SHIPS for America Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 30, 2025
Bottom line
A sweeping legislative effort to bolster U.S. maritime power for national defense and economic security through significant investment, regulatory reform, and targeted measures against foreign adversaries.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the "SHIPS for America Act of 2025," establishes a comprehensive framework to revitalize the United States maritime industry, shipbuilding capacity, and workforce. It creates new financial incentive programs, significantly strengthens cargo preference laws, modernizes mariner credentialing, and establishes new oversight bodies to coordinate national maritime policy and strategy.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill is crucial for national defense, economic resilience, and supply chain security, reducing the United States' disproportionate reliance on foreign nations, particularly China, for international commerce and strategic sealift. They contend it will create American jobs, modernize critical infrastructure, and ensure the U.S. can project power and maintain free trade routes globally.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill imposes significant costs on taxpayers and businesses through increased taxes, duties, and stringent cargo preference requirements, which could lead to higher consumer prices and reduced competitiveness for U.S. industries. Concerns could also be raised about potential market distortions, trade retaliation from other countries, and the efficiency of government-directed industrial policy.
The bill is extensive and highly detailed, requiring significant time for thorough review, likely more than typically afforded for such a comprehensive measure. Its numerous amendments to existing law and creation of new programs demand careful study.
Sec. 101, Title I
Establishment of Maritime Security Advisor and Board
This provision establishes a Maritime Security Advisor within the Executive Office of the President and a Maritime Security Board. The Advisor will coordinate national maritime affairs and policy, including developing and implementing a National Maritime Strategy. The Board, composed of various federal agency heads, will oversee financial assistance programs, cargo preference, workforce development, and research, with an annual budget of $5 million from the Maritime Security Trust Fund.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a dedicated Maritime Security Advisor and Board are essential to overcome decades of fragmented federal oversight and ensure a coherent, whole-of-government approach to revitalizing the U.S. maritime industry for national and economic security.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that creating new layers of bureaucracy could lead to inefficiencies and turf wars among existing agencies, rather than streamlining efforts, potentially duplicating roles already performed by other departments.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for centralized strategic direction with the risk of creating additional bureaucratic layers within the federal government.
Sec. 201, Title II
Maritime Security Trust Fund Establishment
This section establishes a 'Maritime Security Trust Fund' with a $20 billion cap, dedicated to supporting the U.S. merchant marine and maritime industrial base. The fund will be credited with revenue from regular and special tonnage taxes, duties on foreign vessel repairs (especially from 'foreign countries of concern'), duties and penalties from trade actions against China's maritime sector, and various other maritime penalties. Funds are authorized for expenditure until October 1, 2035.
Sec. 301, Title III
Strategic Sealift Objectives and Prioritization
This section adds a new part to Title 46, establishing explicit objectives and policy for U.S. strategic sealift, emphasizing self-sufficiency for national defense and economic security. It prioritizes the availability of vessels for sealift in the following order: U.S. commercial vessels, U.S. Government-owned vessels, vessels of defense treaty allies, and vessels of strategic partners. The Maritime Security Board is tasked with developing an annual strategy to expand the U.S. sealift fleet.
Sec. 401, Title IV, Subtitle A
Strategic Commercial Fleet Establishment
This provision establishes a 'Strategic Commercial Fleet' of up to 250 active, commercially viable, militarily useful, privately owned U.S. vessels. It mandates an annual competitive selection process, aiming for at least 10 new vessels in the fleet after two years, increasing to 20 annually after five years. Operating agreements provide annual operating support payments (to cover cost differences with foreign operation) and capital support payments (for U.S. construction). Vessels must be U.S.-crewed, operate exclusively in foreign commerce, and are permanently ineligible for coastwise trade. They must also undergo a set percentage of repairs in U.S. shipyards and are prohibited from repairs in 'foreign countries of concern'. The program is authorized to receive up to $2.1 billion from the Maritime Security Trust Fund by FY2035.
Sec. 411, Title IV, Subtitle B
100% U.S. Government Cargo Preference
This section amends existing law to require 100% (up from 50%) of all U.S. Government cargo to be transported on vessels of the United States. It also significantly restricts the authority to waive this requirement, allowing it only for the President, Secretary of Defense, or Secretary of Transportation during a declared emergency, and only after the Maritime Administrator determines that qualified U.S. flag capacity is unavailable at fair and reasonable rates.
Sec. 415, Title IV, Subtitle B
Importation from China on American Ships Mandate
This section mandates that a gradually increasing percentage of goods manufactured in the People's Republic of China, when imported into the United States, must be transported on U.S.-built, U.S.-crewed, U.S.-flagged vessels. The requirement starts at 1% five years after enactment and increases to 10% after 14 years. Non-compliant shippers will face fines, with proceeds deposited into the Maritime Security Trust Fund. The Maritime Administrator, in coordination with DHS and FMC, is required to promulgate rules for implementation and enforcement.
