Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

In the 1970s, the U.S. was the world’s second-largest commercial shipbuilder. Today, it accounts for less than 0.1% of global tonnage. This collapse wasn’t an accident of globalization. It was the direct result of a single policy choice: the 1981 decision to end the Construction Differential Subsidy (CDS). Here...

907Honest's profile picture

907Honest

10,478 subscribers

28,277 views • 4 days ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

3 Comments

Pierre's profile picture
Pierre3 days ago

That is not even a remotely true statement. From the 1960s to today, the US has produced an average of 4-5 commercial ships per year, being really generous. And outside the two World Wars, the US has not shown any real interest in shipbuilding for not very obvious reasons.

Brandon Sands's profile picture
Brandon Sands3 days ago

A travesty. Thank you @DA_Stockman !

CornerCarver's profile picture
CornerCarver3 days ago

If the shipyards were never subsidized by taxpayer funds (CDS) the free market would have given them feedback on costs. Having (and using) that government safety net isolated them from the repercussions of their decisions.

Related Videos

Ship Talk: Why the U.S. Doesn't Have a Merchant Navy Why does the United Kingdom refer to its commercial fleet as the "Merchant Navy," while the United States calls it the "Merchant Marine"? In this episode of Ship Talk, we dive into the wartime history, legal distinctions, and poignant stories behind the naming and recognition of civilian mariners on both sides of the Atlantic. From the tragic U-boat campaigns of World War I that led King George V to grant the title "Merchant Navy" as a fourth service of the realm, to the U.S. Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and the devastating losses of WWII, civilian seafarers faced unimaginable dangers to keep supply lines open. We also explore the haunting story of the unarmed tanker SS Muskogee, sunk by U-123 in 1942, and how a photograph taken from the deck of a German submarine inspired the iconic American Merchant Marine Memorial in New York's Battery Park—where the rising and falling tides recreate a desperate reach for survival twice every day. Video:
8:37

Ship Talk: Why the U.S. Doesn't Have a Merchant Navy Why does the United Kingdom refer to its commercial fleet as the "Merchant Navy," while the United States calls it the "Merchant Marine"? In this episode of Ship Talk, we dive into the wartime history, legal distinctions, and poignant stories behind the naming and recognition of civilian mariners on both sides of the Atlantic. From the tragic U-boat campaigns of World War I that led King George V to grant the title "Merchant Navy" as a fourth service of the realm, to the U.S. Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and the devastating losses of WWII, civilian seafarers faced unimaginable dangers to keep supply lines open. We also explore the haunting story of the unarmed tanker SS Muskogee, sunk by U-123 in 1942, and how a photograph taken from the deck of a German submarine inspired the iconic American Merchant Marine Memorial in New York's Battery Park—where the rising and falling tides recreate a desperate reach for survival twice every day. Video:

Sal Mercogliano (WGOW Shipping) 🚢⚓🐪🚒🏴‍☠️

17,477 views • 13 days ago

"CHINA'S NAVY IS EXPANDING AT BREAKNECK SPEED" The U.S. Navy is still considered the most powerful in the world when it comes to firepower and tonnage, but the number of Navy ships has fallen behind China’s. The United States has 296 ships in its fleet, while China’s is on pace to surpass 400 ships this year. Despite the U.S. Navy’s goal of increasing the size of its fleet, in recent years the number of ships has been shrinking....... China’s largest state-owned shipyard, the China State Shipbuilding Corporation, built more commercial vessels by tonnage in 2024 than the entire US shipbuilding industry had since World War II. This reflects the declining shipbuilding capability of the US, which currently has only four active public shipyards compared to China’s 35 sites. The U.S. is increasingly relying on its key Asian allies, South Korea and Japan, to help revitalize its struggling shipbuilding and repair capabilities, leveraging their advanced maritime industries to counter China's dominance. The problem for the US is that they have woken up very late and time is running out......... Video for illustration:
0:44

"CHINA'S NAVY IS EXPANDING AT BREAKNECK SPEED" The U.S. Navy is still considered the most powerful in the world when it comes to firepower and tonnage, but the number of Navy ships has fallen behind China’s. The United States has 296 ships in its fleet, while China’s is on pace to surpass 400 ships this year. Despite the U.S. Navy’s goal of increasing the size of its fleet, in recent years the number of ships has been shrinking....... China’s largest state-owned shipyard, the China State Shipbuilding Corporation, built more commercial vessels by tonnage in 2024 than the entire US shipbuilding industry had since World War II. This reflects the declining shipbuilding capability of the US, which currently has only four active public shipyards compared to China’s 35 sites. The U.S. is increasingly relying on its key Asian allies, South Korea and Japan, to help revitalize its struggling shipbuilding and repair capabilities, leveraging their advanced maritime industries to counter China's dominance. The problem for the US is that they have woken up very late and time is running out......... Video for illustration:

