American Maritime Supremacy for Peace, Jobs, and Prosperity: A Path Forward for Executive Action
The MOC
By
Richard B. Levine
March 13, 2025
President Trump in his March 4, 2025, address to both Houses of Congress stated, “To boost our defense industrial base, we are also going to resurrect the American shipbuilding industry, including commercial shipbuilding and military shipbuilding.” To support this initiative, the president will create a new office of shipbuilding in the White House, propose tax incentives, and sign an executive order. This course is imperative. To see it accomplished, the president’s vision must be integrated into a multifaceted strategy that will garner broad legislative, industry, and public support.
In January, the Center for Maritime Strategy published my article, “A Maritime Nation by Necessity.” It describes major problems in our sea services and maritime industries and suggests a path forward.
Today, several approaches are being discussed to address America’s problems, particularly with regard to the People’s Republic of China’s dominance in commercial shipbuilding and in the transportation of international trade. As follows is my prototype for an executive order, titled, “American Maritime Supremacy for Peace, Jobs, and Prosperity.” It is my hope that the ideas in this draft may be incorporated into actions being taken by the administration.
This draft is presented in order that its contents may be considered in the public square. The evaluation of many alternatives is required if America is to chart a prudent course for our rebirth as a maritime power.
To advise, warn, or praise—as appropriate—an administration, as to the conduct of its affairs, is vital to good governance. First, we must praise President Trump’s attention to matters involving America’s naval might and maritime industries. Second, we must warn that any attempts to buttress these dimensions of American power will fail if not undertaken as part of a broad alliance, with particular emphasis on joint efforts with Japan and the Republic of Korea. Third, we must advise that even the most diligent efforts will not maintain across administrations if statesmanship is not our standard. This involves eschewing narrow or temporary political advantages and educating the public to entrench support for important policies beyond a single administration.
In my recent book, Pillars for Freedom, I argued that isolationism is not a strategy. America is a seafaring nation. Our interests span the globe, and our businesses are present everywhere. Our supply chains, vital to the American worker and farmer, depend on the unhindered transit of goods.
The future wellbeing of American families depends upon our leadership in naval and maritime power. These two bases of national strength and international suasion are no longer synonymous, though for the preponderance of America’s history these terms were essentially interchangeable. America remains the world’s great naval power, though China threatens our dominance. Our nation, however, is no longer the world’s preeminent maritime power. Indeed, we lag far behind China in this regard.
America’s defense alliances are critical to global peace and our nation’s survival as the world’s foremost economy. The international structures we built in the aftermath of World War Two are irreplaceable to the defense of our homeland. America’s alliances include not only our commitment to NATO but several other crucial interdependencies that we are obligated to honor.
American industry and our farmers rely on the vitality of export markets that will be stricken if our adversaries succeed in their objectives. America’s Navy has guaranteed the sea lines of communication worldwide; many nations have taken advantage.
A tariff to support America’s naval and maritime resurgence should be considered. It is not in America’s economic or geopolitical interests to add tariffs upon tariffs. If the addition of a small tariff can be instituted in the context of reciprocal tariffs, such an initiative would be complimentary and supportive of America’s strategic posture and economic ties with allied countries, for such an initiative could fortify the durability of international trade in the presence of adversarial nations. Constituting a small percentage of the value of seaborne imports to our nation, such a tariff could be a supplemental source of funding for our Navy and our commercial shipping industries. Any tariff, however, must not become a substitute for the baseline funding of our Navy and Marine Corps through the appropriations process.
The United States must actively engage in meaningful security initiatives that uphold the interests of the American people. We, therefore, must support NATO; revivify the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance; forge a stronger and more inclusive security alliance in the Indo-Pacific; and aid in the affirmation of lighthouses for liberty—including friendly nations on our adversaries’ doorsteps such as Israel, Taiwan, and nations in Eastern Europe—around which may be created a new security and economic architecture that will link America’s alliances across the globe.
In the Indo-Pacific, America must lead by expanding the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, whose members are the United States, Japan, India, and Australia, and integrating it with the AUKUS partnership that includes Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Allied countries should not make the mistake of creating a multinational organization that does not possess an integrated command structure that includes designated military forces from each substantial party, for this is a flaw of ANZUS, which presently links America, Australia, and New Zealand.