Sec. 420, Title IV, Subtitle B
Energy Export Transportation Requirements
This section mandates that a gradually increasing percentage of U.S. exported natural gas and crude oil must be transported on U.S.-documented vessels. For natural gas, this starts at 2% in year 1 and reaches 15% in year 22; for crude oil, it starts at 3% in year 1 and reaches 10% in year 14. These vessels must also meet U.S.-built/retrofitted requirements and use specific U.S.-manufactured components (e.g., air circuit breakers, pumps, propulsion equipment). Waivers for component requirements are possible if costs increase by 25% or more, or if components are unavailable. The provision also requires opportunities for U.S. merchant mariners.
Sec. 501, Title V, Subtitle A
Shipbuilding Financial Incentives Program
This section establishes a program providing federal financial assistance to U.S. citizens for the construction of U.S.-documented vessels, or to U.S. shipyards for 'qualified shipyard investments' (e.g., modernizing facilities, supporting U.S. component suppliers). Vessels constructed with this aid must be U.S.-documented for at least 10 years. The program prioritizes projects with higher transport capability, national security relevance, and new technologies. It includes a pilot program for domestic commerce vessels (e.g., emerging industries, replacements, oceanographic research). Funds are prohibited for foreign facilities/entities of concern or materials sourced from them, and recipients cannot engage in stock buybacks for five years. The program is authorized $250 million annually from the Maritime Security Trust Fund (FY2026-2035).
Sec. 521, Title V, Subtitle C
United States Center for Maritime Innovation and Incubators
This section expands the role of the U.S. Center for Maritime Innovation, requiring it to establish and coordinate geographically and topically diverse 'maritime incubators.' These incubators will focus on areas like clean energy, ports, vessel design, shipbuilding, and advanced materials, fostering multi-stakeholder research and innovation partnerships. The Center is also tasked with developing a standard design for U.S.-built commercial vessels, explicitly excluding components from 'foreign entities of concern.' The program is authorized $50 million annually from the Maritime Security Trust Fund (FY2026-2035).
Sec. 601, Title VI, Subtitle A
Public Service Loan Forgiveness for Merchant Mariners and Shipyard Workers
This section amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include service in the U.S. Merchant Marine and employment in a U.S. shipyard as qualifying public service for federal student loan forgiveness. For Merchant Mariners, this requires possession of a Coast Guard credential and employment on a U.S. vessel for at least 150 days in a calendar year.
Sec. 606, Title VI, Subtitle A
United States Merchant Marine Career Retention Program
This section establishes the 'United States Merchant Marine Career Retention Program' to ensure a qualified workforce for strategic sealift. It offers two enrollment paths: one for shoreside workers holding mariner qualifications to maintain/upgrade credentials through sea service (an 8-3-1 schedule: 8 months ashore, 3 months sailing, 1 month vacation), and another for mariners serving on foreign vessels (not tied to foreign entities of concern) to maintain U.S. credentials. Both paths provide Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protections. The program is authorized $2 million annually from the Maritime Security Trust Fund (FY2025-2034).
Sec. 621, Title VI, Subtitle C
USMMA 10-Year Campus Modernization Plan
This section mandates the Secretary of Transportation to develop and implement a 10-year Campus Modernization Plan for the United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA), informed by the 'Merchant Marine Academy Full Speed Ahead Plan.' The plan aims to significantly upgrade or replace facilities, focusing on modern education, Coast Guard license exam preparation, physical readiness, diversity, industry engagement, and campus safety. It includes specific construction and renovation projects (e.g., laboratories, athletic facilities, a new pier, utility upgrades). The plan is authorized $1.02 billion from the Maritime Security Trust Fund (FY2026-2035), with initial funding for design and planning.
Sec. 631, Title VI, Subtitle D
Merchant Mariner Credentialing Modernization
This section mandates the Coast Guard to undertake necessary system and process changes to modernize merchant mariner credentialing. This includes replacing the existing database to allow for electronic submission and processing of applications and course approvals, implementing a system for data exchange with government and industry stakeholders (providing anonymized data), creating a public-facing portal on a .gov domain, and upgrading examination processes to allow for electronic and third-party administration. The provision authorizes $20 million from the Maritime Security Trust Fund for FY2026.
Defines 'foreign shipyard of concern' as a shipyard owned or controlled by a foreign country or entity of concern with dual military/commercial capacity, or one designated by the Maritime Security Advisor. Designations are subject to notice and comment and annual revision.
Sec. 202(b), Title II
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms, but its placement here means the significant policy implications (e.g., penalty taxes, repair prohibitions) are not immediately apparent without cross-referencing.
Case for: Proponents argue this definition is essential for targeting strategic competitors like China, ensuring that punitive measures and restrictions are applied precisely to entities that pose national security risks, thereby protecting the U.S. maritime industrial base.
Case against: Critics might argue that the broad definition and discretionary designation power could be used to unfairly target foreign entities, potentially leading to trade disputes or limiting competition in global shipbuilding and repair markets.