WORLD AT WAR

81,017 views • 9 months ago

David Friedberg: “ What if we could make all residential electricity free in the United States?” “We consume, in this country, about 4 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity.” “1/3 of that, $250B, is residential consumption.” “2/3 of that, $500B, is industrial and commercial consumption.” “Theoretically, you could increase the price on industrial and commercial consumption by ~50% and make all residential electricity in the United States free.” “And then on the commercial and industrial side, the reason you would then have an incentive to build private power systems would be that you can bring your costs down.” “And instead of centralizing all of this with the utilities, what it can do is it can force a market demand for industrial and commercial users to build their own power systems, which would increase overall electricity supply in the United States.” “The data centers are the tip of the iceberg, but if you make this a pan industrial problem, then all of the industrial companies would have to take this path.”
0:59

David Friedberg: “ What if we could make all residential electricity free in the United States?” “We consume, in this country, about 4 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity.” “1/3 of that, $250B, is residential consumption.” “2/3 of that, $500B, is industrial and commercial consumption.” “Theoretically, you could increase the price on industrial and commercial consumption by ~50% and make all residential electricity in the United States free.” “And then on the commercial and industrial side, the reason you would then have an incentive to build private power systems would be that you can bring your costs down.” “And instead of centralizing all of this with the utilities, what it can do is it can force a market demand for industrial and commercial users to build their own power systems, which would increase overall electricity supply in the United States.” “The data centers are the tip of the iceberg, but if you make this a pan industrial problem, then all of the industrial companies would have to take this path.”

The All-In Podcast

219,964 views • 8 months ago

"One of the smartest things we could be doing is... a single accountable person that just runs this, instead of 20 people trying to contribute." Chris Power on what changed when the U.S. started moving faster on defense manufacturing: "I would say three years ago, it was incredibly difficult." "And now honestly, to pull something like this off for the last six, seven months… compared to the size and scale of something like this, if you're in the commercial sector, is pretty fast." "Congress, both Senate and the House, the Navy, the Department of War, has really hit the go fast button and removed a lot of these blockers." "There is now a single person in command to control the entire enterprise." "They can make fast decisions, take risks, place multiple bets." "That's not possible unless there's a single man or woman in charge." Chris Power Hadrian David Ulevitch 🇺🇸
1:40

"One of the smartest things we could be doing is... a single accountable person that just runs this, instead of 20 people trying to contribute." Chris Power on what changed when the U.S. started moving faster on defense manufacturing: "I would say three years ago, it was incredibly difficult." "And now honestly, to pull something like this off for the last six, seven months… compared to the size and scale of something like this, if you're in the commercial sector, is pretty fast." "Congress, both Senate and the House, the Navy, the Department of War, has really hit the go fast button and removed a lot of these blockers." "There is now a single person in command to control the entire enterprise." "They can make fast decisions, take risks, place multiple bets." "That's not possible unless there's a single man or woman in charge." Chris Power Hadrian David Ulevitch 🇺🇸

a16z

14,763 views • 6 months ago

The U.S. has waged a war on Iran’s pistachio industry, dating back to the 1979 Iranian revolution, employing tariffs, sanctions, and trade bans to make it difficult for Iran to export pistachios. These protectionist measures have also allowed the U.S. to grow their own domestic pistachio industry. Before the U.S. tariffs and sanctions, Iran was the world’s leading exporter of pistachios. After the sanctions, the U.S. went from being a small exporter to the world’s leading exporter. Today, the U.S. is the number one exporter of pistachios, having the largest global share, while Iran still has the second largest share. The Resnick family controls most of the U.S. pistachio market, producing the “Wonderful” brand of pistachios for domestic consumption and export. Moreover, there are allegations that they have pushed for sanctions on Iran for two reasons: their financial support for organizations linked to the Israeli military and their interest in reducing competition from Iranian pistachios. BT visited specialized nuts and dried fruit stores in Tehran, where pistachios are prepared and sold. The U.S.-Israeli war on Iran has caused a sharp decline in pistachio sales domestically, due to shop closures and internal displacement. Moreover, inflation, in part linked to U.S. sanctions, has caused pistachios to become more expensive, harming Iranian consumers and small businesses.
1:34

The U.S. has waged a war on Iran’s pistachio industry, dating back to the 1979 Iranian revolution, employing tariffs, sanctions, and trade bans to make it difficult for Iran to export pistachios. These protectionist measures have also allowed the U.S. to grow their own domestic pistachio industry. Before the U.S. tariffs and sanctions, Iran was the world’s leading exporter of pistachios. After the sanctions, the U.S. went from being a small exporter to the world’s leading exporter. Today, the U.S. is the number one exporter of pistachios, having the largest global share, while Iran still has the second largest share. The Resnick family controls most of the U.S. pistachio market, producing the “Wonderful” brand of pistachios for domestic consumption and export. Moreover, there are allegations that they have pushed for sanctions on Iran for two reasons: their financial support for organizations linked to the Israeli military and their interest in reducing competition from Iranian pistachios. BT visited specialized nuts and dried fruit stores in Tehran, where pistachios are prepared and sold. The U.S.-Israeli war on Iran has caused a sharp decline in pistachio sales domestically, due to shop closures and internal displacement. Moreover, inflation, in part linked to U.S. sanctions, has caused pistachios to become more expensive, harming Iranian consumers and small businesses.

