To Protect Privileged Shippers From Competition, the Government Fought Jones Act Waivers
That's in addition to advocating for opponents of the law to be charged with treason.

As New England faces natural gas price spikes and Puerto Rico struggles in the aftermath of Hurricane Fiona, emails have emerged showing that government officials have opposed measures that would help ease supply constraints.
At issue is the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, more commonly called the Jones Act. Passed in the aftermath of World War I, the law dictates that cargo shipped between two U.S. ports can only be carried by American-made ships owned by American entities and staffed by American crews. As Reason's Scott Shackford noted last month, there are currently fewer than 100 ships that comply with the Jones Act, severely limiting the amount of goods that can be transported to more distant locales like Puerto Rico.
Even though the U.S. exports liquified natural gas (LNG) from coastal Georgia, it could only ship it to Puerto Rico if a Jones Act–compliant American boat was available to make the journey. In 2019, the U.S. territory had to import fuel from Siberia. In 2018, Massachusetts was similarly forced to import natural gas from Russia rather than simply getting it from Georgia or Louisiana. Such shipments not only take longer but are significantly more expensive.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can issue Jones Act waivers "if the proposed shipments are in the interest of national defense and after careful evaluation of the issue" with other agencies, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement. Indeed, it has issued waivers in the past under very similar circumstances: It did so for Puerto Rico, but only for 10 days, after the island was devastated by Hurricane Maria in 2017.
According to emails obtained by the Cato Institute, officials in the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) vigorously opposed long-term waivers, in the interest of protecting the shipping industry from competition.
MARAD, part of the Department of Transportation (DOT), is "charged with promoting the development and maintenance of a strong merchant marine for the national defense and development of its foreign and domestic commerce." Its 2023 annual budget is $987 million. In January 2019, as the DOT and the Department of Energy (DOE) considered Puerto Rico's request for a 10-year waiver, MARAD Deputy Administrator Richard Balzano emailed two staffers in Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao's office. Balzano noted that Energy Secretary Rick Perry favored the waiver, but "I just want to make sure that DOE understands the issue and the devastating effect a wavier [sic] will have on the US maritime industry."
As Cato's Colin Grabow noted, "the entire rationale for such a waiver is that bulk transportation of LNG is not a service that the U.S. maritime industry provides" (emphasis in original).
The same month, Balzano emailed several of Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker's staffers to dissuade them from seeking a Jones Act waiver for the state. Balzano cautioned that if the state requested a waiver, "I know you would receive Non-concur from MARAD," as well as the White House, Department of Defense (DOD), DHS, "and most likely DOE." He also suggested that the state did not need a waiver, as there were at least four Jones Act–compliant ships available to meet the state's needs. But as Grabow pointed out, only one of those four ships, the Clean Jacksonville, was owned by an American company at the time, and it could only hold about 2 percent as much LNG as an average seafaring tanker.
Balzano later emailed Francis McDonald, president of the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, which receives some of its funding via MARAD grants. Balzano assured McDonald, "We communicated that we would not support a waiver to the Jones Act and neither would the White House and the DOD, or DHS." McDonald responded, "Sounds like good news," and indicated that he was pursuing the matter himself. Later that year, a state energy report complained that "Massachusetts imports LNG from Trinidad and Tobago, while U.S. gas is sent overseas on foreign-flagged ships."
Notably, the communications came from the same tranche of emails in which a DOT committee recommended charging "all past and present [Cato] members…with treason."
Mayorkas noted that the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act "eliminated the Federal Government's authority to issue long-term comprehensive waivers" for any reason other than to "address an immediate adverse effect on military operations." But he also defended the act as a piece of protectionism, saying, "The Jones Act is vital to maintaining the strength of the American shipbuilding and maritime industries." This is often how the act's defenders characterize it: Robert O'Brien, national security adviser to former President Donald Trump, wrote last year that the Jones Act was essential to countering "potential adversaries" who may hope to "hamstring the U.S. economically by disrupting maritime trade."
But putting aside such a hypothetical future conflict, the Jones Act currently makes it much more difficult for U.S. states and territories to get sorely needed supplies. These emails also beg the question of why a government agency with a nearly billion-dollar annual budget exists primarily to "promote" one particular industry. As Cato's Grabow noted, "at least in matters concerning the Jones Act, MARAD is properly regarded as a taxpayer-funded lobbyist for the U.S. maritime industry."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Last to post - J. Fetterman
Is Jackie here?
