is allowed to continue, we will quickly become fully and needlessly reliant on foreign ships — owned and crewed by foreign companies — for our economic security,” Rep. Salud Carbajal, D-Calif., said at a June hearing.

To those who support protectionist policies, these statements may hold appeal. But they don’t hold up to even mild scrutiny. Just 0.13 percent of the world’s large vessels are built in the United States. There are around 7,500 oil tankers worldwide. Fewer than 60 meet the Jones Act’s requirements. A majority of new ships are built in China, whose shipbuilding capacity far exceeds America’s.

So much for the act protecting “America’s maritime dominance.” As it turns out, companies in competitive industries face pressure to innovate. This often leads to improvements. Those protected by government usually stagnate.

Ironically, suspending the Jones Act has had a major domestic benefit — increased trade between states. With the Jones Act in place, it was cheaper for California to import oil from overseas. Now, it’s receiving oil from states such as Texas and Louisiana. Suspending the law has even allowed oil to move from Los Angeles to San Francisco for refining before returning to L.A. East Coast states benefit as well.

Allowing states to buy oil and petrochemical products domestically is a big win for America’s economy. The jobs in those industries matter, too. That’s what’s often overlooked with government interventions. There are winners — and losers. This is why the government should seek to provide a level playing field and enforce the rule of law.

The takeaway should be obvious, even to those who understand the need for a stronger domestic shipbuilding industry. The Jones Act failed to protect America’s shipbuilding capacity while imposing previously significant costs on consumers and other industries. Repeal it.