BreakThrough News

17,060 views • 4 months ago

Must watch conversation between The Real Mike Rowe and Shawn Ryan on shipbuilding in the United States. When critics of building ships in America cite issues like the Jones Act/cabotage, or the cost versus building in China, or sheer gap in numbers; what they fail to appreciate is the following. In 1934, the US built 2 commercial ships. In 1935, we built 2 commercial ships. In 1943 we built 1,661. The key is not the shipyards, but the domestic infrastructure to support the shipyards. The reason it is expensive to build ships, and why it takes longer, and costs more, is we have systematically destroyed our industrial infrastructure. We need to build this back, and by building ships again in the US we will create the demand for steel, electrical wiring, hydraulic piping, shipfitters, electricians, welders, fitters, and all the ancillary components that benefit not just the US commercial building sector, but also the naval building sector. What Mike Rowe is discussing is national security and as a college professor, who worked in the maritime industry, I am the first to sign on to the idea that we need to be encouraging and supporting young Americans to look toward this sector for the future. We can work to educate and provide a workforce that can obtain all the skills necessary for an entire lifetime of careers, but this needs the blue-collar and white-collar sectors to realize that they are complimentary and competitive.
13:27

Must watch conversation between The Real Mike Rowe and Shawn Ryan on shipbuilding in the United States. When critics of building ships in America cite issues like the Jones Act/cabotage, or the cost versus building in China, or sheer gap in numbers; what they fail to appreciate is the following. In 1934, the US built 2 commercial ships. In 1935, we built 2 commercial ships. In 1943 we built 1,661. The key is not the shipyards, but the domestic infrastructure to support the shipyards. The reason it is expensive to build ships, and why it takes longer, and costs more, is we have systematically destroyed our industrial infrastructure. We need to build this back, and by building ships again in the US we will create the demand for steel, electrical wiring, hydraulic piping, shipfitters, electricians, welders, fitters, and all the ancillary components that benefit not just the US commercial building sector, but also the naval building sector. What Mike Rowe is discussing is national security and as a college professor, who worked in the maritime industry, I am the first to sign on to the idea that we need to be encouraging and supporting young Americans to look toward this sector for the future. We can work to educate and provide a workforce that can obtain all the skills necessary for an entire lifetime of careers, but this needs the blue-collar and white-collar sectors to realize that they are complimentary and competitive.

Sal Mercogliano (WGOW Shipping) 🚢⚓🐪🚒🏴‍☠️

31,368 views • 2 months ago

When asked how we fix shipbuilding and the Merchant Marine, U.S. Maritime Administrator Steve Carmel points to the United Nations International Maritime Organization as a primary problem. Most of the world follows one set of rules: UN IMO. U.S.-flagged ships suffer under a dual regulatory burden, forced to comply with both IMO and USCG regulations simultaneously. Two bureaucracies, two sets of inspectors, two sets of standards that don’t always align . He is absolutely correct. For the Navy the problem is even worse. Warships are not required to follow UN shipbuilding rules. They never were. But the Obama administration volunteered to apply them anyway. Because IMO rules were never designed to cover warships and auxiliaries, this creates constant friction for USCG and ABS inspectors trying to enforce standards that don’t fit the ships they’re inspecting. Jettison the UN rules. The Navy side can be done immediately via POTUS or SECDEF order. No legislation required. I’ve pushed this myself. The problem is the Navy doesn’t understand commercial shipyard regulatory frameworks, and admirals are hesitant to touch regulations they don’t fully comprehend. So nothing moves. This will require a leap of faith, but not a blind one. What any admiral can verify in an afternoon: IMO rules were never written for warships. The organization itself does not claim jurisdiction over them. The U.S. voluntarily opted in, and it can voluntarily opt out. That single fact should be sufficient to kill the dual regulatory regime for naval vessels tomorrow. The merchant marine side may take legislation, but the Navy side is a signature away. And it’s not just shipbuilding. The Navy laid up 17 U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command ships because it can’t find enough Merchant Marine Captains and Chief Engineers. The reason is we follow the USCG guidance to attend college for four years at the beginning of our careers AND the UN guidance to go back to school before becoming Chief Mates and do STCW classes regularly. Pick one USCG. Just one more of many examples: UN allows online classes. USCG does not. So we are subject to the more stringent requirement putting us at a major disadvantage to mariners in other nations who we sometimes compete with in the job market. Every day we leave these rules in place is a day we’re slowing down warship construction to comply with standards that weren’t built for warships, enforced by inspectors applying rules that don’t fit, in shipyards that are already behind schedule. We did this to ourselves. We can undo it just as fast. Cc Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao Secretary of War Pete Hegseth
1:21

