Is the Jones Act invincible?

by Sarah Zoellick, Grassroot Institute, August 28, 2025

Bad laws become entrenched when the dialogue around them is controlled by people who have a financial interest in keeping them on the books. Such is the case with the Jones Act, according to Grassroot scholar Colin Grabow, who spoke this past Sunday with radio host Johnny Miro of the H. Hawaii Media network of stations.

But that dialogue might be changing, Grabow hinted, as he discussed his recent article “How special interests keep bad laws on the books: The case of the Jones Act.” 

Grabow pointed out that state legislatures in Utah and New Hampshire have passed resolutions calling for the Jones Acts’ repeal, and Connecticut has passed a resolution pressing for an exemption from the Jones Act for liquified natural gas.

In addition, Hawaii’s Rep. Ed Case, perhaps the Jones Act’s most vocal opponent in Congress, recently picked up co-sponsorships of bills related to reforming the Jones Act from a Guam delegate and a representative from New York. 

“You know, it’s anecdotal, it’s small,” Grabow said. “But we’re starting to see, you know, more people sign on for this. So don’t give up. … I think eventually the truth will win out here, because the facts are all entirely on the side of Jones Act critics.”

Grabow called that glimmer of hope a long time in coming. The Jones Act was passed in 1920 and has hit states such as Hawaii particularly hard, restricting the flow of goods and, more important, driving up prices, Grabow said.

Grabow said opponents of the Jones Act haven’t been as active in lobbying Congress as those who have bigger financial interests, such as groups that represent ship builders, mariners and cargo shippers such as Matson and Pasha in Hawaii. Those groups make sure members of Congress hear their side of the story. They even go so far as to name ships after ardent supporters, such as Hawaii’s late Sen. Daniel K. Inouye.

“There is no organized lobby against the Jones Act,” Grabow said. “How often does someone walk in their door and say, you know, ‘Congressman, senator, you’ve got to do something about this Jones Act. It’s really killing us.’”

TRANSCRIPT

8-24-25 Colin Grabow with host Johnny Miro on the H. Hawaii Media radio network

Johnny Miro: Happy to have you along on this Sunday morning. I’m Johnny Miro. Once again, it’s time for our Sunday morning public access programming available on our five H. Hawaii Media Oʻahu radio stations, along with our five on Kauaʻi and on Maui.

A very, very, very important topic. It’s [chuckles] been trying to kind of get rid of it or at least kind of scale it back a little bit. It has not been successful. Very tough to do. We’re going to find out more about this. 

What am I talking about? The Jones Act. We’ve heard about this before. We’ve done discussions on this with Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, and unfortunately, all efforts to repeal or reform the law since it was enacted 105 years ago have failed. And a new article by Grassroot scholar Colin Grabow: “How special interests keep bad laws on the books: The case of the Jones Act.”

All right, “The case of the Jones Act” explains why. So we’ll delve into that with Colin Grabow, who is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, where his research focuses on domestic forms of trade protectionism such as the Jones Act and the U.S. Sugar Program. And his writings have been published in a number of outlets, including USA Today, The Hill, National Review, The Wall Street Journal. And prior to joining the Cato Institute, he performed political economic analysis for [a] Japan-based trading and investment firm and published research analysis for an international affairs consulting firm with a focus on U.S.-Asia relations. So he’s got the bona fides.

Grabow holds a bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from James Madison University, master’s degree in International Trade and Investment Policy from George Washington University, and supervises the Cato Institute’s Jones Act Gazette. And in 2020, coedited a book called “The Case Against the Jones Act.” So the big introduction, Colin, welcome in and thanks for agreeing to share knowledge with us on this very important topic.

Colin Grabow: Hey, Johnny, I really appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about this.

Miro: No doubt about it. Now, for people who may never heard of it before, though we’ve discussed it a couple of times with the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, remind people: What exactly is the Jones Act, and why should the average listener even care about it?

Grabow: Sure. So the Jones Act is section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. And it basically states that in order to transport goods within the United States by water, you have to use a vessel that meets four conditions. 

It has to be registered in the United States. It has to be crewed by American citizens. It has to be at least 75% owned by American citizens. And the vessel has to be built in the United States. 

I imagine, you know, some people might reasonably listen to that and think that seems like a pretty good law, very pro-American. But the issue with it, why it’s relevant, particularly to residents in Hawaii, is that it makes the cost of shipping very expensive, very costly, for a few reasons. 

