Posted on August 17, 2026
As U.S. President Donald Trump signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum on August 13 allowing foreign shipbuilders investing in the U.S. to construct up to two U.S. Navy vessels in their home countries, some domestic circles have continued to project that “the path to building U.S. military ships in South Korea has opened.” The argument is that since Hanwha, which acquired the U.S. Philly Shipyard, meets the conditions, South Korean shipyards can now directly construct U.S. Navy vessels.
However, reactions from the U.S. and ongoing congressional legislative processes show significant divergence from this interpretation. While President Trump has stated his intention to apply a national security exception to a federal law that generally prohibits the overseas construction of U.S. military vessels, the White House and Congress are clashing over the procurement authority and budget required for actual overseas construction.
On the 14th (local time), U.S. defense media outlet Breaking Defense reported, “The clash between the White House and Congress is intensifying,” adding, “While the Trump administration is demanding permission for overseas military vessel construction, both the Senate and House have imposed restrictions in their respective National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) bills.” It also noted that lawmakers from both parties strongly oppose entrusting naval vessel construction to foreign shipbuilders.
Immediately after the Trump memorandum was announced, public backlash emerged in Congress. Representative Jared Golden, a Democrat whose district includes the Bath Iron Works shipyard in Maine, posted on social media on the 14th, “Given the Trump administration’s apparent determination to send U.S. shipbuilding jobs overseas and now to sell American shipyards to foreign companies, I wonder how seriously we should take this administration’s grand ‘America First’ rhetoric.” He added, “Fortunately, the House has already sent bipartisan support for a provision I prepared to block this shortsighted overseas relocation plan, and the Senate is poised to take similar action.”
The view that “overseas construction has become possible regardless of congressional NDAA discussions” simply because President Trump specified a national security waiver in this memorandum is also inaccurate. The presidential waiver authority exempts specific contracts from the application of the Burns-Tollefson Act, which prohibits the overseas construction of U.S. military vessels. However, this authority cannot invalidate overseas construction restrictions imposed by Congress through other laws or appropriations acts.
In particular, the U.S. Congress has restricted the use of defense budgets for overseas construction of naval vessels through annual defense appropriations acts. Even if the president removes one legal barrier—the prohibition against constructing overseas—under the Burns-Tollefson Act, if Congress blocks the use of funds for overseas construction, actual contracts cannot proceed.
Indeed, the Trump administration had previously requested Congress to include authority to procure two surface combatants and two non-combatant ships overseas in next year’s NDAA. However, both the Senate and House rejected this outright and incorporated overseas construction restrictions into the legislation. Therefore, the claim that the president’s waiver authority allows South Korea to build U.S. military ships regardless of Congress is unfounded.
◇U.S. Shipbuilding Industry: “Retract Trump’s Policy”
The backlash is not limited to Congress. The Shipbuilders Council of America, representing U.S. shipyards, urged upon the release of the Trump memorandum, “The Trump administration should change course and redirect these funds to qualified U.S. shipyards.”
In a statement, Council President Matthew Paxton said, “While we welcome foreign investment in U.S.-based shipyards and facilities as it helps achieve the administration’s goal of revitalizing the shipbuilding industrial base, instructing the Department of Defense to build overseas only weakens the federal maritime strategy and generational investments in commercial and government ship construction.” He added, “Every hull built overseas diverts demand, jobs, and industrial capacity from the U.S. shipyards this administration has promised to rebuild.”
While President Trump’s formalization of a policy to include surface combatants as overseas construction targets and utilize national security waivers marks clear progress at the executive level, analysts suggest that whether South Korea can actually build U.S. military ships depends not on Trump’s memorandum but on how far Congress allows overseas construction in future NDAAs and defense appropriations acts.