When asked how we fix shipbuilding and the Merchant Marine, U.S. Maritime Administrator Steve Carmel points to the United Nations International Maritime Organization as a primary problem. Most of the world follows one set of rules: UN IMO. U.S.-flagged ships suffer under a dual regulatory burden, forced to comply with both IMO and USCG regulations simultaneously. Two bureaucracies, two sets of inspectors, two sets of standards that don’t always align . He is absolutely correct. For the Navy the problem is even worse. Warships are not required to follow UN shipbuilding rules. They never were. But the Obama administration volunteered to apply them anyway. Because IMO rules were never designed to cover warships and auxiliaries, this creates constant friction for USCG and ABS inspectors trying to enforce standards that don’t fit the ships they’re inspecting. Jettison the UN rules. The Navy side can be done immediately via POTUS or SECDEF order. No legislation required. I’ve pushed this myself. The problem is the Navy doesn’t understand commercial shipyard regulatory frameworks, and admirals are hesitant to touch regulations they don’t fully comprehend. So nothing moves. This will require a leap of faith, but not a blind one. What any admiral can verify in an afternoon: IMO rules were never written for warships. The organization itself does not claim jurisdiction over them. The U.S. voluntarily opted in, and it can voluntarily opt out. That single fact should be sufficient to kill the dual regulatory regime for naval vessels tomorrow. The merchant marine side may take legislation, but the Navy side is a signature away. And it’s not just shipbuilding. The Navy laid up 17 U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command ships because it can’t find enough Merchant Marine Captains and Chief Engineers. The reason is we follow the USCG guidance to attend college for four years at the beginning of our careers AND the UN guidance to go back to school before becoming Chief Mates and do STCW classes regularly. Pick one USCG. Just one more of many examples: UN allows online classes. USCG does not. So we are subject to the more stringent requirement putting us at a major disadvantage to mariners in other nations who we sometimes compete with in the job market. Every day we leave these rules in place is a day we’re slowing down warship construction to comply with standards that weren’t built for warships, enforced by inspectors applying rules that don’t fit, in shipyards that are already behind schedule. We did this to ourselves. We can undo it just as fast. Cc Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

John Ʌ Konrad V

67,074 views • 5 months ago

🚨NAVY LOGISTICS 🚨 Everyone seems concerned that the U.S. Navy ships in the Arabian Sea - carrier Abraham Lincoln stike group, 3-ship amphibious group based on Tripoli, and a surface action group centered on approximately 8 destroyers - are running low on food, with some pictures showing the supposed meals on board. To understand how the Navy supplies ships you have to understand how U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command, the fleet of civilian merchant mariner crewed ships work. There are three main considerations - fuel, food, and ammo. 1️⃣Fuel: There are two MSC oilers in the Indian Ocean. They provide alongside Underway Replenishment (UNREP) for diesel fuel for ship population and JP5 for aviation. The oilers can carry between 180 to 150k barrels of fuel. A Burke can carry about 12k bbls of fuel. When the oilers run low on fuel, they will either return to a forward base or meet up with commercial tankers from the US merchant marine, some in the Tanker Security Program. These tankers are equipped to receive rigs from the MSC oilers so that they can transfer fuel to the oilers. The oilers can maintain their forward presence as station oilers while the commercial tankers shuttle fuel. 2️⃣Food & Ammo: There are three MSC dry cargo/ammo ships in the region. To keep the ships supplied one of the T-AKEs will rotate through the ships providing either replenishment at sea or vertical replenishment via civilian embarked AS-332 helos. Another ship would be rotating out a forward base to reload and tag team with the station AKE. The third AKE, along with civilian commercial ships, many of the Maritime Security Program, would shuttle forward supplies from commercial ports or Defense Logisitics Agency depots. 3️⃣ The addition of the Bush Carrier Strike Group will allow the Lincoln to pull back for down time and resupply at a base. Bush has a fast combat support ship (T-AOE) that can carry a mix of food, fuel and ammo on a ship capable of 26 knots. This ship is a one-stop shop for a carrier strike group. The arrival of the Boxer amphibious group will also provide a relief for Tripoli or operate in SE Asia to intercept, divert or board Iranian ships. Now, does this mean every ship on the blockade is supplied to full capacity...probably not. But before everyone leaps to conclusions that sailors are not being provisioned, understand that the US Navy and U.S. Central Command has done this for a long time. At the same time, this logistic system can be more robust and represents a point of vulnerability for operations. MSC has experienced issues with crewing and availability of vessels.
1:13

