America’s Naval Power Is Waning, but That Could Change

By the Editorial Team · Sunday, October 11, 2026

The United States is experiencing a sharp decline in its commercial shipbuilding capacity, now controlling just 0.2 percent of the global fleet by tonnage, while China dominates the industry with over 5,500 vessels. This erosion threatens U.S. economic security and military logistics, prompting bipartisan efforts like the SHIPs for America Act to revive the maritime sector amid increasing global competition and strategic challenges in key regions such as the Arctic.

The United States is confronting a decline in its maritime power, a shift with significant implications for both its economic security and military readiness in the 21st century. Once a dominant force in global shipbuilding and naval industry, the U.S. has seen its commercial ship production fall dramatically, now accounting for just 0.2 percent of the world’s fleet by tonnage compared to 5 percent during the 1970s. This waning capacity mirrors a broader strategic realignment that has favored competitors, most notably China.

Decades ago, U.S. policy changes under the Reagan administration led to a withdrawal of support for the domestic commercial shipping sector. This, coupled with post-Cold War defense budget reductions, caused the U.S. shipbuilding industry to contract sharply. Meanwhile, China identified shipbuilding as a strategic priority, supported heavily by state-owned enterprises, and grew its shipbuilding capacity to dominate global production. By 2006, shipbuilding was one of seven industries designated for state control in China, and by 2015 it was among ten priority sectors meant to underpin China’s global commercial dominance.

Today, China fields a commercial fleet of roughly 5,500 oceangoing vessels, vastly outnumbering the fewer than 200 vessels in the U.S. fleet. This disparity underlines concerns regarding supply chain resilience and national security, given that the U.S. military is heavily dependent on commercial maritime fleets to transport supplies, even during conflicts. Experts warn that disruptions in global shipping routes, whether through blockades or geopolitical tensions—particularly involving critical chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz, and the Suez and Panama canals—are becoming increasingly frequent, reflecting a new normal in maritime security.

The Arctic is emerging as a focal point in this competition. Russia and China are actively developing new shipping routes through the High North, an area growing more accessible due to climate change, and where icebreaking capabilities are essential. Russia alone operates around 60 icebreakers compared to only three in the United States. Efforts to enhance American polar capabilities have become a bipartisan priority, with agreements initiated under the Trump administration to build 11 new icebreakers in partnership with Finland and progress continued by the Biden administration, which has sought to strengthen ties with NATO allies.

Despite differing approaches to trade and diplomatic relations, there is bipartisan congressional support for revitalizing the U.S. maritime sector. In April 2025, Senators Todd Young (R-Ind.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) introduced the SHIPs for America Act, aiming to invest in workforce training and establish a maritime security trust fund to support the industry sustainably. However, political considerations, including the upcoming midterm elections and contested trade measures relating to China, may delay decisive action.

The strategic importance of maritime power, long recognized since the era of Alfred Thayer Mahan, remains critical amid rising global competition. Analysts emphasize that maintaining and expanding the U.S. shipbuilding industry is vital to preserving economic influence and military readiness in light of intensifying mercantilism and geopolitical rivalry on the world’s oceans.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.