Opinion: The Three Maritime Action Plan Provisions That Could Matter Most

Sean Pribyl and Rear Admiral James Watson, USCG (ret.)

As Maritime Week put the spotlight squarely on Washington, D.C.’s maritime sector, the Maritime Action Plan (MAP) continued to attract attention for good reason. If you operate, finance, insure, build or charter ships, you already know the core issue: The U.S. can’t count on surge sealift, sustained logistics or real maritime resilience without a commercially viable U.S.-flag fleet and a stronger industrial base behind it. Importantly, the MAP’s long-term success hinges not just on government-impelled cargo (military sealift, food aid and preference cargoes) but on cultivating genuine commercial cargo – the private-sector shipping demand that keeps fleets active during peacetime and creates the economic foundation for rapid mobilization when strategic needs arise.

The MAP is a big package, but three ideas will drive a lot of the real-world impact: 1) strategic commercial fleet and cargo preference – because in this business, cargo is king, 2) a maritime trust fund to bring steady, dedicated funding, and 3) Maritime Prosperity Zones (MPZs) to focus incentives where projects can actually get built. 

1) Cargo Really Is King

U.S. strategic sealift capacity – such as the Maritime Security Program (MSP) and Tanker Security Program (TSP) – has been one of the most practical tools the U.S. has to keep militarily useful U.S.-flag ships trading and crews employed. But such programs only function properly if those ships have enough work. That’s why government cargo preference isn’t just a policy debate – it’s the demand signal that keeps that tonnage active and ready when the government needs it. To build a durable maritime sector, however, policymakers would need to look beyond government-impelled cargo. Commercial cargoes – those driven by private market demand, not government mandates – are what could ultimately sustain vessel employment, attract private investment and create the steady revenue streams needed to justify long-term capital commitments in ships, yards and workforce training. A strategic commercial fleet to help assure economic security would need commercial cargoes.

Why Commercial Cargo Matters: In a volatile market, policy moves the needle only if it moves cargo – but the most resilient fleets are those underpinned by steady commercial trade, not just government programs. “Cargo is king” because steady commercial cargo volumes:

• provide the organic demand that makes U.S.-flag economics work without perpetual government subsidy (e.g., keeping MSP ships viable and available for mobilization and other U.S. international ships commercially viable)
• give operators, shipyards and lenders enough predictability to invest in ships, yards and compliance because private capital follows durable order books, not one-off contracts
• keep mariners sailing so the labor pipeline doesn’t dry up
• keep ships and crews “warm” for surge rather than trying to spin it up from cold start
• strengthen the learning curve for U.S.-flag and U.S.-built operations because repeatable demand lets yards, suppliers and crews move from bespoke, one-off projects toward more efficient, scalable execution

What to Keep an Eye On: The details will matter – especially how cargo preference is defined and enforced across agencies, how waivers are handled (and disclosed), what paperwork shippers and primes will have to carry, and how strategic sealift participation requirements change. Equally important is whether the policy framework creates room for commercial cargo growth – not just government-impelled movements – so the U.S.-flag fleet can develop genuine market-based resilience. If you move government-implicated cargo (directly or indirectly) or commercial cargo on U.S.-flag vessels, now is the time to make sure your contracts and documentation can stand up to scrutiny.

A Word on MSP Expansion and Competition: The MAP contemplates increasing the fleet of U.S.-built and U.S.-flagged commercial vessels trading in a way that complements the MSP and TSP. Industry proponents might argue that a larger MSP and TSP roster would deepen the pool of militarily useful tonnage, diversify vessel types available for sealift and strengthen the mariner labor pipeline. Critics, however, could raise a logical concern: More MSP and TSP slots could intensify competition among a still-limited pool of U.S.-flag operators, fragmenting cargo among more participants and potentially diluting the economics for existing players.

The challenge for policymakers and industry alike is to balance this tension. Expanding ship participation could increase U.S.-flag presence in commercial trades and provide more military surge capacity – but only if the demand side keeps pace. Without corresponding growth in commercial cargo opportunities, more participating vessels could simply mean more ships chasing the same government-impelled cargo pool, which could strain operator margins, discourage new entrants and undercut the investment case for shipbuilding.

The goal is not merely to increase the number of participating ships on paper but to create a commercially sustainable fleet that can absorb additional capacity without destructive intra-industry competition. Done right, an expanded U.S.-flagged fleet could become a catalyst for fleet renewal and market growth rather than a source of zero-sum competition. Expanding the fleet without expanding international commercial cargo demand risks producing more vessels than the U.S. fleet can profitably employ. However, the global economy is certainly big enough to start adding profitable U.S.-flagged commercial ships.

2) A Maritime Trust Fund: Stable Funding Beats One-Off Programs

Maritime policy has a recurring problem: Starts and stops. A dedicated maritime trust fund could help by putting real, multi-year money behind priorities that take years to execute – fleet recap, port and intermodal upgrades, shipyard modernization, workforce development and tech adoption. But the key design question is not just whether money is collected; it is whether the program can move funds into projects on timelines that sponsors, lenders and public agencies can actually plan around. A trust fund that accumulates balances faster than it delivers usable capital will not solve the sector’s execution problem.

What Will Make or Break It:

• Where the Money Comes From: A durable revenue source that doesn’t reset every fiscal year
• What It Can Pay For: Clear eligibility that balances fleet readiness, industrial capacity and infrastructure needs
• How Decisions Get Made: Transparent criteria, measurable outcomes and audit-ready reporting
• How It Plays with Other Capital: Rules that let you combine federal support with state programs and private financing without doubling compliance burdens

If the trust fund is built right, it changes the risk math. Operators, shipyards, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and capital providers can plan around something more reliable than one-time pilots. For project sponsors, clearer program rules and timing can reduce the “death by transaction costs” that slows good projects to a crawl. Equally important, a well-designed trust fund can enable co-financing of grid and infrastructure upgrades.