🚨NAVY LOGISTICS 🚨 Everyone seems concerned that the U.S. Navy ships in the Arabian Sea - carrier Abraham Lincoln stike group, 3-ship amphibious group based on Tripoli, and a surface action group centered on approximately 8 destroyers - are running low on food, with some pictures showing the supposed meals on board. To understand how the Navy supplies ships you have to understand how U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command, the fleet of civilian merchant mariner crewed ships work. There are three main considerations - fuel, food, and ammo. 1️⃣Fuel: There are two MSC oilers in the Indian Ocean. They provide alongside Underway Replenishment (UNREP) for diesel fuel for ship population and JP5 for aviation. The oilers can carry between 180 to 150k barrels of fuel. A Burke can carry about 12k bbls of fuel. When the oilers run low on fuel, they will either return to a forward base or meet up with commercial tankers from the US merchant marine, some in the Tanker Security Program. These tankers are equipped to receive rigs from the MSC oilers so that they can transfer fuel to the oilers. The oilers can maintain their forward presence as station oilers while the commercial tankers shuttle fuel. 2️⃣Food & Ammo: There are three MSC dry cargo/ammo ships in the region. To keep the ships supplied one of the T-AKEs will rotate through the ships providing either replenishment at sea or vertical replenishment via civilian embarked AS-332 helos. Another ship would be rotating out a forward base to reload and tag team with the station AKE. The third AKE, along with civilian commercial ships, many of the Maritime Security Program, would shuttle forward supplies from commercial ports or Defense Logisitics Agency depots. 3️⃣ The addition of the Bush Carrier Strike Group will allow the Lincoln to pull back for down time and resupply at a base. Bush has a fast combat support ship (T-AOE) that can carry a mix of food, fuel and ammo on a ship capable of 26 knots. This ship is a one-stop shop for a carrier strike group. The arrival of the Boxer amphibious group will also provide a relief for Tripoli or operate in SE Asia to intercept, divert or board Iranian ships. Now, does this mean every ship on the blockade is supplied to full capacity...probably not. But before everyone leaps to conclusions that sailors are not being provisioned, understand that the US Navy and U.S. Central Command has done this for a long time. At the same time, this logistic system can be more robust and represents a point of vulnerability for operations. MSC has experienced issues with crewing and availability of vessels.

Sal Mercogliano (WGOW Shipping) 🚢⚓🐪🚒🏴‍☠️

264,516 views • 5 months ago

"YOU CAN'T BLUFF A MOUNTAIN RANGE, MR. TRUMP!" Col. Douglas Macgregor [Douglas Macgregor] delivers a blistering - and accurate - assessment of President Trump's war against Iran, warning that Washington was dangerously unprepared for the reality of the initial phase of the war-of-choice against Iran, and the president remains blind to the mountain of challenges that would result for the U.S. should he order the war's resumption. Macgregor argues that “Trump's game of power and coercion on behalf of Israel has failed” and the U.S. is in strategic drift with its war in the Middle East. The U.S. strategy of psychological bluffing has hit a wall against a state that is effectively a “giant fortress surrounded by mountains.” He warns that we are currently using the “wrong instrument” in an effort to subdue Iran, stating bluntly: “we're not organized for (a war like this), we're not trained for it, we're not ready for it" and the blunt reality is, even if we had a field army of a million men, it would still likely fail to topple the regime in Tehran, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives. The matter is all the more absurd given that the *entirity* of the active duty U.S. Army is LESS than half that number. Meaning: the U.S. embarked on a war of choice against a "mountain fortress" of a country, with insufficient combat power to defeat them, while setting unattainable political objectives for the military to try and accomplish. In other words, failure was baked in because of the mismatch. 📺 Watch the full, urgent breakdown on Daniel Davis Deep Dive now. 👉 #IranWar #MiddleEastConflict #DouglasMacgregor #DanielDavis #USStrategy #Geopolitics #NationalSecurity #ForeignPolicy #BreakingNews #Trump #Israel #PersianGulf
2:53

"YOU CAN'T BLUFF A MOUNTAIN RANGE, MR. TRUMP!" Col. Douglas Macgregor [Douglas Macgregor] delivers a blistering - and accurate - assessment of President Trump's war against Iran, warning that Washington was dangerously unprepared for the reality of the initial phase of the war-of-choice against Iran, and the president remains blind to the mountain of challenges that would result for the U.S. should he order the war's resumption. Macgregor argues that “Trump's game of power and coercion on behalf of Israel has failed” and the U.S. is in strategic drift with its war in the Middle East. The U.S. strategy of psychological bluffing has hit a wall against a state that is effectively a “giant fortress surrounded by mountains.” He warns that we are currently using the “wrong instrument” in an effort to subdue Iran, stating bluntly: “we're not organized for (a war like this), we're not trained for it, we're not ready for it" and the blunt reality is, even if we had a field army of a million men, it would still likely fail to topple the regime in Tehran, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives. The matter is all the more absurd given that the *entirity* of the active duty U.S. Army is LESS than half that number. Meaning: the U.S. embarked on a war of choice against a "mountain fortress" of a country, with insufficient combat power to defeat them, while setting unattainable political objectives for the military to try and accomplish. In other words, failure was baked in because of the mismatch. 📺 Watch the full, urgent breakdown on Daniel Davis Deep Dive now. 👉 #IranWar #MiddleEastConflict #DouglasMacgregor #DanielDavis #USStrategy #Geopolitics #NationalSecurity #ForeignPolicy #BreakingNews #Trump #Israel #PersianGulf

