In the opening months of his second administration, President Donald Trump has made it clear that he wants to counter China’s military and economic threats to the United States and bring back U.S. manufacturing jobs. These issues coincide in the revitalization of U.S. shipbuilding—an area in which President Trump has expressed interest since before his reelection in 2024 and one that he has continued to emphasize since taking office.
Prioritizing shipbuilding accomplishes multiple goals of the Trump administration, including regaining the upper hand in both military and economic competition with China. If successful, the administration’s efforts to improve the maritime industrial base (MIB) to facilitate a greater domestic shipbuilding capacity will strengthen the United States’ naval posture in a potential future military conflict with China, expand U.S. commercial shipping capacity, and create jobs in shipyards and manufacturing facilities across the country. Though setting out to revitalize the MIB is a complex and multifaceted effort, the benefits will extend across U.S. national security, industry, workforce, and trade.
Today, China’s shipbuilding capacity exceeds that of the United States by multiple orders of magnitude. In recent testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Admiral Samuel J. Paparo Jr., Commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, stated that China’s naval shipbuilding efforts outpace the United States’ at a rate of 6 to 1.8. Alarmingly, China’s overall shipbuilding capacity is 232 times greater than that of the United States. This is in large part because the Chinese government heavily subsidizes its shipbuilding industry, meaning not only are ships produced faster and cheaper, but also—as a result of China’s strategy of military civil fusion—the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has access to commercial shipbuilding infrastructure, investment, and intellectual property. State direction and subsidy combine to facilitate China’s dominance of the commercial and military shipbuilding industries, far outpacing the United States’ capabilities.
China’s preeminence in shipbuilding should be concerning in face of the looming threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The PLAN currently has 400 ships in contrast to the U.S. Navy’s 295. While China is projected to reach 425 military vessels by the year 2030, the U.S. fleet is projected to grow by just five ships—if it is even able to achieve that given the lackluster performance of past efforts to grow the fleet. Though U.S. ships have superior technology, this advantage only goes so far to compete against a larger navy in a prolonged conflict. The Department of Defense’s shipbuilding plan for fiscal year 2025 projects a fleet of 390 ships by 2054; however, this projection is wildly insufficient to match the pace at which China is producing ships and their increasing aggression towards Taiwan.
The commercial shipbuilding front is no better. China produces more ships than the rest of the world combined, while the United States accounts for only 0.1 percent of global shipbuilding. Of the commercial ships China produces, over 75 percent are sold to other countries including U.S. military allies. This revenue from Chinese commercial ships effectively subsidizes their military ship production given the close ties between the two industries, further fueling Beijing’s growing naval advantage over the United States. China’s own commercial fleet now numbers nearly 5,500 ships, while the United States has fewer than 100 in international trade. In short, China’s shipbuilding industry has a competitive advantage over that of the United States with dire consequences.
Making matters worse, the process of rebuilding the United States’ commercial and military fleets will be lengthy and complicated. The factors contributing to the collapse of the MIB are plentiful and have compounded over several decades: the post–Cold War military drawdown; shifting U.S. manufacturing jobs abroad, including to China; shipyard closures, triggering reduced investment in keeping supply chains running and technologically up to date; the impact of COVID-19 on the economy; and a diminishing workforce resulting from the subsidization of four-year degrees over trade school programs. Put simply: the United States cannot reclaim the upper hand in shipbuilding at the flip of a switch.
Given the alarming inadequacy of the U.S. shipbuilding industry, the Trump administration is right to make this a top priority. America is an island on the far side of the world from most other places. It is not possible over the long run for the United States to remain a global military or economic power without a minimum-viable maritime industry at home. Recent initiatives from the White House, coupled with the reintroduction of the Shipbuilding and Harbor Infrastructure for Prosperity and Security (SHIPS) for America Act, are productive first steps towards revitalizing the MIB and restoring U.S. shipbuilding.