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot (vr-52) of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
…
Just open the link————————–>>> http://Www.TopCityPay.Com
In 2019, the U.S. territory had to import fuel from Siberia. In 2018, Massachusetts was similarly forced to import natural gas from Russia rather than simply getting it from Georgia or Louisiana. Such shipments not only take longer but are significantly more expensive.
So ships built in Europe and China will expedite the process and lower the cost? Seems like LA and GA (and TX, FL, AL, SC, NC, VA...) could just build a few ships and make a killing. Unless there's some other reasons that have nothing to do with the Jones Act as to why it's more profitable to ship LNG to Europe (or Mexico or Brazil or Panama or...) right now than it is to ship it to PR.
The construction and ownership requirements, though barriers, aren't the big problems. The single biggest problem is that the Jones Act requirement that the crew has to be 75% US citizens. You simply can't get US citizens to crew a ship for the same sorts of wages as Filipinos (the most common nationality in modern merchant shipping); crew costs for Jones Act-compliant ships are four to six times those of other ships.
So the only case where you have Jones Act-compliant ships in service is on established routes for goods where it's cheaper to pay the crew four times the going salary than to import the goods from outside the US. That pushes up the regular prices in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico to begin with, but it also means there's no excess capacity of US merchant mariners around. So if you have a temporary crisis, there's no excess capacity to take up the slack.
For PR, you may be correct. I’d still disagree in that, even if you subsidized 10,000 merchant marines for PR, it would have about the same effect as providing billions in aid and legions of doctors to Haiti after the earthquake.
For Massachussetts, the issue is much more multi-dimensional. The LNG import terminal and enviro-whackos were shaming and shutting down pipelines and pushing green energy that couldn’t meet high demand before they were ‘forced’ to import LNG.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160714215050/https://marcellusdrilling.com/2016/07/boston-lng-import-terminal-continues-to-demagogue-pipelines/
None of which is to say The Jones Act shouldn’t be more tailored to named enemies/hostile states and/or Congressionally-declared war, but the idea that shit’s expensive and people are poor on HI and PR because of The Jones Act as indistinguishable from valid national defense interests is stupid.
Couldn't a ship leaving GA for PR stop on the way in Nassau or Santo Domingo on their way, thus not violating the Jones Act?
Couldn't a ship built in GA or PR sail directly between them and undercut a ship built in the EU *at least* twice before the EU ship gets from Europe to GA in the first place with or without The Jones Act?
The Jones act is the first amendment of the Internet!
There's a poetry to Heaton joking about globalism, The Jones Act as prevention against Zombie Ferdinand, and Massachusetts kiboshing their own LNG pipelines, going green like Germany, then being forced to buy LNG off of Zombie Soviet Oligarchs, but I'm not facile enough with iambic pentameter to have a go at it.
Probably a verse to be had about DeSantis' stunt telling cruise lines that they can't mandate people get vaccinated and/or show vaccine passports too.
No, because the authors of the Jones Act considered that dodge. If the cargo was loaded in a US port and then is unloaded in a US port, you have to be compliant with the Jones Act, no matter how many stops in foreign ports you make along the way.
We DESPERATELY need to have other nations (ANY other nations! North Korea maybe?) granted some "embassies" (their soil, their saltwater) on some ships stationed 15 miles (past the 12-mile limit) at sea, past our sea borders. Now ships can go from Georgia, dock at the "embassy ship" (foreign "soil"), and THEN go to Massachusetts! Problem solved!
Yer welcome!!!!
It's called Bermuda, but it doesn't have an LNG port.
I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction
On the given website........>>> Topcitypay
News that Wesley’s other Jones Law, to increase prohibition penalties, might pass hit the news in Chicago—the very day that a police car pulled up and discharged uniformed cops who machine-gunned 7 men at a Clark St garage. Two days later the Treasury Department set aside 33 million gold dollars to throttle the accursed bootlegger. NYT reported that same 16-17 February that BAD BREAK HITS STOCK MARKET, SELLING AFFECTS GENERAL LIST as call loans went to 10% interest. But surely that was coincidence, Right? Normal business cycles! History then showed us that the Jones Law increasing prohibition penalties was such an economic success that any effort to repeal any other of His godly laws ought surely to be punished as treason most foul!