The new defense alliance for the Indo-Pacific should also have as its founding members, the Republic of Korea and France, for France has substantial territories in the region, in which 1.65 million of its citizens live. As with NATO, non-treaty nations should be invited to be observers. Such countries could include the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand, and Taiwan. Indeed, specific defense spending goals should be promulgated, with increases on the part of all member nations demanded.
China’s largescale naval construction program, including the design of its first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, coupled with its unceasing production of long-range strike aircraft, cannot go unanswered. Japan and Taiwan are part of the First Island Chain, which is near the East Asian mainland. China’s threat to invade Taiwan is upon us; control of Taiwan would allow the People’s Liberation Army Navy to challenge America for supremacy at sea, placing world trade, critical material supplies, and democratic nations at risk.
The Communist Party of China is capable of great fierceness and treachery. In 1950, the People’s Volunteer Army, directed by the junta led by Mao Zedong, attacked American military forces in Korea. Our nation’s losses in that war are not forgotten. We understand the duplicity of the People’s Republic of China. We comprehend that in its quest to conquer Tibet, during the time of the Korean War, China relied on deception and clandestine operations.
China has posited that its man-made islands in the South China Sea constitute sovereign military bases, though they are, in fact, illegitimate, for they violate international law, as do Beijing’s claims to exclusive zones within the sea. Today, expansion of America’s regional bases and allied naval forces is required. The United States should not become involved militarily on the continent of Asia; rather, we must exercise naval dominance at sea, which will require resolute support from space, air, and amphibious assets to be, in part, provided by a new alliance of willing nations.
We must prevent the formation of a pan-Eurasian goliath, led by China, which would include Russia and, plausibly, Iran, Belarus, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea—among other countries ruled by dictatorships. We must fight terrorism and prevent its spread. To do so, America must, by necessity, become the world’s unchallenged maritime power. It is my hope that the following draft executive order may aid this quest.
Richard B. Levine served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy in charge of the Department of the Navy’s technology transfer and security assistance organization during the Reagan administration. Richard also served on the National Security Council staff, in the White House, as Director, International Economic Affairs, and as Director, Policy Development.
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 Richard B. Levine
President Trump in his March 4, 2025, address to both Houses of Congress stated, “To boost our defense industrial base, we are also going to resurrect the American shipbuilding industry, including commercial shipbuilding and military shipbuilding.” To support this initiative, the president will create a new office of shipbuilding in the White House, propose tax incentives, and sign an executive order. This course is imperative. To see it accomplished, the president’s vision must be integrated into a multifaceted strategy that will garner broad legislative, industry, and public support.
In January, the Center for Maritime Strategy published my article, “A Maritime Nation by Necessity.” It describes major problems in our sea services and maritime industries and suggests a path forward.
Today, several approaches are being discussed to address America’s problems, particularly with regard to the People’s Republic of China’s dominance in commercial shipbuilding and in the transportation of international trade. As follows is my prototype for an executive order, titled, “American Maritime Supremacy for Peace, Jobs, and Prosperity.” It is my hope that the ideas in this draft may be incorporated into actions being taken by the administration.
This draft is presented in order that its contents may be considered in the public square. The evaluation of many alternatives is required if America is to chart a prudent course for our rebirth as a maritime power.
To advise, warn, or praise—as appropriate—an administration, as to the conduct of its affairs, is vital to good governance. First, we must praise President Trump’s attention to matters involving America’s naval might and maritime industries. Second, we must warn that any attempts to buttress these dimensions of American power will fail if not undertaken as part of a broad alliance, with particular emphasis on joint efforts with Japan and the Republic of Korea. Third, we must advise that even the most diligent efforts will not maintain across administrations if statesmanship is not our standard. This involves eschewing narrow or temporary political advantages and educating the public to entrench support for important policies beyond a single administration.
In my recent book, Pillars for Freedom, I argued that isolationism is not a strategy. America is a seafaring nation. Our interests span the globe, and our businesses are present everywhere. Our supply chains, vital to the American worker and farmer, depend on the unhindered transit of goods.