The president’s recent executive order on “Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance” seeks to mitigate the aforementioned issues pertaining to both military and commercial shipbuilding, particularly in the context of competition with China. The executive order calls for a Maritime Action Plan (MAP) before the end of 2025 addressing an array of problems facing the maritime industry, including revitalizing the MIB for commercial and military shipbuilding; investigating China’s targeting of the shipbuilding sector; establishing a reliable funding source for MAP programs; incentivizing private investment in shipbuilding; expanding maritime training, including by modernizing the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; and increasing the number of U.S.-flagged commercial vessels. These policy directives will lay the groundwork for rebuilding the MIB and establishing the supporting institutions necessary to compete with China in shipbuilding.
Further, the establishment of a shipbuilding office within the National Security Council (NSC) signals the administration’s commitment to addressing this problem. First announced in President Trump’s address to Congress in March 2025, the Office of Maritime and Industrial Capacity is tasked with overseeing the initiatives that will come out of the MAP. The placement of this office on the NSC emphasizes the level of interagency collaboration that is necessary to address the shipbuilding crisis and shows a high level of interest from the president on this matter.
Though not affiliated with President Trump directly, the recent reintroduction of the SHIPS Act by a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives indicates a willingness to work with the White House to restore the U.S. shipbuilding industry. Former national security advisor and congressman Mike Waltz played a key role in the development of the initial bill that was introduced in December 2024, teeing up key support from the Executive Branch and the NSC. The SHIPS Act calls for establishing a permanent Office of the Maritime Security Advisor; setting up a Maritime Security Trust Fund, which is also mandated in the executive order; purchasing viable privately-owned vessels to expand the commercial fleet; and incentivizing jobs in shipyards. The reintroduction of the SHIPS Act and alignment with components of the MAP demonstrate a consensus on revitalizing the U.S. shipbuilding industry.
The executive order, establishing the NSC shipbuilding office, and the SHIPS Act together lay the groundwork for rebuilding the MIB and reestablishing the United States as a maritime power both commercially and militarily. All the more, these policies build on the administration’s priorities to counter China both militarily and economically as well as to strengthen U.S. manufacturing and reshore jobs.
Multiple officials of the current administration have made it clear that China is an adversary with which the United States must compete on multiple fronts, particularly, militarily and economically. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has named China as the Department’s “sole pacing threat” and has made it clear that the United States will defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion. Additionally, U.S. Trade Representative Jamison Greer has emphasized the need to counter China’s dominance in commercial shipping to strengthen U.S. economic security and protect the free flow of commerce. Both of these priorities require a larger fleet than the United States currently has, and this can only be accomplished through a restoration of the shipbuilding industry. The administration’s focus on restoring the MIB to support greater military and commercial shipbuilding capacities lays the groundwork for just that.
Finally, Trump has emphasized his desire to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States both in his first term and his 2024 campaign. Before his reelection, he promised a “manufacturing renaissance” in which offshore manufacturing jobs would return to the United States. Tariffs are one method the administration has chosen to pursue to accomplish this, but alternatives such as changes to tax policy would be stronger incentives. At the very least, abandoning China as a principal source of materials needed for shipbuilding eliminates a vulnerability which would impede production during a prolonged conflict with China. Rebuilding the MIB to support U.S. shipbuilding would lend support to companies looking to shift away from dependence on China.
Though the first Trump administration sought to build a 350-ship Navy, the second administration is taking the steps necessary to expand the United States’ military and commercial fleets by laying the foundation to revitalizing the MIB. Doing so strengthens the U.S. posture against China both militarily and economically. A larger navy is a more credible deterrent against an invasion of Taiwan, and failing that, will be a more capable adversary in facing off against China. Enlarging the U.S. commercial fleet reduces the United States’ and other countries’ dependence on China for international commerce, which is crucial should conflict break out. While this is a lengthy process, the president’s executive order coupled with the efforts of the NSC shipbuilding office and Congressional action via the SHIPS Act lays the groundwork for a shipbuilding resurgence.
Bravo Zulu to the second Trump administration for prioritizing shipbuilding to such an extent in its first few months in office.
Kathryn Selinger is the Chief of Staff of the Center for Maritime Strategy.
The views expressed in this piece are the sole opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Maritime Strategy or other institutions listed.