One is that, as mentioned, [it] has to be U.S.-flagged as opposed to, you know, internationally flagged. And U.S.-flagged ships are about four times more expensive to operate than internationally flagged ships. 

On top of that, you have the construction costs. Again, they have to be built in the United States, and U.S.-built ships are, you know, depending on type, somewhere around four to five times more expensive than one built abroad.

So, for example, Matson is currently building some container ships in Philadelphia. These cost about $334 million apiece. Over in Asia, those would be about, you know, $60 million ships. So who pays that? You know, consumers — the people have to rely on shipping. 

And then lastly, the Jones Act means a lot less competition. Literally, you know, less than 1% of the world’s ships meet those conditions. So right away, 99% of the world’s ships are off the table for transporting goods.

So you take that combination of reduced competition, ships that are very expensive to operate, they’re very expensive to build, you put that all together, and you are going to get some very expensive shipping. And again, that’s quite relevant, particularly to the people in Hawaii.

Miro: And so you’ve heard right there: The reason for the prices that we pay for everyday goods like gas, groceries, building materials, explains pretty much why, on top of a couple of other things. And Colin, why do you think so few Americans even know the Jones Act exists despite its impact on all of us?

Grabow: Yeah, a few reasons. The costs of the Jones Act are, you know, for most Americans, say here on the U.S. mainland, you know, shipping — expensive shipping — that’s a bummer, but we have alternatives. We can transport goods by truck, by rail, by pipeline. So, you know, there are ways to get around it. 

Also, it’s been around so long. People have never known a world where the Jones Act didn’t exist. So it’s not as though the law went into place and everyone said, “Wait a minute, why are the costs of things going up so much?” 

But it’s like so many laws, you know, people are out living their lives. And, you know, politics, you know, it’s hard to pay attention to everything that’s going on in the world, much less, you know, a relatively obscure shipping law.

So unless you’re in a place like Hawaii or another one of the noncontiguous states and territories, there’s not really a big incentive to delve into U.S. shipping policy. So your average American, you know, can put this great example. A few years ago there was an episode of “Jeopardy”“ where one of the questions, you know, the answer was the Jones Act. Nobody knew. You know, these are obviously smart people.

Miro: Yes.

Grabow: So, yes. And then meanwhile, on the flip side, the people that really know about the Jones Act are those that profit from it, that have a really direct stake in making sure that the law stays in place. 

So you have a situation where the people that benefit from the law, they want to make sure it stays in place. And the average American just, you know, isn’t aware of it, because again, they’re out living their lives. And the cost per person, especially here in the mainland, is more modest compared to, you know, those elsewhere like Hawaii.

Miro: Grassroot Scholar, Colin Grabow. And it’s “How special interests keep bad laws on the books: The case of the Jones Act.” So the article describes such. Now what does that mean in plain terms as far as a case study on special interests? You hear about them, the politics, but now we have that with basically a law that’s been around for 105 years?

Grabow: Yeah. So you have to ask yourself, you know, I think there’s a very, you know, the evidence is pretty clear. It’s overwhelming that this raises the cost of shipping. So you may think, well, you know, certainly, you know, the people of Hawaii or Alaska or Puerto Rico have to be pretty concerned about this. 

And yet if you look, you know, both senators from Hawaii support the Jones Act, both from Alaska support the Jones Act. Only one member of the Hawaii delegation favors some reform or some kind of change to the Jones Act. That being Representative Ed Case.

So, you know, why is this? And it’s because there’s, again, a whole ecosystem built up of organizations — special interests — that exist to make sure this law does not go away. This consists of the ship builders, you know, they have a pretty obvious interest in making sure this law sticks around. It’s a law that says, you’ve got to buy what they make. Keeps out foreign competition. That’s pretty great for them. 

You have the guys that crew these ships. You know, they don’t want competition from foreign mariners.

You have the folks like Matson and Pasha that operate the ships. They have their own lobbying groups to make sure that the law stays in place. 

So, you know, if you’re a member of Congress, you hear from these guys all the time. But how often does someone walk in their door and say, you know, “Congressman, senator, you’ve got to do something about this Jones Act. It’s really killing us.” 

So again, you just come down to ultimately the people that care the most are those that profit from it, want to make sure it stays in place. Meanwhile, your average person, yeah, the Jones Act, to the extent they’re even aware of it, it’s a bummer, they don’t like it. 

But is it enough to make you march on Washington and, you know, dedicate yourself to seeing it overturned? Probably not. And that’s basically the dynamic that we see that, you know, ensures that the Jones Act stays on the books.

