Letters of marque are still legal in the United States in the narrow sense that Congress retains the constitutional power to issue them, but none have been granted since the War of 1812, international law abolished the practice in 1856, and anyone who attacked a ship today without a current federal commission would face federal piracy charges carrying up to life in prison. The authority exists on paper. It has no practical force.
The Constitutional Power Congress Still Holds
The U.S. Constitution names letters of marque directly. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress the power “[t]o declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”1Congress.gov. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11 – Constitution Annotated The authority belongs to Congress, not the president.
Article I, Section 10 blocks the states from touching the power at all. No state may “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” among several other foreign-affairs prohibitions.2Congress.gov. Article I Section 10 – Constitution Annotated The framers centralized the authority for a practical reason: a single state licensing attacks on foreign shipping could pull the whole country into war.
Historically, a letter of marque was a license that turned a privately owned merchant ship into a legally recognized warship for the duration of a war. The commission specified which nation’s vessels the holder could attack, and it applied only while that war lasted. A privateer who strayed outside those terms, by hitting a neutral ship or continuing after hostilities ended, lost the license’s protection and could be prosecuted as a pirate.
Why None Have Been Issued Since 1812
The constitutional text has not changed, but the world around it has. In 1856, the major European powers signed the Declaration Respecting Maritime Law in Paris. Its first article stated: “Privateering is and remains abolished.”3The Avalon Project. Declaration of Paris – April 16, 1856
The United States refused to sign. The American position at the time was that a nation without a large standing navy needed privateers, and U.S. negotiators proposed a broader amendment exempting all private property at sea from wartime capture. The European powers rejected it, and no compromise was reached.
Even so, the United States has followed the Declaration’s rule in practice for more than 160 years. No president has asked Congress to issue a letter of marque since 1812, and Congress has issued none. Exercising the power now would place the country outside a norm that virtually every other maritime nation accepts.
The financial machinery that once made privateering attractive is also gone. Historically, captured ships had to be brought before a federal prize court for formal condemnation, and the sale proceeds were split among the ship’s owner, captain, and crew. Federal district courts still hold exclusive jurisdiction over prize cases by statute.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1333 – Admiralty, Maritime and Prize Cases But in 1899, Congress repealed the laws that distributed prize proceeds to captors. Today, the net proceeds of any property condemned as prize go entirely to the U.S. Treasury.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC Chapter 883 – Prize Even a validly commissioned privateer would have no legal claim to the ships or cargo it captured.
What Happens Without a Current Commission
The distinction between a privateer and a pirate has always come down to one thing: a valid government commission. A privateer carried one and operated within its terms. A pirate did not. Captured privateers were treated as prisoners of war. Captured pirates were tried and often executed.
Federal law still enforces that line, and the relevant statutes are not dormant. Title 18 of the U.S. Code contains an entire chapter on piracy and privateering.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC Chapter 81 – Piracy and Privateering Under 18 U.S.C. § 1651, anyone who commits piracy as defined by the law of nations faces life imprisonment. Section 1652 targets U.S. citizens who commit acts of hostility against Americans under the pretense of a foreign commission. Section 1654 punishes anyone who arms a private vessel, or serves aboard one, with intent to attack U.S. citizens or property with up to ten years in prison, a fine, or both.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 1654 – Arming or Serving on Privateers
Anyone who outfitted a private warship today without a fresh congressional grant would almost certainly be prosecuted under these statutes. Congress could theoretically pass a bill authorizing a specific commission, but until it does, private naval warfare is a federal crime.
Recent Attempts to Revive the Power
Members of Congress have floated the idea more than once in recent decades. None of these bills has become law.
After the September 11 attacks, Representative Ron Paul introduced H.R. 3076, the “September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001,” which would have authorized the president to issue letters of marque and reprisal against those responsible for the attacks.8GovInfo. HR 3076 – September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 The bill never advanced out of committee.
More recently, Representative David Schweikert introduced H.R. 4988, the “Scam Farms Marque and Reprisal Authorization Act of 2025,” which would authorize the president to issue letters of marque targeting foreign cybercriminal enterprises.9Congress.gov. Scam Farms Marque and Reprisal Authorization Act of 2025 The proposal contemplates licensing private cyber operators to pursue foreign scam operations, recover stolen assets, and defend critical infrastructure, and it explicitly frames itself as reviving Congress’s Article I authority for the digital age.10Congressman David Schweikert. Schweikert Introduces Cybercrime Marque and Reprisal Authorization Act to Combat Foreign Scam Syndicates As of early 2026, it remains pending.
Both proposals show that the constitutional power is real enough to be legislatively usable, and neither shows any sign of producing an actual commission.
Private Maritime Security Is Not a Modern Letter of Marque
Armed security teams ride aboard commercial vessels through pirate-prone waters off East Africa, Southeast Asia, and West Africa, and their role can look superficially like a privateer’s. It is not the same thing. These companies operate under no government commission, post no bond, and answer to no prize court. Most flag states impose minimal rules on armed contractors, and no binding international regulations govern their conduct. U.S. law authorizes merchant vessel commanders and crews to defend against attacks but says nothing specific about additional private security personnel.
Some legal scholars have argued that a modernized letter-of-marque framework could bring these operators under formal government oversight, with clear rules of engagement and performance bonds. That remains an academic proposal. For now, private maritime security exists in a separate, largely unregulated space, and it is not a form of privateering that the U.S. government has licensed.