Estimated impact: This definition underpins significant financial penalties and operational restrictions across the bill, potentially impacting billions in trade and investment.
Vessels participating in the new Strategic Commercial Fleet will be permanently ineligible for a coastwise endorsement or to participate in the coastwise trade, even if the operating agreement is terminated or not renewed.
Sec. 401(b)(1)(B) and Sec. 53603(b)(1)(B), Title IV, Subtitle A
Why it matters:This is a technically phrased restriction that addresses potential concerns from the existing Jones Act fleet about new, subsidized vessels competing in domestic markets, making it a politically sensitive detail.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures the Strategic Commercial Fleet focuses solely on international commerce and strategic sealift, preventing market disruption for the domestic Jones Act fleet and maintaining distinct policy objectives for each segment.
Case against: Critics might contend that this permanent ineligibility limits the commercial flexibility and long-term viability of these vessels, potentially making them less attractive for private investment and reducing their overall utility if strategic needs change.
Estimated impact: Significantly impacts the long-term operational and commercial strategies for any vessel owner participating in the Strategic Commercial Fleet, potentially affecting hundreds of vessels.
Specifies a detailed list of vessel components (e.g., air circuit breakers, welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain, specific machine tools, auxiliary equipment, propulsion equipment, shipboard cranes, rotating electrical equipment) that must be manufactured in the United States for vessels transporting exported natural gas and crude oil to meet new cargo preference requirements.
Sec. 420(a)(4) and (b)(4), Title IV, Subtitle B
Why it matters:This is a technically phrased, highly specific 'Buy America' mandate that extends beyond just the vessel's construction to its internal components, designed to maximize the economic benefits to the U.S. manufacturing base. Its detail could be seen as standard technical drafting.
Case for: Proponents argue that these detailed component requirements ensure the economic benefits of the energy export mandates flow deeply into the U.S. manufacturing supply chain, strengthening the broader industrial base and creating a wider array of American jobs.
Case against: Critics might contend that such granular requirements could significantly increase the cost and complexity of vessel construction, potentially leading to delays or forcing reliance on less competitive domestic suppliers if high-quality components are not readily available in the U.S.
Estimated impact: Could impact hundreds of millions to billions in manufacturing and procurement costs for vessel components over the long term, affecting numerous U.S. and foreign suppliers.
Prohibits withdrawals from a Capital Construction Fund to purchase cranes manufactured in the People's Republic of China or by 'foreign entities of concern'.
Sec. 505(d), Title V, Subtitle A
Why it matters:This is a targeted, politically consequential restriction aimed at a specific country and type of equipment, placed within a technical section to avoid drawing undue attention as a standalone trade measure.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a crucial national security measure to prevent reliance on equipment from strategic adversaries for critical port infrastructure, mitigating cybersecurity and supply chain risks.
Case against: Critics might contend that this restriction could increase costs for U.S. port operators and limit their access to potentially more affordable or advanced equipment from global suppliers, potentially hindering port efficiency.
Estimated impact: Could impact hundreds of millions in port equipment procurement, shifting market share from Chinese manufacturers to other international or domestic suppliers.
Amends the Civil Service Retirement System and Federal Employees' Retirement System to grant retirement service credit for service as a midshipman at the United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA).
Sec. 623, Title VI, Subtitle C
Why it matters:This is a significant benefit for USMMA graduates, aligning their retirement treatment more closely with other federal service academy graduates. Its technical nature means it's often placed in relevant code sections rather than being a standalone, highly visible policy.
Case for: Proponents argue this rectifies an inequity, recognizing the federal service commitment of USMMA midshipmen and aligning their retirement benefits with those of other military academy graduates, thereby incentivizing service.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it is seen as a fairness adjustment for federal service, though some may raise general concerns about expanding federal retirement benefit eligibility.
Estimated impact: Provides a valuable, long-term benefit to thousands of current and future USMMA graduates, potentially impacting federal retirement outlays over decades.
Amends various sections of Title 46, United States Code, to include 'noncitizen nationality' alongside 'citizenship' for merchant mariner licenses, certificates, documents, and vessel manning requirements.
Sec. 635, Title VI, Subtitle D
Why it matters:This is a technical expansion of eligibility criteria, potentially aimed at broadening the pool of eligible mariners. Its technical nature means it's often handled through precise statutory language rather than broad policy statements.
Case for: Proponents argue this expands the pool of eligible individuals for the U.S. merchant marine, addressing workforce shortages by allowing noncitizen nationals (e.g., from U.S. territories) to obtain credentials and serve on U.S. vessels, consistent with national security needs.
Case against: Critics might raise concerns about potential impacts on the traditional definition of 'U.S. citizen' for maritime service, or whether it adequately addresses all security implications, though noncitizen nationals typically have strong ties to the U.S.
Estimated impact: Potentially expands the eligible mariner workforce by hundreds or thousands of individuals, particularly from U.S. territories, over the long term.