The future wellbeing of American families depends upon our leadership in naval and maritime power. These two bases of national strength and international suasion are no longer synonymous, though for the preponderance of America’s history these terms were essentially interchangeable. America remains the world’s great naval power, though China threatens our dominance. Our nation, however, is no longer the world’s preeminent maritime power. Indeed, we lag far behind China in this regard.
America’s defense alliances are critical to global peace and our nation’s survival as the world’s foremost economy. The international structures we built in the aftermath of World War Two are irreplaceable to the defense of our homeland. America’s alliances include not only our commitment to NATO but several other crucial interdependencies that we are obligated to honor.
American industry and our farmers rely on the vitality of export markets that will be stricken if our adversaries succeed in their objectives. America’s Navy has guaranteed the sea lines of communication worldwide; many nations have taken advantage.
A tariff to support America’s naval and maritime resurgence should be considered. It is not in America’s economic or geopolitical interests to add tariffs upon tariffs. If the addition of a small tariff can be instituted in the context of reciprocal tariffs, such an initiative would be complimentary and supportive of America’s strategic posture and economic ties with allied countries, for such an initiative could fortify the durability of international trade in the presence of adversarial nations. Constituting a small percentage of the value of seaborne imports to our nation, such a tariff could be a supplemental source of funding for our Navy and our commercial shipping industries. Any tariff, however, must not become a substitute for the baseline funding of our Navy and Marine Corps through the appropriations process.
The United States must actively engage in meaningful security initiatives that uphold the interests of the American people. We, therefore, must support NATO; revivify the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance; forge a stronger and more inclusive security alliance in the Indo-Pacific; and aid in the affirmation of lighthouses for liberty—including friendly nations on our adversaries’ doorsteps such as Israel, Taiwan, and nations in Eastern Europe—around which may be created a new security and economic architecture that will link America’s alliances across the globe.
In the Indo-Pacific, America must lead by expanding the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, whose members are the United States, Japan, India, and Australia, and integrating it with the AUKUS partnership that includes Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Allied countries should not make the mistake of creating a multinational organization that does not possess an integrated command structure that includes designated military forces from each substantial party, for this is a flaw of ANZUS, which presently links America, Australia, and New Zealand.
The new defense alliance for the Indo-Pacific should also have as its founding members, the Republic of Korea and France, for France has substantial territories in the region, in which 1.65 million of its citizens live. As with NATO, non-treaty nations should be invited to be observers. Such countries could include the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand, and Taiwan. Indeed, specific defense spending goals should be promulgated, with increases on the part of all member nations demanded.
China’s largescale naval construction program, including the design of its first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, coupled with its unceasing production of long-range strike aircraft, cannot go unanswered. Japan and Taiwan are part of the First Island Chain, which is near the East Asian mainland. China’s threat to invade Taiwan is upon us; control of Taiwan would allow the People’s Liberation Army Navy to challenge America for supremacy at sea, placing world trade, critical material supplies, and democratic nations at risk.
The Communist Party of China is capable of great fierceness and treachery. In 1950, the People’s Volunteer Army, directed by the junta led by Mao Zedong, attacked American military forces in Korea. Our nation’s losses in that war are not forgotten. We understand the duplicity of the People’s Republic of China. We comprehend that in its quest to conquer Tibet, during the time of the Korean War, China relied on deception and clandestine operations.
China has posited that its man-made islands in the South China Sea constitute sovereign military bases, though they are, in fact, illegitimate, for they violate international law, as do Beijing’s claims to exclusive zones within the sea. Today, expansion of America’s regional bases and allied naval forces is required. The United States should not become involved militarily on the continent of Asia; rather, we must exercise naval dominance at sea, which will require resolute support from space, air, and amphibious assets to be, in part, provided by a new alliance of willing nations.
We must prevent the formation of a pan-Eurasian goliath, led by China, which would include Russia and, plausibly, Iran, Belarus, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea—among other countries ruled by dictatorships. We must fight terrorism and prevent its spread. To do so, America must, by necessity, become the world’s unchallenged maritime power. It is my hope that the following draft executive order may aid this quest.
Download the Full Report
Richard B. Levine served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy in charge of the Department of the Navy’s technology transfer and security assistance organization during the Reagan administration. Richard also served on the National Security Council staff, in the White House, as Director, International Economic Affairs, and as Director, Policy Development.
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.