Daniel Davis Deep Dive

13,673 views • 4 months ago

🇮🇷🇴🇲🇺🇸⚡️ Iran and Oman have reached an agreement on a plan for the safe transit of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, marking a potentially important step toward restoring commercial navigation through one of the world’s most critical energy corridors. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said the agreement followed positive progress in negotiations “despite U.S. obstruction” and resulted from coordinated work involving Iran’s foreign, defense, security and environmental authorities. Talks between Tehran and Muscat on other issues remain ongoing, but Baghaei stressed that the agreement establishing a safe maritime route through Hormuz is a separate arrangement. The breakthrough could ease immediate pressure on shipping, but it does not resolve the broader U.S.-Iran confrontation. Tehran insists full security in Hormuz cannot be restored while U.S. naval sanctions, military deployments and the blockade remain in place. The emerging arrangement therefore looks less like a final settlement and more like an attempt to reopen maritime traffic while Iran preserves the Strait itself as leverage in its wider confrontation with Washington. See the latest updates with us: Visioner
0:26

🇮🇷🇴🇲🇺🇸⚡️ Iran and Oman have reached an agreement on a plan for the safe transit of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, marking a potentially important step toward restoring commercial navigation through one of the world’s most critical energy corridors. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said the agreement followed positive progress in negotiations “despite U.S. obstruction” and resulted from coordinated work involving Iran’s foreign, defense, security and environmental authorities. Talks between Tehran and Muscat on other issues remain ongoing, but Baghaei stressed that the agreement establishing a safe maritime route through Hormuz is a separate arrangement. The breakthrough could ease immediate pressure on shipping, but it does not resolve the broader U.S.-Iran confrontation. Tehran insists full security in Hormuz cannot be restored while U.S. naval sanctions, military deployments and the blockade remain in place. The emerging arrangement therefore looks less like a final settlement and more like an attempt to reopen maritime traffic while Iran preserves the Strait itself as leverage in its wider confrontation with Washington. See the latest updates with us: Visioner

Visioner

18,181 views • 1 month ago

BREAKING: Tonight, the U.S. military carried out strikes against IRGC Navy targets following another deadly attack on commercial shipping in and around the Strait of Hormuz. Earlier today, the Antigua and Barbuda-flagged bulk carrier MV Cape Dao was attacked by means of Iranian one-way attack drones while sailing toward India near the Strait of Hormuz. The attack killed Indian seafarer Suraj Yadav, a 26-year-old wiper from Deoria, Uttar Pradesh. According to the Forward Seamen’s Union of India (FSUI), MV Cape Dao was carrying 28 crew members, including 20 Indians, when it was struck twice on its port side—one hit affecting the C-deck accommodation area and another striking the hull near the engine room. The Indian government confirmed the death of an Indian national and condemned the continuing attacks against commercial shipping, seafarers and civilian infrastructure in the region. The timing of tonight’s U.S. strikes follows the latest attack on commercial shipping, although an official U.S. statement establishing that the strikes were specifically ordered in retaliation for the attack on MV Cape Dao has not yet been confirmed.
0:04

BREAKING: Tonight, the U.S. military carried out strikes against IRGC Navy targets following another deadly attack on commercial shipping in and around the Strait of Hormuz. Earlier today, the Antigua and Barbuda-flagged bulk carrier MV Cape Dao was attacked by means of Iranian one-way attack drones while sailing toward India near the Strait of Hormuz. The attack killed Indian seafarer Suraj Yadav, a 26-year-old wiper from Deoria, Uttar Pradesh. According to the Forward Seamen’s Union of India (FSUI), MV Cape Dao was carrying 28 crew members, including 20 Indians, when it was struck twice on its port side—one hit affecting the C-deck accommodation area and another striking the hull near the engine room. The Indian government confirmed the death of an Indian national and condemned the continuing attacks against commercial shipping, seafarers and civilian infrastructure in the region. The timing of tonight’s U.S. strikes follows the latest attack on commercial shipping, although an official U.S. statement establishing that the strikes were specifically ordered in retaliation for the attack on MV Cape Dao has not yet been confirmed.