Miro: All right, Colin, so what are some of the ways lawmakers then are persuaded to support the Jones Act? Is it just the lobbying, or does it go deeper than that in your opinion?

Grabow: Yeah, I’ll tell you an anecdote, I think, that has a lot of some explanatory power. You know, I talked once to a former member of Congress, and he said, “Look, I got elected. I was in my late 20s, maybe 30 years old, something like that. And one day some guys from a maritime union showed up in my office and said, “We’d like to talk to you about this great law called the Jones Act.

“It just says that, you know, American goods have to be transported by Americans on an American flagged ship, you know, built in the United States. You know, what can be more patriotic than that? And by the way, here’s a check for your reelection campaign. We got an endorsement for you.” 

And this guy happened to be a Republican and getting endorsed by organized labor — that was a big win for him. They said, you know, on election day they work the polls to try to get out the vote. And all they ask, all they ask is just keep things the way they are. You know, they’re not asking you to introduce a bill. They’re not asking you to go out and change the world. In fact, they don’t want you to change anything. Just keep things the way they are.

Meanwhile, on the flip side, let’s say that you do take on the Jones Act. You say, “No, no, no. This is a bad law, you know, something has to change here. All those same interest groups are going to devote their energies to opposing you and making sure you don’t get reelected.” 

You know, I’m not theorizing here. We have the example of Representative Ed Case. He’s routinely faced challengers that were very pro-Jones Act, who were funded by pro-Jones Act groups. So, you know, the political path of least resistance is just go along with the status quo. Keep things the way they are.

And for the record, I’m not accusing folks that support the Jones Act of being corrupt or just secretly knowing that the law is bad. But, you know, the congressman I mentioned earlier, you know, he said, “I never heard from the other side.” You know, there is no organized lobby against the Jones Act, you know, donate to your campaign, that have lobbyists that will knock on your door. So, that’s just, you know, I think that that anecdote has a lot of explanatory power for why things are the way they are.

Miro: Does it go as far as even getting ships named after them, as far as politicians, for their support? Is that true?

Grabow: That is true. That is, you know, right now, Matson has a ship in service that transports goods to Hawaii called the Daniel K. Inouye. Named, of course, after the late senator from Hawaii. And you may think to yourself, well, OK, on the one hand, he was a senator, and he did support the Jones Act, but he was also, you know, a war hero. You know, maybe that has some explanatory power. 

But when the ship was named, which I think was in 2019 or so, Matson put out a press release, and they highlighted his strong support of the maritime industry as a key reason why they decided to name the ship after him.

And he’s not the only one. Actually, there’s a ship that operates on the Great Lakes called the James L. Oberstar, named after a former congressman from the Great Lakes region. So it’s — I think it’s funny, because it’s hard to think of any other industry where you see, you know, big pieces of capital equipment being named after U.S. legislators. But when it comes to shipping, the story is a little different.

Miro: Grassroot scholar Colin Grabow joining me this morning on Johnny Miro. And it’s “How special interests keep bad laws on the books: The case of the Jones Act.” 

And Jones Act defenders, Colin, I guess, often wrap the law in patriotism, as you mentioned, at the outset, national security, you hear that from time to time. So, how powerful is that message, politically, I guess?

Grabow: Yes, if you can convince people that, you know, the law is important for national security, I mean, that gives you a real edge. Because then you can say, “Hey, this isn’t just about protectionism. This isn’t about lining my pockets. I’m looking out. This is the best interest of the country.” 

So this is the tactic you see routinely from folks. They say, “Oh, no, no, no. You know, this protectionism, it’s not about, you know, boosting my profit margin. No, this is what we need for the country’s national security.” 

You see this, you know, all over the place — things like, you know, steel tariffs. Well, you know, steel is important for national security. Therefore, you know, this isn’t your run-of-the-mill protectionism. You know, there’s a larger factor here we need to be mindful of.

Now, you know, for the record, I think that this national security argument has a lot of problems with it. A lot of holes in that argument. You know, the notion that the Jones Act — and to give these guys a fair shake, you know, the argument tends to go something like “The Jones Act provides ships, shipbuilding, mariners that can all be harnessed by the United States in time of war.” 

Those are all important things to have. I just think the Jones Act has been a really poor way of going about that.

In terms of shipbuilding, we barely build any in this country. You know, last year we built zero, you know, ocean-going cargo ships. This year, we will build zero. This decade, we’re going to average less than one per year. To put that in perspective, a single shipyard in South Korea will build 40 in a year. All U.S. shipyards combined are at, you know, one or two per year in a good year. 

