A newly released analysis has raised questions over the national security justification for the United States' extended waiver of the Jones Act, arguing that the measure may not have met the legal standards required for its implementation. The report, prepared by maritime consulting firm Navigistics Consulting and commissioned by the American Maritime Partnership (AMP), reviewed the first 60 days of the waiver using data from the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD).

According to the report, the review covered 659 cargo movements across 78 completed voyages. It concluded that none of the documented shipments appeared to involve military-grade fuel or cargo that would have an immediate impact on military operations, which is one of the legal conditions for granting a Jones Act waiver. Instead, the cargoes consisted primarily of commercial crude oil, refined petroleum products, and fuel blendstocks.

The analysis also stated that U.S.-flag vessels were available for approximately 87 percent of the qualifying voyages during the waiver period. It further argued that extending the waiver allowed more foreign-flagged ships to participate in domestic trade, including vessels built or operated by companies from several countries. The report expressed concern that this could affect the long-term competitiveness of the U.S. maritime industry and its domestic merchant fleet.

Another finding challenged the claim that the waiver helped lower fuel prices. Based on an 11-week review, the report found no statistically significant evidence linking the waiver to reduced gasoline prices for consumers. It also noted that only a small percentage of gasoline transported within the United States moves under the Jones Act, suggesting the waiver's influence on retail fuel costs may have been limited.

The report additionally pointed to continued high levels of U.S. petroleum exports during the waiver period, arguing that domestic fuel supply constraints were not severe enough to justify the emergency measure. It also identified refinery closures on the U.S. West Coast as a more significant factor affecting regional fuel availability than Jones Act shipping requirements. The findings contribute to the ongoing debate over balancing national security, energy policy, and support for the domestic maritime industry.