Babak Taghvaee - The Crisis Watch

27,510 views • 5 days ago

This week on The Big 3, CPA economists Mihir Torsekar and Andrew Rechenberg sit down with Ben Carlson of SAFE's (SAFE) Center for Strategic Industrial Materials to examine China’s growing dominance in steel, aluminum, and copper—and what it means for America’s industrial future. The conversation centers on SAFE’s new report, "Strategic Surpluses: China’s Economic Warfare on Major Metals," which argues that China’s vast production capacity is not simply the result of market forces or planning mistakes. Instead, Carlson explains how Beijing has deliberately cultivated strategic surpluses across key industrial sectors, creating manufacturing capacity that can support economic objectives in peacetime and national security objectives during periods of conflict. The discussion explores the staggering scale of China’s metal production, the role of state support and industrial subsidies, and the consequences for American manufacturers. Carlson also explains why tariffs, while important, are often insufficient on their own. Through transshipment, tariff inversion, and complex global supply chains, subsidized Chinese inputs can still find their way into the U.S. market through finished products. Finally, the episode turns to solutions. What would a successful American industrial strategy actually look like? The answer goes beyond tariffs to include energy policy, infrastructure investment, permitting reform, recycling, and stronger rules of origin that align domestic demand with domestic production. For anyone interested in trade, manufacturing, national security, or industrial policy, this is an essential conversation about one of the defining economic challenges of our time. 🔊 Listen on Apple: 🔊 Listen on Spotify:
42:58

This week on The Big 3, CPA economists Mihir Torsekar and Andrew Rechenberg sit down with Ben Carlson of SAFE's (SAFE) Center for Strategic Industrial Materials to examine China’s growing dominance in steel, aluminum, and copper—and what it means for America’s industrial future. The conversation centers on SAFE’s new report, "Strategic Surpluses: China’s Economic Warfare on Major Metals," which argues that China’s vast production capacity is not simply the result of market forces or planning mistakes. Instead, Carlson explains how Beijing has deliberately cultivated strategic surpluses across key industrial sectors, creating manufacturing capacity that can support economic objectives in peacetime and national security objectives during periods of conflict. The discussion explores the staggering scale of China’s metal production, the role of state support and industrial subsidies, and the consequences for American manufacturers. Carlson also explains why tariffs, while important, are often insufficient on their own. Through transshipment, tariff inversion, and complex global supply chains, subsidized Chinese inputs can still find their way into the U.S. market through finished products. Finally, the episode turns to solutions. What would a successful American industrial strategy actually look like? The answer goes beyond tariffs to include energy policy, infrastructure investment, permitting reform, recycling, and stronger rules of origin that align domestic demand with domestic production. For anyone interested in trade, manufacturing, national security, or industrial policy, this is an essential conversation about one of the defining economic challenges of our time. 🔊 Listen on Apple: 🔊 Listen on Spotify:

The Coalition for a Prosperous America

139,253 views • 3 months ago

🇰🇷🇺🇸 BREAKING - South Korean industrial giants Hanwha, Samsung, and Hyundai Heavy Industries have launched active cooperation with the Pentagon to help revive U.S. shipbuilding and accelerate the construction and repair of military vessels. 🔻 As part of this cooperation, Hyundai has restored a strategic shipyard in Subic Bay, Philippines, establishing a major hub for servicing frigates and patrol ships, with discussions also underway on the production of combat units. 🔻 Hanwha, which acquired Philly Shipyard in Philadelphia, is creating two centers: one as a production base in Philadelphia and another as a repair hub in Busan, South Korea, where up to 11 U.S. naval vessels are expected to be serviced annually. 🔻 Samsung Heavy Industries has signed an agreement with Vigor Marine Group and will work simultaneously at five American shipyards, while also investing in the retraining of the U.S. workforce. 🔻 Altogether, these steps are creating a unified and sustainable network for joint fleet production and maintenance, where South Korean expertise and advanced technologies are integrated with U.S. infrastructure and labor. 🔻 For the U.S. Navy, this represents an opportunity to speed up shipbuilding and repair — a critical need amid existing delays and capacity shortages, as well as growing competition with China at sea. See the latest updates with us: Visioner
0:33

🇰🇷🇺🇸 BREAKING - South Korean industrial giants Hanwha, Samsung, and Hyundai Heavy Industries have launched active cooperation with the Pentagon to help revive U.S. shipbuilding and accelerate the construction and repair of military vessels. 🔻 As part of this cooperation, Hyundai has restored a strategic shipyard in Subic Bay, Philippines, establishing a major hub for servicing frigates and patrol ships, with discussions also underway on the production of combat units. 🔻 Hanwha, which acquired Philly Shipyard in Philadelphia, is creating two centers: one as a production base in Philadelphia and another as a repair hub in Busan, South Korea, where up to 11 U.S. naval vessels are expected to be serviced annually. 🔻 Samsung Heavy Industries has signed an agreement with Vigor Marine Group and will work simultaneously at five American shipyards, while also investing in the retraining of the U.S. workforce. 🔻 Altogether, these steps are creating a unified and sustainable network for joint fleet production and maintenance, where South Korean expertise and advanced technologies are integrated with U.S. infrastructure and labor. 🔻 For the U.S. Navy, this represents an opportunity to speed up shipbuilding and repair — a critical need amid existing delays and capacity shortages, as well as growing competition with China at sea. See the latest updates with us: Visioner