The fleet consists of, again, less than 100 ships. It’s a fraction of 1% of the world’s shipping. And no wonder, when you charge people five times the world price to buy a new ship, that’s not really conducive to promoting a modern, vibrant shipping industry.

So, you know, when you break it down, look at, you take the intentions or the justifications versus the reality and the delivered results, I think there’s a big canyon, a big world of difference there.

Miro: All right, Colin, how do lobbying groups — getting back to that — how do groups that lobby and the PR campaigns, how do they try to win over public opinion, especially in places like Hawaii or Puerto Rico?

Grabow: Sure. So, they put out, you know, videos, you know, social media campaigns to try to play up the alleged benefits of the Jones Act. 

In the case of Puerto Rico, there’s in fact a dedicated website filled with videos, very slickly done, you know, professionally done videos that say, “Hey, this is a great thing. The Jones Act just ensures that, you know, there’s reliable, regular service, that it’s, you know, a big asset for these places.”

You know, a few years ago, an organization called the American Maritime Partnership, which is an organization that exists solely to defend the Jones Act, it has no other purpose than ensuring the Jones Act stays in place. 

I think in 2020 or so, they released a report claiming there is basically no cost to Hawaii consumers from the Jones Act. You know, this is, again, hard to square with the fact that Matson and Pasha are paying these inflated prices for ships. They have these inflated operating costs. They have minimal competition. You know, it’s a duopoly, just the two shipping lines. And then they would have us believe that there is no premium or that, you know, all these shipping costs just disappear, and for whatever reason consumers don’t bear it. 

But again, you know, so putting out reports like that, putting out videos, these are some of the ways that these organizations go about trying to convince the folks that are most affected by the law, that it’s nothing for them to worry about.

Miro: And I guess those government agencies even sometimes echo the industry talking points. How unusual would that be?

Grabow: Yes. This is another thing. So, we have the, you know, the pro-Jones Act advocacy organizations that are funded by the maritime industry. And that’s to be expected. And you find that all over the place. That’s not unique. 

But what’s really interesting, and I think frankly disturbing, is that you have government agencies recycling or promoting pro-Jones Act talking points. So, for example, the Department of Transportation has an agency called the U.S. Maritime Administration. And on the Jones Act’s 100th anniversary back in 2020, they had a post on social media saying that “the Jones Act turns 100 years old today, it supports 650,000 jobs, and we need to protect this law.

Think how crazy that is, that there’s a government agency out promoting, talking about what a great idea a protectionist law is. I can’t think of any other example where we see government agencies out there doing this. 

And not only that, but I mentioned that the post includes a claim of 650,000 jobs. Where does that number come from? Is that from a government study that says that there are 650,000 maritime jobs? No. That number comes directly from Jones Act advocacy groups. So, they are repeating the talking points of these groups. And, you know, it’s one thing if that’s what they do, but our tax dollars have been used to fund, you know, this, frankly, propaganda.

So that’s another reason, another factor behind why this law has so much staying power is because some of the advocacy and lobbying is coming from within the U.S. government.

Miro: You just mentioned that the numbers that they put forward in that, I guess, called propaganda, and sort of sound like it. 

Can you share another example, Colin, of when a government reported study critical of the law was shut down or buried? And I guess that’s one. Are there any others?

Grabow: Yeah. So, you know, we’ve also seen, for example, the, I believe, the U.S. Transportation Command. You know, they’ve had, you know, pro-Jones Act social media posts as well. 

But, in terms of — oh, you know, one other thing I can mention is that the U.S. government, so members of Congress in fact, they, some senior members of Congress several years ago, wrote a critical letter to the head of the Library of Congress asking them to remove from circulation a report written by the Congressional Research Service. 

Now, the Congressional Research Service is an organization that exists, it’s taxpayer funded, to provide Congress with unbiased factual reporting about different issues of relevance.

Well, they put out a report about the Jones Act. And if you’re going to do an honest account, you know, the Jones Act, it’s hard not to be pretty critical. And these members of Congress wrote to the Library of Congress that you need to pull this from circulation for being overly critical and, you know, allegedly biased against the Jones Act. 

We have another example. Several years ago after Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rican government released a draft report on how to recover from the aftermath of that hurricane and promote economic growth in the island.

Well, one thing they mentioned, quite logically, was do something about the Jones Act. Well, the response from Congress was they got a nasty letter saying, “Hey,” from representative Duncan Hunter at the time, saying, “I understand you guys mentioned the Jones Act in a critical light. You shouldn’t do that. If you proceed to talk about the Jones Act, then maybe we’re not gonna pay attention to the other recommendations you make in your report.”

