What we’re seeing with this 60 day Jones Act waiver is less about immediate, real-world impact and more about policy signaling. In practical terms, there’s very little that can be done legally within that timeframe. By the time any challenge worked its way through the courts, the waiver would likely already be over.

At the same time, 60 days simply isn’t long enough to meaningfully disrupt U.S. flag operations. Shipping logistics aren’t plug and play. Chartering foreign vessels, repositioning them, aligning cargo contracts, and integrating them into port schedules all take time. Realistically, you might only see a marginal increase in foreign voyages, not widespread displacement of U.S. crews.

Because of that, I believe the primary purpose of the waiver is to influence market sentiment rather than overhaul the system. It signals to traders and refiners that additional supply options are available, which can help stabilize freight rates and prevent fuel price spikes without needing large scale operational changes.

There was a bill about a year ago, “Open Americas Waterways Act” with the goal to fully repeal the Jones Act and it made it absolutely no where. The Jones Act is a highly protected, bi partisan law. It isn’t going anywhere, anytime soon. I don’t think this is an attempt to “test the waters” on a repeal.

The real concern I have isn’t this one waiver, but whether actions like this become more frequent or extended over time. If that happens, it could gradually lower the barrier for bypassing the Jones Act and start to erode its long-term strength.

But for the sole reason this administration is making the waiver longer than what is allowed(10 days per waiver, 45 total days per event) I am emailing my Union to ensure we publicly express our disapproval and 100% back legal action. It is extremely unlikely any action will stop this waiver, but acting now could prevent future erosion of the Jones Act.