Trump Moves to Extend Jones Act Waiver 90 Days as Maritime Industry Says Fuel Relief Never Came

The Trump administration is preparing to extend its controversial Jones Act waiver for up to 90 days, a move that would deepen an already contentious policy experiment launched during the Strait of Hormuz crisis and intensify a growing clash between emergency energy measures and the administration’s own maritime revival agenda.

Reuters, citing sources familiar with the decision, reported the White House could act as early as Friday to extend the waiver, which first took effect March 17. The exemption temporarily opened domestic coastwise trade to foreign-flagged vessels carrying fuel and other critical commodities in an effort to blunt energy disruptions tied to the Iran conflict.

But what began as a short-term emergency measure increasingly appears to be evolving into something broader.

A formal April 23 request from the Under Secretary of War seeks an additional 90-day extension beginning May 18, citing not only fuel market concerns but national defense needs, insufficient qualified U.S.-flag tonnage, and ongoing support requirements tied to U.S. Central Command operations. The request argues failure to extend the waiver could disrupt military logistics and “degrade our national defense.” 

Industry Pushback Intensifies

The proposed extension immediately drew sharp criticism from the American Maritime Partnership, which said prolonging the waiver would undermine President Trump’s own pledge to restore American maritime dominance.

“An extension of the current historically long and broad Jones Act waiver would blow a hole in the Trump agenda to restore American maritime dominance,” said Jennifer Carpenter, president of the American Maritime Partnership.

The group also launched a new public dashboard challenging the administration’s rationale, arguing the waiver has failed in its central objective of lowering fuel prices. Citing Energy Information Administration data, AMP said regular gasoline prices have risen 32.4 cents per gallon nationwide since the waiver began.

Industry critics also questioned White House claims that the waiver has boosted domestic energy flows, noting some administration figures cited publicly have not been independently released through Maritime Administration reporting under Section 501(c) of the Jones Act.

Shipping groups have argued for weeks that vessel availability was never the principal constraint on moving more fuel domestically. Rather, they say export arbitrage, refinery economics and global freight incentives have continued to pull cargoes overseas, limiting the practical effect of opening domestic trades to foreign carriers.

Reuters recently reported shipping data showed the original waiver had not materially increased domestic oil movements, while U.S. fuel exports climbed to record levels.

The extension also exposes a growing contradiction inside broader U.S. maritime policy.

The waiver comes as the Trump administration has simultaneously promoted “Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance,” backed the SHIPS for America Act, and pushed for rebuilding U.S. shipyards, merchant fleets and sealift readiness.

Critics say repeated or prolonged Jones Act waivers cut directly against those objectives.

“Waivers have unequivocally proven they do nothing to reduce gas prices for Americans,” said Matt Paxton, President of the Shipbuilders Council of America. “What waivers actually do is have a chilling effect on investments in commercial shipbuilding markets and create wide-open ports and coastlines for any foreign ship or crew to call and gauge hardworking Americans, while foreign energy companies and shippers get rich. These actions clearly demonstrate that this policy is ‘America last’.”

Supporters inside the administration, however, increasingly appear to be framing the issue differently—not as cabotage policy, but as emergency defense logistics.

Unlike the initial 60-day waiver, which the White House largely sold as fuel price relief, the extension request leans heavily on military supply continuity, citing movement of petroleum, natural gas, fertilizer inputs and industrial materials considered vital to national defense.

The original March waiver was already one of the broadest Jones Act exemptions in recent years. A 90-day extension would turn a temporary emergency action into a five-month suspension of core coastwise protections.

“The Jones Act is the foundation of the American maritime industry, ensuring that U.S. domestic cargo movement supports American workers, vessels, shipyards, and the industrial base our Navy relies on,” said Aaron Smith, President & CEO, Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA). “Extending this waiver undermines that foundation by signaling that American ships can be sidelined, driving away the long-term investment, possibly permanently.”

For supporters, the extension offers added flexibility as tensions in the Strait of Hormuz continue to ripple through global energy and shipping markets.

For critics, it risks setting a precedent. What began as a fuel emergency response is increasingly becoming a referendum on whether geopolitical crises can justify prolonged suspension of one of the foundational pillars of U.S. maritime policy.

Editorial Standards · Corrections · About gCaptain

Subscribe for Daily Maritime Insights

Sign up for gCaptain’s newsletter and never miss an update

— trusted by our 106,663 members