So this is another, you know, example of how the path forward or even just having good information, just talking about the Jones Act, is seen as the enemy or something to be defeated or something, frankly, to be squelched. So, yeah, you put all this together, and you can start to understand why progress on this issue is so difficult.

Miro: Yeah. And as you mentioned Senator Case, I mean, you said he felt like a ton of bricks just for asking questions about the law. So, it sounds politically risky for lawmakers here, Alaska, or even in Puerto Rico to question the Jones Act.

Grabow: Yes, exactly. Representative Case gave a great interview a few years ago where he was asked about it, said, “You know, basically your opposition to Jones Act, you know, where’d this come from?” 

And he said, you know, as a member of the state Legislature — before he even arrived in Congress — he said, “I just wanted to ask some questions and say ‘Can we delve into this? Can we just see what the effect of the Jones Act is on Hawaii?’” And just for raising the issue, he said, “Yeah, as you said, a ton of bricks fell on me.” He said, “You know, the sky opened up, and everyone was just so mad that we had to have a conversation about this.”

And I think he really arrived at a truly bad place, where just talking about something is considered off limits — doing investigations, just having these discussions, that’s considered a no-no. How can you have a healthy policy environment without, you know, these lines of inquiry? But, and that was, again, that’s just on the state level. Now, you know, that’s even more magnified once you get to Congress where, you know, the lobbying and the advocacy is even more pronounced.

Miro: Grassroot scholar Colin Grabow answering questions about why it’s so hard to get rid of, or even reform, the Jones Act, “How special Interests keep bad laws on the Books: The case of the Jones Act.” 

I guess I’ll pose this: If so many people and businesses are hurt by the Jones Act, why wouldn’t we see a stronger movement against it? And it’s fair to say that maybe that most industries harmed by the law just don’t want to pick a fight with the all-powerful Washington D.C., the allies in Congress. And a lot of people, I guess, would then view it as invincible when it comes to these reform efforts that yourself and others are seeking.

Grabow: Yeah. One dynamic you encounter is that even industries or organizations that are harmed by the Jones Act, you know, they — their attitude is one, frequently is look, I don’t like the Jones Act. It hurts us. It costs us a lot of money. But, you know, on my top 10 list of issues, say it’s number 4 or 5. And issues 1, 2 and 3, I need the help of senators or, you know, other members of Congress who support the Jones Act. 

So, you know, I remember a conversation I had with one member of an association and an industry representative that was hurt by the Jones Act. And he said, “Look, I gave an interview once in which I criticized the Jones Act, and I got a talking to by my bosses and said, no, no, no. Don’t talk about the Jones Act. That’s politically thermonuclear, and it’s really sensitive.” 

And then another aspect to this is you have, you know, limited resources, limited time. Where are you going to devote them? And what are the prospects for success? And the Jones Act advocacy groups have done a great job of fostering this perception that if you take on the Jones Act, you’re gonna lose. You better pick other battles to fight, you know. Devote your resources elsewhere.

And it’s a self-reinforcing thing, because, you know, when that perception builds up, some people don’t take on the law, which just further feeds into that perceptions that the law’s invincible. It’s pointless. It’s a suicide charge, you know, don’t bother with this one. So, yeah, again, this all plays a role in making it such an uphill battle to make progress on this law.

Miro: I have a few remaining moments with Colin Grabow, Grassroot scholar. How about a real-world example? Like, walk us through what happened in 2019 when the Trump administration considered a waiver to allow cheaper energy shipments. What happened?

Grabow: Yeah, yeah, that’s an interesting example. So, at the time, back in 2019, actually still today, we’re in this bizarre situation where the United States is the world’s leading exporter of liquefied natural gas. We send it all over the world. It’s been exported, I think, to 30-some countries. 

But we can’t transport it by water to other parts of the United States, because, well, up until a few months ago — that’s a different story — because there are no U.S. built ships to transport it. There are no U.S.-flagged, U.S.-built ships to transport it by water.

So you had this situation back in 2019, where President Trump’s economic team said, “President Trump, we think you ought to waive the Jones Act for liquified natural gas shipments, because, you know, we have this bizarre situation where we can export natural gas to other countries, we can’t send it to other parts of our own country.” 

So places like Boston and Puerto Rico were importing LNG from abroad because they couldn’t buy domestic, because there are no ships to transport it. This would seem a pretty common sense move, a pretty obvious win both for domestic energy and, obviously, the residents of these places who have to rely on imported energy.

