In the scramble to contain energy-price volatility tied to the Iran war, the jones act has re-emerged as a lever the White House may pull—yet its very design narrows domestic shipping options at the moment the country is looking for flexibility. President Donald Trump has floated a temporary suspension, even as critics argue the more durable answer is to remove constraints that can amplify price shocks.
What is the White House considering under the Jones Act—and why now?
Higher energy costs have followed the recently launched war in Iran, with oil and gas prices rising considerably after President Donald Trump piggybacked on Israel’s bombing campaign. The war has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, a critical choke point between the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean, through which a large portion of the world’s oil supply flows.
Oil markets have reacted sharply. The price of Brent crude, the international benchmark, briefly surged to $119. 50 per barrel on Monday—its highest level since the summer after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022—before falling back into the double digits. Energy markets remained volatile Wednesday, while oil sat well below the $120 per barrel it briefly hit Monday. Gasoline prices, meanwhile, have remained elevated as Iran disrupts shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Against that backdrop, described a menu of options under consideration, including intervening in oil futures markets, waiving some federal taxes, and lifting requirements under the Jones Act. The immediate idea is a workaround: suspend enforcement of a protectionist law to ease constraints on moving oil, including oil pumped in Alaska, to the U. S. mainland.
How does the jones act restrict domestic energy logistics?
Under the Merchant Marine Act of 1920—more commonly called the Jones Act—cargo shipped between two U. S. ports must be carried by ships built in America and primarily owned and staffed by Americans. Critics argue that the rule sharply reduces the pool of vessels available for domestic shipping, which can make key routes more difficult and expensive.
One example repeatedly raised in this debate concerns Alaska. Oil pumped in Alaska can only be transported to the U. S. mainland by a small subset of available vessels, making it much more difficult—and expensive—to do so. The downstream effect, as summarized by Joe Lancaster, is that Americans pay more for certain energy products like natural gas, even when it is produced domestically.
The knock-on effects extend beyond the mainland. The Hawaii Refinery Task Force concluded in 2014 that the Jones Act was a major reason Hawaii is almost wholly dependent on foreign oil, since the cost of importing oil from the U. S. mainland aboard Jones Act tankers is more expensive.
Does the law deliver what it promises on shipbuilding and readiness?
The logic behind the law, as described by Colin Grabow of the Cato Institute in 2019, was that restricting foreign competition would encourage the development of a strong U. S. shipbuilding sector. However, Grabow wrote that U. S. shipyards have been in decline for decades, with only a handful building oceangoing commercial ships. He also argued that the Jones Act’s U. S. -build requirement is linked to higher vessel costs—up to five times more than equivalent ships built in foreign shipyards.
Multiple counts cited by institutional critics point to a shrinking compliant fleet. Caleb Petitt of the Independent Institute wrote that the U. S. had 92 Jones Act-compliant ships in 2024, while there were 185 U. S. -flagged ships that year. The other 93 were foreign-built ships flagged in the United States, but they cannot carry cargo between American ports because they were not built domestically. The Cato Institute similarly notes a decline in the number of ocean-going ships meeting the Jones Act requirements from 193 to 92.
Oil tankers represent a large share of the compliant fleet. The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii states that oil tankers make up 55 of the 92 ships in the Jones Act fleet—an imbalance that matters when the policy question is immediate energy logistics rather than long-term industrial goals.
Who benefits from keeping the status quo, and what do critics want changed?
The current debate has two tracks: a short-term waiver versus a structural change. On the short-term track, presidents can waive the law’s requirements in times of crisis. Trump waived the Jones Act for Puerto Rico in 2017 after Hurricane Maria, though that waiver lasted 10 days. After Hurricane Fiona knocked out power across Puerto Rico in 2022, President Joe Biden granted a waiver allowing a tanker carrying 300, 000 gallons of diesel fuel to dock.
On the structural track, critics argue that temporary waivers are not a substitute for a durable fix. One argument is political as well as economic: disruptions present political issues for the White House as the midterms approach, while higher gasoline prices can increase the costs of transporting goods and potentially drive up the cost of goods. The Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial position is that President Trump should urge Congress to reform or get rid of the law, describing it as an antiquated 105-year-old statute that threatens to exacerbate energy shocks triggered by the Iran war.
There is also mention of legislation pending in Congress that would reform the law to make it far less restrictive. In that framing, a temporary suspension would be a step, but not the endpoint.
What the facts add up to—and what accountability would look like
Verified facts: The context establishes that energy markets have reacted to the Iran war and disruptions near the Strait of Hormuz; that President Trump has floated a temporary suspension of the Jones Act; that the law limits domestic shipping to U. S. -built, U. S. -owned, U. S. -crewed vessels; that institutional critics describe a decline in compliant oceangoing ships to 92; and that Hawaii’s 2014 Refinery Task Force identified the Jones Act as a major factor in the state’s dependence on foreign oil due to higher costs for domestic shipments.
Informed analysis: Taken together, these facts underline a central contradiction: a law defended as a pillar of domestic capacity can, in a fast-moving energy shock, operate as a bottleneck that policymakers try to bypass through emergency waivers. If a waiver becomes the most practical tool during crises, the public interest question is whether the policy is being managed through exceptions rather than a transparent assessment of costs, fleet capacity, and the law’s effectiveness against its stated aims.
Accountability now hinges on clarity from the administration and Congress: whether any suspension is pursued, what criteria would govern it, and whether broader reform is put on the record. With energy costs already volatile and the White House weighing options, the jones act is no longer an abstract shipping rule—it is a live test of whether emergency flexibility can coexist with a restrictive domestic mandate without repeatedly forcing the government into last-minute workarounds.
