Repealing the Jones Act would take an act of Congress striking or amending the coastwise trade provisions of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, primarily at 46 U.S.C. § 55102.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 46 USC 55102 – Transportation of Merchandise No president can repeal it by executive order, and no agency can waive it permanently. Bills to repeal or reform the law have been introduced repeatedly over the past two decades, and none has advanced out of committee.
What a Repeal Bill Would Have to Undo
The coastwise cargo rule sits in 46 U.S.C. § 55102: no vessel may transport merchandise between U.S. ports unless it is wholly owned by U.S. citizens for coastwise purposes and holds a coastwise endorsement under Chapter 121 of Title 46. The endorsement itself, under 46 U.S.C. § 12112, requires the vessel to have been built in the United States.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 46 USC 12112 – Coastwise Endorsement The citizenship threshold for corporate owners lives in a third statute, 46 U.S.C. § 50501, which requires 75 percent U.S. citizen ownership of stock, a U.S.-citizen CEO and board chair, and domestic incorporation.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 46 USC 50501 – Entities Deemed Citizens of the United States
A full repeal would need to strike or rewrite all three provisions, along with the crew-citizenship rule that produces the industry’s “four pillars” (U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, U.S.-flagged, U.S.-crewed). A partial repeal, like removing only the build requirement, would target § 12112 specifically. Any repeal bill would also need to address the enforcement structure in § 55102, which allows the government to seize offending cargo or recover the value of the merchandise or the cost of transportation, whichever is greater.
How Repeal Moves Through Congress
A repeal bill needs a simple majority in both the House and Senate and a presidential signature. In the House, maritime legislation is referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.4House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. About In the Senate, jurisdiction sits with the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. A bill has to clear committee before it can reach a floor vote. A presidential veto would require two-thirds of each chamber to override.
That is the mechanical path. The political path is harder, and it explains why no bill has moved. Domestic shipyards, maritime unions, and defense-sector interests form a concentrated, well-organized coalition that treats the Jones Act as existential. The costs the law imposes are spread across millions of consumers in Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, and the mainland who pay somewhat higher prices for goods and typically do not tie those prices to a 1920 shipping law. Concentrated benefits versus diffuse costs is a familiar arithmetic in Washington, and it has kept every repeal attempt bottled up in committee.
Recent and Pending Repeal Bills
The current vehicle is H.R. 3940, the Open America’s Waters Act, introduced in June 2025 by Representative Tom McClintock of California. It would repeal the Jones Act’s coastwise trade restrictions outright.5Congress.gov. H.R.3940 – 119th Congress (2025-2026) – Open America’s Waters Act Similar bills have appeared in earlier sessions under the same or similar names, with the same result each time: introduction, referral to committee, no further action.
State legislatures have also weighed in without success. Alaska’s legislature passed a resolution asking Congress to exempt Alaska from the U.S.-build requirement for large oceangoing vessels, arguing the rule inflates costs for state residents.6Alaska State Legislature. SJR 17 Requesting the United States Congress to Exempt Alaska From the United States Built Requirement of the Jones Act for Large Ocean-Going Ships A resolution is a request, not a change to federal law, and Congress has not acted on it.
Reform Proposals Short of Full Repeal
Not every proposal aims to strike the statute entirely. Reform ideas that have circulated include exempting specific territories or noncontiguous states from the U.S.-build requirement, allowing foreign-built but U.S.-owned and U.S.-crewed vessels into the coastwise trade, and creating permanent exemptions for disaster relief shipments.
Each of these carves at a different pillar of the law and draws a different coalition in response. Removing only the build requirement, for instance, would keep the ownership and crewing rules in place while opening the fleet to cheaper foreign-built ships. That preserves the mariner-jobs argument the law’s defenders lean on while addressing the vessel-supply problem its critics emphasize. Each partial reform still requires the same committee-and-floor path as a full repeal.
What Already Exists Without Repeal
Repeal is not the only lever, and understanding what already exists helps clarify what repeal would and would not change.
Temporary waivers are available under 46 U.S.C. § 501. The Secretary of Defense may request a waiver to address an immediate adverse effect on military operations, or the President may determine that a waiver is necessary in the interest of national defense, after which the relevant agency head can grant it if the Maritime Administrator confirms no qualified U.S.-flag vessels are available.7GovInfo. 46 USC 501 – Waiver of Navigation and Vessel-Inspection Laws Each waiver runs no more than 10 days initially, and the total for a single set of events cannot exceed 45 days. They apply to specific vessels and specific voyages. The 10-day waiver issued after Hurricane Maria in 2017 is the best-known recent example.8Federal Register. Waiver of Compliance With Navigation Laws – Hurricane Maria These are emergency tools, not a substitute for repeal.
Some territories are already outside the coastwise laws. Section 55101(b) exempts American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and foreign-flagged ships can carry cargo to and from those territories without restriction.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 46 USC 55101 – Application of Coastwise Laws The Virgin Islands exemption stays in place until a presidential proclamation extends the coastwise laws there, which has not happened. Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Alaska are all inside the law’s reach.
The Stakes That Drive the Debate
The economic argument for repeal turns on ship supply and price. Only 93 vessels qualified under the Jones Act as of January 2026, a small fleet to serve every domestic waterborne trade route.10Maritime Administration. US Flag Fleet Report December 2025 The U.S.-build requirement is the main cost driver: a tanker built in an American shipyard costs roughly four times an equivalent foreign-built vessel, and a container ship can run five times the international price. Those costs flow through to freight rates and consumer prices, and they land hardest on Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Alaska, which have no alternative to ocean shipping for most goods. Purdue University economists estimated the law imposes an annual welfare burden of about $1.4 billion on Puerto Rico alone.
The national security argument is what has kept the law on the books. Supporters say domestic shipbuilding capacity, a pool of trained American mariners, and a fleet of U.S.-flagged ships all contribute to military readiness. Critics point to the numbers: the American mariner pool has shrunk roughly 60 percent since 1970 to around 10,000 seafarers, and a 2017 Maritime Administration report warned of a shortage of at least 1,839 mariners against the 13,607 needed for sustained sealift. Shipbuilding employment has fallen from 186,700 workers in 1981 to around 94,000. During the Persian Gulf War, of 281 reserve and chartered commercial ships used, 8 were Jones Act-eligible, and the military chartered at least 177 foreign-flagged vessels. Whether that record argues for repeal or for stronger enforcement of the existing law is the debate Congress has not resolved.