So they went to President Trump and said, “You know, waive this law,” and President Trump said, “OK. Well, first, you know, I want to hear from both sides now before I make a decision. I’m open to it.” And he was told by his Secretary of Transportation, Elaine Chao, said, “You know, Mr. President, before you make a decision, please hear out the pro-Jones Act folks.” And he said, “OK.”

So the next week, six senators, both senators from Alaska, both senators from Mississippi, both senators from Louisiana, they go down to the White House along with Steve Scalise, a senior member of Congress on the GOP side, and they said, “President Trump, do not touch the Jones Act. That’s an extremely bad idea.” And he said, “OK,” you know, and he backed off. 

And meanwhile, you know, there was no anti-Jones Act advocacy group to make the case. So he heard from six senators. No senator went up and said, “No, you should do this.” There’s no countervailing force.

Secretary of Transportation, Elaine Chao, one month later, was named an American Maritime Hero. This was a brand-new award cooked up by the American Maritime Partnership — again, a pro-Jones Act advocacy group. And the first two recipients of this award were Elaine Chao and the mariners who served the United States during World War II, transporting war material. 

It also later came out that — I obtained some emails from the Freedom of Information Act, showing that members of the Department of Transportation were contacting Jones Act lobbyists, here in D.C., asking them for their input on pro-Jones Act talking points for Secretary Chao.

And one of those senior officials, about a year later, he got named as the head of a Jones Act advocacy group called the Dredging Contractors of America. So, I think it’s an interesting case study in how things are often done in Washington.

Miro: Well, Colin, it sounds, it’s very tough, tough road ahead. Sometimes some might even say hopeless. Looking ahead though, do you see any realistic path forward for reform, or is repeal basically off the table? And what bigger lesson, would you say, does the Jones Act teach us about how special interests can keep outdated laws on the books?

Grabow: Yeah. So I’ll start with the last point first. You know, we’re talking about the Jones Act, but the really depressing part of this is that this dynamic I describe of, you know, special interests, very invested in ensuring certain laws that benefit them stay on the books. We’re talking about the Jones Act. We could be applying this dynamic all across the board. That’s the really sad thing, is that this happens all over Washington, it’s not just the Jones Act.

But I want to leave your listeners on an optimistic note because this conversation has been a little downbeat, a little depressing. And I think there is reason for optimism. 

I’ll point out that in the last few years, last year actually, the state of Utah passed a resolution calling for repeal of the Jones Act. We saw the state of Connecticut this year passed a resolution calling for an exemption for liquefied natural gas shipments from the Jones Act. We saw the state of New Hampshire passed legislation calling for action, calling for the repeal of the Jones Act.

So we see things like that. I think there’s been a pickup in media attention on this. A lot more people seem to be aware of it. There’s, you know, thanks to the efforts of folks at the Grassroot, and elsewhere, there is growing recognition. 

Representative Case, who we mentioned earlier, he has introduced every, you know, every term in Congress, he always introduces reform legislation. Well, this year, he picked up a cosponsor, Delegate Moylan of Guam, and he introduced another bill aimed at the Jones Act this year that picked up the support of Representative Ritchie Torres of New York.

So, you know, it’s anecdotal, it’s small, but we’re starting to see, you know, more people sign on for this. So don’t give up. And, you know, I think, you know, eventually, the truth will win out here, because the facts are all entirely on the side of Jones Act critics.

Miro: Yeah, there’s still no support from our other two senators [chuckles] that Ed Case is still …

Grabow: Not yet.

Miro: It’s been a couple of terms, so hopefully soon Ed can convince them, Brian and Mazie, to come aboard and make things a little bit easier on Hawaii residents. All right, great stuff there.

 Colin Grabow, policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. And also with the great piece, you can find it, I guess, at grassrootinstitute.org. “How special interests keep bad laws on the books: The case of the Jones Act.” And where else can they find your work on this and other things, Colin?

Grabow: Sure. So another resource that they can go visit is cato.org/jonesact. And for those of you that are Twitter or X addicts, I can be found on there @cpgrabow. Lots of good anti-Jones Act content there to be found if you want more. So, yeah, those are some resources I’d recommend.

Miro: Right. A lot of great information. Appreciate it, and we’ll see what happens in the coming months or a couple years down the road. But great talking to you, and enjoy the rest of your Sunday.

Grabow: All right, you too, Johnny. Thank you so much.