3) MPZs: Put Incentives Where the Work Can Happen

MPZs apply a simple idea to a complex sector: Concentrate public incentives, permitting attention, infrastructure planning and private capital around places where maritime work can actually scale. For industry, the question is less whether a map gets drawn and more whether the designation helps convert waterfront assets, supplier networks, workforce programs and financing into executable projects.

The MAP appears to borrow from the familiar logic of place-based investment incentives, but maritime projects do not behave like typical real estate or startup investments. Traditional zone incentives tend to reward investors at the point of monetization or exit. Shipyards, repair facilities, port manufacturing sites and related infrastructure usually need something different: up-front capital support, long-duration financing certainty and incentives that improve project economics before the first contract is performed. For MPZs, the practical question is whether the incentive is bankable at the time the yard, port or supplier has to commit capital – not whether it creates an attractive tax result years later.

If MAP gets this right, MPZs could speed up projects – such as shipbuilding and repair capacity, port-side manufacturing, logistics and warehousing, mariner training and deployment of new maritime tech – by making incentives easier to find, use and underwrite. 

MPZ criteria may determine who gets the tailwind. Watch how “ready” is defined – existing industrial footprint, usable waterfront, utilities, grid capacity, community support, environmental constraints and credible job creation. The strongest zone bids usually come with real project packaging: site control (or a path to it), permitting plan, workforce plan and schedule that doesn’t assume miracles. Power may become a gating issue. A site that looks ideal on a map can still fall short if the local grid cannot support heavier industrial loads, electrified equipment, advanced production systems and future expansion. Zone applicants should be prepared to show not only where the work will happen but how the energy supply will support it – including whether on-site generation, microgrids or floating nuclear power solutions could close the gap.

What Should Industry Do Next?

The MAP’s direction is clear. The question is how it gets written into law and then turned into real programs – definitions, eligibility, enforcement and funding rules. The pending legislative debate will determine how much of the MAP becomes operational, including the treatment of MPZs, cargo rules, dedicated funding and maritime workforce initiatives. Here are a few practical moves companies can make now to get ahead and help steer it in the right direction.

• Know Your Cargo Lanes (and Your Paperwork). Cargo owners, primes and logistics providers should map which cargo could be subject to preference rules, where waivers tend to pop up and whether your contracting and documentation will hold up if challenged. Equally important: Identify where commercial cargo opportunities could grow if U.S.-flag operating economics improve so you’re positioned to capture market share – not just preference cargo – as policy evolves.
• Pressure-Test Your MSP Playbook. MSP operators should look hard at eligibility, crewing and training, compliance and cyber, and how any policy shift – including potential government preference cargo expansion and enforcement – changes revenue certainty and financing headroom. For example, the MSP fleet could grow and affect your competitive position, but you must understand whether the demand side is scaling in parallel.
• Get Projects “Trust-Fund Ready.” Shipyards, ports, OEMs and developers should nail down scopes, budgets, permitting paths, workforce plans and outcomes so you can move fast once funding rules are set. Include a grid and energy readiness assessment – current capacity, required upgrades and timeline – as part of your project packaging.
• Start Your Zone Strategy Now. Identify candidate sites, line up state/local partners and assemble the basics (site control, utilities, permitting, workforce) that tend to separate real applications from wish lists.
• Talk to Congress Early – and Bring Draft Language. If you want MAP to work in practice, don’t wait. Share real-world examples and propose concrete text on definitions (what counts as covered cargo and how commercial cargo incentives can complement preference rules), waiver standards, enforcement, eligibility thresholds, MSP expansion parameters and reporting. The best feedback is specific enough that staff can drop it into a mark-up. 
• Build (or Join) the Right Coalition. Where interests align, a coordinated message from industry, labor, ports and local leaders will land harder – especially on workforce, shipyard throughput, port-side manufacturing and the balance between fleet expansion and competitive sustainability. Even if ports are not uniformly aligned on every MAP proposal, industry may benefit from identifying common ground on the contours of the MAP – including zone criteria, funding eligibility, cargo growth and infrastructure support that can work for both port authorities and maritime operators. Industry groups are already convening these discussions at both the regional and national level; active participation helps shape outcomes.
• Engage Legal Counsel Early. The legislative and regulatory landscape is moving fast. Work with experienced maritime and government contracts counsel to help shape legislative language, understand the presidential budget request and how it allocates resources across sealift programs, cargo preference, trust fund priorities and MPZ incentives, and identify investment opportunities that align with emerging program eligibility criteria. Counsel can also help you navigate federal contracting requirements, cargo preference compliance and the structuring of public-private partnerships.

Bottom line: The near-term winners might be the teams that prepare now and engage early – both in program execution (project readiness) and in policy drafting (making sure the rules are workable). The MAP will move from concept to legislative text and agency guidance quickly once it has momentum. If you want to influence outcomes – including how MSP expansion, cargo preference and commercial cargo incentives are balanced – the window is at the front end.

Sean Pribyl is a maritime, international trade and energy attorney at Holland & Knight in Washington, D.C. This article is for general information only and isn’t legal advice. Please reach out to the author about how the MAP could affect your specific contracts, cargo or investments.

Jim Watson is a retired USCG rear admiral and former ABS executive.  He is currently vice chairman of the Marine Board of the National Academy of Sciences and co-author of “ZERO POINT FOUR: How U.S. Leadership In Maritime Will Secure America’s Future.”

Note: The views and opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of gCaptain or its editorial staff.

Editorial Standards · Corrections · About gCaptain