Posted on June 8, 2026
Several hearings over the past 10 days in Washington, DC placed the Jones Act and the current waiver squarely in the spotlight. Opposition to the waiver intensified on Capitol Hill as lawmakers raised concerns across multiple committees.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS) delivered his strongest public criticism of the waiver to date during a Senate Commerce Committee hearing. He specifically questioned the administration’s use of foreign flagged vessels to transport petroleum and asphalt between U.S. ports.
Sen. Wicker also challenged the legality of the current waivers, suggesting the administration may have exceeded the authority granted under 46 U.S.C. § 501. Citing the recent movement of asphalt from Louisiana to Connecticut aboard a Chinese vessel, he argued that such activity does not satisfy the national defense justification required to waive the Jones Act.
His concerns echoed those of many maritime stakeholders who contend that the waiver undermines the domestic maritime and shipbuilding industries by allowing foreign operators to bypass the laws and regulations that govern American companies.
Criticism of the waiver also surfaced during hearings before the Senate Commerce Committee’s Oceans, Fisheries, Climate Change and Manufacturing Subcommittee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee. Members likewise pressed Cabinet officials, including Secretaries Mulligan and Bessent, on the waiver during House Homeland Security and Senate Finance Committee hearings.
The previous week, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy was questioned on the issue before the House Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Subcommittee. His response was unequivocal: “There is no American maritime industry without the Jones Act.” That sentiment was echoed this week by Maritime Administrator Stephen Carmel.
Meanwhile, Rep. John Garamendi successfully added an amendment to the waiver statute that would prohibit vessels associated with a “foreign entity of concern” from operating under a navigation or vessel inspection law waiver.
Rep. Garamendi also filed, but later withdrew, a separate amendment that would limit the duration of a Section 501(a) waiver to 60 days. During committee markup, however, he made clear that the issue remains active and suggested that a similar proposal could be offered as a floor amendment as the NDAA advances through the legislative process.
Rep. Salud Carbajal intensified congressional oversight of the waiver by raising questions about the foreign companies operating under it, including whether certain carriers are benefiting from domestic U.S. commerce while avoiding the tax and regulatory obligations imposed on American maritime operators. He sent letters directly to foreign operators.
