The Trump administration has made the revival of the US maritime sector a strategic priority, linking shipbuilding, logistics resilience, workforce development and national security. Yet despite high-level political support and a detailed federal maritime strategy, one of the key legislative vehicles intended to turn those ambitions into reality is struggling to move forward.
Speaking in late May at The Reagan National Economic Forum, held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent offered further insight into the administration’s Maritime Action Plan (MAP), released in mid-February 2026. The event brought together senior figures from politics, business and the media.
In his remarks, Bessent described a broader administration effort to project economic and military strength, reflecting what he called the principle that “economic security is national security.”
Turning specifically to maritime policy, Bessent highlighted several actions already taken by President Donald Trump. He said:
“On maritime strength, President Trump signed an executive order to restore America’s maritime dominance, established a new Office of Maritime and Industrial Capacity at the National Security Council, and called for a Maritime Action Plan to rebuild US shipbuilding capabilities. This is what it looks like to connect industrial capacity, logistics resilience, workforce development, and national security in one strategic frame.”
On paper, the approach represents a broad effort to reconnect industrial capacity with national security. But one closely watched legislative expression of the Maritime Action Plan, the SHIPS Act, is facing significant headwinds.
The legislation, formally identified as HR 3151, was introduced in the current Congress in April 2025. More than a year later, progress remains limited.
Three days before Bessent’s remarks, prominent commentator Brent Sadler, Senior Research Fellow for Naval Warfare and Advanced Technology at the Allison Center for National Security, acknowledged the lack of momentum in a posting for the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank. Sadler, a US Navy veteran who served for nearly three decades, argued that presidential action and political capital had generated substantial support but were no longer sufficient on their own.
“The President has led the effort with executive orders and his personal political capital, notably calling for a maritime revival in his joint session speech to Congress in March 2025. This is commendable, and he’s drawn considerable support on Capitol Hill, but like all good initiatives, it needs an additional push,” Sadler wrote.
In his recent brief, titled “America Needs Over 1,300 Commercial Ships to Counter Chinese Economic Coercion and Meet Military Needs,” Sadler examined what he described as stalled legislative efforts to formalise what he sees as a generational maritime rebuilding effort.
Referring to the SHIPS Act’s April 2025 reintroduction, he wrote:
“Yet now, over a year later, Congress is again dead in the water on this historic legislation.”
Sadler raised concerns over national security, the approaching summer recess period on Capitol Hill and the upcoming mid-term elections. He also proposed that Congress consider new legislation building on the SHIPS Act, suggesting the title Transformative Revival and Urgent Maritime Program, abbreviated as TRUMP.
Among the enhancements he proposed are revised incentives designed to encourage industry to reinvest in workforce development and shipbuilding infrastructure. His recommendations would also include regulatory relief for local community actions within proposed Maritime Prosperity Zones.
Another major proposal is the creation of a new Maritime Department, which would consolidate the US Coast Guard, Maritime Administration, Federal Maritime Commission and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration into a single agency. According to the proposal, that department would be charged with reviving the nation’s commercial maritime sector.
The debate is also touching on the difficult balance between commercial shipbuilding and defence spending.
Washington, D.C.-based expert Dr. Steven Wills, a former Navy officer and Navalist for the Center for Maritime Strategy at the Navy League of the United States, has also weighed in on the issue.
In a special report on the SHIPS Act published by specialist news agency Inside Defense, Wills pointed to the challenge of reconciling commercial ship construction requirements with defence expenditures.
Wills argued that timing could be critical for the legislation’s prospects, saying:
“The SHIPS Act stands a better chance if Congress acts quickly to advance it before the Trump administration releases its fiscal year 2027 budget request…if they can get this going early and make progress early this calendar year, then I think they’ll do better than if it waits and gets kind of commingled with the next defense budget, which is going to be very contentious.”
The situation therefore leaves the administration’s maritime ambitions at a critical legislative juncture. The Maritime Action Plan has established the strategic framework, while the SHIPS Act was intended to provide a legislative foundation for rebuilding US commercial shipbuilding capacity. But with congressional momentum still limited, supporters of a maritime revival are calling for additional action before other political and budgetary pressures make the path forward even more complicated.
