Commentary
Congress warns that China is outpacing the United States in maritime and naval shipbuilding, prompting President Donald Trump to launch a new shipbuilding initiative.
Military and political leaders have recognized the importance of maritime and
naval supremacy for more than a century.
“Our
shipbuilding program—not only that of the Maritime Commission, but of the Navy—is one of our answers to the aggressors who would strike at our liberty,” said Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who served as assistant secretary of the Navy (1913–1920) and later as the 32nd president of the United States (1933–1945), leading the nation through World War II.
Despite this long-held recognition, the United States has fallen behind its primary rival, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), in shipbuilding. China’s merchant fleet, with more than
5,500 vessels, vastly outnumbers the U.S. merchant marine, which includes
between 80 and
179 privately owned, U.S.-flagged ships, depending on the criteria used to define the fleet.
Additionally, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLA Navy) now has more vessels than the U.S. Navy, with a total of
405 ships, including
234 warships. By comparison, the U.S. Navy
operates 296 manned battle force ships, including combat
logistics and support vessels, but
only 219 are classified as warships. However, the United States maintains a
firepower advantage due to its superior technology and capabilities.
Over the past two decades, China has emerged as the global leader in shipbuilding, now controlling more than half of the world’s commercial shipbuilding market, while the U.S. share has declined to
a negligible level. In 2023, U.S. shipyards produced around
64,809 gross tons of merchant ships, representing about 0.1 percent of the global total of 64,774,769 gross tons.
In 2024 alone, a single Chinese shipbuilder produced more tonnage than the entire U.S. shipbuilding industry since World War II. China’s shipbuilding dominance is primarily driven by its state-owned
China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC), which benefits from military-civil fusion, allowing commercial sales to directly support naval expansion. Many U.S. allies, including France, Japan, and South Korea, continue to purchase from CSSC, indirectly strengthening China’s military growth.
Recently, a BlackRock-led consortium acquired control of key ports with China-linked interests, including locations near the Panama Canal, as a first step toward countering the Chinese regime’s growing maritime dominance. Additionally, Trump has pledged to revitalize U.S. shipbuilding by creating the White House office of shipbuilding dedicated to the industry and imposing tariffs and docking fees on Chinese-built ships.
As part of this effort, the Office of the
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has proposed new charges and cargo preference measures to counter China’s dominance in logistics and maritime trade. The plan includes fees of up to $1.5 million per U.S. port call on Chinese-built vessels and $1 million for Chinese-operated vessels, as well as additional charges for companies ordering ships from Chinese shipyards.
Another key measure is a phased-in commercial cargo preference policy, requiring an increasing percentage of U.S. exports to be carried on U.S.-flagged vessels, starting at 1 percent and reaching 15 percent over seven years. However, there remains uncertainty over whether U.S.-owned ships built in China or foreign-flagged vessels with Chinese components would be subject to the new fees.
The USTR’s determination, based on a petition from national labor unions, concluded that China’s dominance in the maritime industry places an unfair burden on U.S. commerce by displacing foreign firms, reducing competition, and creating supply chain vulnerabilities. Additionally, proponents of the new fees argue that countering China’s shipbuilding dominance is essential to prevent the CCP from leveraging its naval and merchant fleet superiority to intimidate allies and disrupt global trade.
On Capitol Hill, Reps. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), Jen Kiggans (R-Va.), and Don Davis (D-N.C.) have introduced a bipartisan bill to establish a
National Commission on the Maritime Industrial Base to assess the state of U.S. shipbuilding and recommend policies to restore its competitiveness. Kiggans and Davis emphasize the need for public-private collaboration to address workforce and supply chain challenges in the struggling shipbuilding sector.
Meanwhile, the Maritime Industrial Base (MIB) Program, launched in September 2024 to rebuild U.S. shipbuilding and repair capabilities, has managed
1,100 investment initiatives across 37 states, supporting shipbuilding, aircraft carriers, and submarine production—the largest U.S. defense
industry revitalization since World War II. The program will now be led by Trump appointee Matthew D. Sermon, former head of the Submarine Industrial Base, who is expected to advance the president’s production goals.
Despite strong support from the president and many in Congress, concerns remain over the feasibility of Trump’s shipbuilding strategy. The U.S. Navy plans to
expand its fleet from 296 to 381 battleforce ships, requiring tens of billions annually over the next three decades. Meanwhile, merchant ship production is in dire need of funding, having declined from 15–25 ships per year in the 1970s to just five or fewer today.
Given the current limitations of U.S. shipbuilding, including its inability to efficiently produce large merchant vessels, some senators advocate outsourcing warship construction to NATO and Indo–Pacific allies like Japan and South Korea. Meanwhile, major shipbuilding firms, including Italy’s Fincantieri, have welcomed the plan, emphasizing its potential to create jobs and revitalize the industrial base.
Regardless of financial and logistical limitations, expanding U.S. domestic shipbuilding capacity, rebuilding the merchant fleet, and strengthening the Navy are essential to countering the CCP’s ambitions for global economic and maritime dominance.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