Center for Maritime Strategy
By Kathryn Selinger
In the opening months of his second administration, President Donald Trump has made it clear that he wants to counter China’s military and economic threats to the United States and bring back U.S. manufacturing jobs. These issues coincide in the revitalization of U.S. shipbuilding—an area in which President Trump has expressed interest since before his reelection in 2024 and one that he has continued to emphasize since taking office.
Prioritizing shipbuilding accomplishes multiple goals of the Trump administration, including regaining the upper hand in both military and economic competition with China. If successful, the administration’s efforts to improve the maritime industrial base (MIB) to facilitate a greater domestic shipbuilding capacity will strengthen the United States’ naval posture in a potential future military conflict with China, expand U.S. commercial shipping capacity, and create jobs in shipyards and manufacturing facilities across the country. Though setting out to revitalize the MIB is a complex and multifaceted effort, the benefits will extend across U.S. national security, industry, workforce, and trade.
Today, China’s shipbuilding capacity exceeds that of the United States by multiple orders of magnitude. In recent testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Admiral Samuel J. Paparo Jr., Commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, stated that China’s naval shipbuilding efforts outpace the United States’ at a rate of 6 to 1.8. Alarmingly, China’s overall shipbuilding capacity is 232 times greater than that of the United States. This is in large part because the Chinese government heavily subsidizes its shipbuilding industry, meaning not only are ships produced faster and cheaper, but also—as a result of China’s strategy of military civil fusion—the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has access to commercial shipbuilding infrastructure, investment, and intellectual property. State direction and subsidy combine to facilitate China’s dominance of the commercial and military shipbuilding industries, far outpacing the United States’ capabilities.
China’s preeminence in shipbuilding should be concerning in face of the looming threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The PLAN currently has 400 ships in contrast to the U.S. Navy’s 295. While China is projected to reach 425 military vessels by the year 2030, the U.S. fleet is projected to grow by just five ships—if it is even able to achieve that given the lackluster performance of past efforts to grow the fleet. Though U.S. ships have superior technology, this advantage only goes so far to compete against a larger navy in a prolonged conflict. The Department of Defense’s shipbuilding plan for fiscal year 2025 projects a fleet of 390 ships by 2054; however, this projection is wildly insufficient to match the pace at which China is producing ships and their increasing aggression towards Taiwan.
The commercial shipbuilding front is no better. China produces more ships than the rest of the world combined, while the United States accounts for only 0.1 percent of global shipbuilding. Of the commercial ships China produces, over 75 percent are sold to other countries including U.S. military allies. This revenue from Chinese commercial ships effectively subsidizes their military ship production given the close ties between the two industries, further fueling Beijing’s growing naval advantage over the United States. China’s own commercial fleet now numbers nearly 5,500 ships, while the United States has fewer than 100 in international trade. In short, China’s shipbuilding industry has a competitive advantage over that of the United States with dire consequences.
Making matters worse, the process of rebuilding the United States’ commercial and military fleets will be lengthy and complicated. The factors contributing to the collapse of the MIB are plentiful and have compounded over several decades: the post–Cold War military drawdown; shifting U.S. manufacturing jobs abroad, including to China; shipyard closures, triggering reduced investment in keeping supply chains running and technologically up to date; the impact of COVID-19 on the economy; and a diminishing workforce resulting from the subsidization of four-year degrees over trade school programs. Put simply: the United States cannot reclaim the upper hand in shipbuilding at the flip of a switch.
Given the alarming inadequacy of the U.S. shipbuilding industry, the Trump administration is right to make this a top priority. America is an island on the far side of the world from most other places. It is not possible over the long run for the United States to remain a global military or economic power without a minimum-viable maritime industry at home. Recent initiatives from the White House, coupled with the reintroduction of the Shipbuilding and Harbor Infrastructure for Prosperity and Security (SHIPS) for America Act, are productive first steps towards revitalizing the MIB and restoring U.S. shipbuilding.
The president’s recent executive order on “Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance” seeks to mitigate the aforementioned issues pertaining to both military and commercial shipbuilding, particularly in the context of competition with China. The executive order calls for a Maritime Action Plan (MAP) before the end of 2025 addressing an array of problems facing the maritime industry, including revitalizing the MIB for commercial and military shipbuilding; investigating China’s targeting of the shipbuilding sector; establishing a reliable funding source for MAP programs; incentivizing private investment in shipbuilding; expanding maritime training, including by modernizing the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; and increasing the number of U.S.-flagged commercial vessels. These policy directives will lay the groundwork for rebuilding the MIB and establishing the supporting institutions necessary to compete with China in shipbuilding.
Further, the establishment of a shipbuilding office within the National Security Council (NSC) signals the administration’s commitment to addressing this problem. First announced in President Trump’s address to Congress in March 2025, the Office of Maritime and Industrial Capacity is tasked with overseeing the initiatives that will come out of the MAP. The placement of this office on the NSC emphasizes the level of interagency collaboration that is necessary to address the shipbuilding crisis and shows a high level of interest from the president on this matter.
Though not affiliated with President Trump directly, the recent reintroduction of the SHIPS Act by a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives indicates a willingness to work with the White House to restore the U.S. shipbuilding industry. Former national security advisor and congressman Mike Waltz played a key role in the development of the initial bill that was introduced in December 2024, teeing up key support from the Executive Branch and the NSC. The SHIPS Act calls for establishing a permanent Office of the Maritime Security Advisor; setting up a Maritime Security Trust Fund, which is also mandated in the executive order; purchasing viable privately-owned vessels to expand the commercial fleet; and incentivizing jobs in shipyards. The reintroduction of the SHIPS Act and alignment with components of the MAP demonstrate a consensus on revitalizing the U.S. shipbuilding industry.
The executive order, establishing the NSC shipbuilding office, and the SHIPS Act together lay the groundwork for rebuilding the MIB and reestablishing the United States as a maritime power both commercially and militarily. All the more, these policies build on the administration’s priorities to counter China both militarily and economically as well as to strengthen U.S. manufacturing and reshore jobs.
Multiple officials of the current administration have made it clear that China is an adversary with which the United States must compete on multiple fronts, particularly, militarily and economically. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has named China as the Department’s “sole pacing threat” and has made it clear that the United States will defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion. Additionally, U.S. Trade Representative Jamison Greer has emphasized the need to counter China’s dominance in commercial shipping to strengthen U.S. economic security and protect the free flow of commerce. Both of these priorities require a larger fleet than the United States currently has, and this can only be accomplished through a restoration of the shipbuilding industry. The administration’s focus on restoring the MIB to support greater military and commercial shipbuilding capacities lays the groundwork for just that.
Finally, Trump has emphasized his desire to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States both in his first term and his 2024 campaign. Before his reelection, he promised a “manufacturing renaissance” in which offshore manufacturing jobs would return to the United States. Tariffs are one method the administration has chosen to pursue to accomplish this, but alternatives such as changes to tax policy would be stronger incentives. At the very least, abandoning China as a principal source of materials needed for shipbuilding eliminates a vulnerability which would impede production during a prolonged conflict with China. Rebuilding the MIB to support U.S. shipbuilding would lend support to companies looking to shift away from dependence on China.
Though the first Trump administration sought to build a 350-ship Navy, the second administration is taking the steps necessary to expand the United States’ military and commercial fleets by laying the foundation to revitalizing the MIB. Doing so strengthens the U.S. posture against China both militarily and economically. A larger navy is a more credible deterrent against an invasion of Taiwan, and failing that, will be a more capable adversary in facing off against China. Enlarging the U.S. commercial fleet reduces the United States’ and other countries’ dependence on China for international commerce, which is crucial should conflict break out. While this is a lengthy process, the president’s executive order coupled with the efforts of the NSC shipbuilding office and Congressional action via the SHIPS Act lays the groundwork for a shipbuilding resurgence.
Bravo Zulu to the second Trump administration for prioritizing shipbuilding to such an extent in its first few months in office.
Kathryn Selinger is the Chief of Staff of the Center for Maritime Strategy.
The views expressed in this piece are the sole opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Maritime Strategy or other institutions listed.