Visioner

1,192,271 views • 1 year ago

🇻🇪 At today’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on U.S. actions in Venezuela, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul clashed over how the U.S. justifies the military operation that kidnapped Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela. Rubio defended the mission as a law‑enforcement style action when asked whether the operation was an act of war, saying, “We just don't believe that this operation comes anywhere close to the constitutional definition” — even as critics argue the bombing, capture of a foreign head of state, and blockade clearly resemble an act of war. The administration insists there’s no war and no occupation, despite ongoing military and naval involvement. Paul pressed the point: if a foreign power did the same to the U.S. — bombing air defenses, capturing a president, and blockading the country — of course it would be considered an act of war. Rubio refused to concede that. Senators also pressed the secretary on the White House's long-term vision for Venezuela. Sen. Murphy asked about a timeline for a "democratic transition" but Rubio did not take a firm position, only committing to updating Congress on progress on U.S. priorities in the coming months while also walking back his recent threats of future military action against interim President Delcy Rodríguez. Rubio insisted that Trump reserves the right to act in the case of an imminent attack, repeatedly offering the hypothetical of an Iran-built a drone factory inside Venezuela as an acceptable justification for a new attack. Rubio insisted that the focus of the U.S. in the South American country right now is "stabilization, recovery, and transition" and not regime change, adding, "We should not confuse stabilization with transition."
1:26

🇻🇪 At today’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on U.S. actions in Venezuela, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul clashed over how the U.S. justifies the military operation that kidnapped Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela. Rubio defended the mission as a law‑enforcement style action when asked whether the operation was an act of war, saying, “We just don't believe that this operation comes anywhere close to the constitutional definition” — even as critics argue the bombing, capture of a foreign head of state, and blockade clearly resemble an act of war. The administration insists there’s no war and no occupation, despite ongoing military and naval involvement. Paul pressed the point: if a foreign power did the same to the U.S. — bombing air defenses, capturing a president, and blockading the country — of course it would be considered an act of war. Rubio refused to concede that. Senators also pressed the secretary on the White House's long-term vision for Venezuela. Sen. Murphy asked about a timeline for a "democratic transition" but Rubio did not take a firm position, only committing to updating Congress on progress on U.S. priorities in the coming months while also walking back his recent threats of future military action against interim President Delcy Rodríguez. Rubio insisted that Trump reserves the right to act in the case of an imminent attack, repeatedly offering the hypothetical of an Iran-built a drone factory inside Venezuela as an acceptable justification for a new attack. Rubio insisted that the focus of the U.S. in the South American country right now is "stabilization, recovery, and transition" and not regime change, adding, "We should not confuse stabilization with transition."

Drop Site

13,077 views • 8 months ago

⭕️ REPORT | US and Iran in “War of Endurance” Over Strait of Hormuz US and Iran are settling into a drawn-out fight over the Strait of Hormuz, with each side betting it can outlast the other, the Wall Street Journal wrote. 🔸U.S. forces fired missiles into the smokestack of a Curaçao-flagged oil tanker, the Belma, disabling it as it sailed toward Iran’s Kharg Island amid the reimposed U.S. blockade, Central Command said Wednesday, the first commercial ship the U.S. has struck since the blockade resumed. 🔸Two other ships have been redirected since the blockade was resumed. 🔸No Iranian attacks were reported on vessels in the Strait in the past 24 hours. Kelly Grieco (Kelly Grieco), a Stimson Center senior fellow, said on X that the U.S. strategy in the fight for control of the Strait of Hormuz could be following three paths: 1) “break Iran’s kill chain” by targeting the radars, surveillance sites and communications relays that connect “a sensor to a shooter”; 2) “catch the arrows” by intercepting large volume of Iranian missiles and drones before they hit ships; 3) pursue punishment by escalating costs on Iran by striking Iran until it stops attacking commercial vessels. She said the administration has not said which strategy it is pursuing, “possibly because it hasn’t decided.” Researcher Rosemary Kelanic said in comments to WSJ: "Iran basically thinks that it can attack enough vessels that they’ll effectively suppress shipping in the strait. Trump seems to think the U.S. has found a way to get significant quantities of oil out of Hormuz, even if the Iranians don’t cooperate.” “Who's right? We're currently running the experiment.” 🎥 Clip via Al Jazeera
1:18

⭕️ REPORT | US and Iran in “War of Endurance” Over Strait of Hormuz US and Iran are settling into a drawn-out fight over the Strait of Hormuz, with each side betting it can outlast the other, the Wall Street Journal wrote. 🔸U.S. forces fired missiles into the smokestack of a Curaçao-flagged oil tanker, the Belma, disabling it as it sailed toward Iran’s Kharg Island amid the reimposed U.S. blockade, Central Command said Wednesday, the first commercial ship the U.S. has struck since the blockade resumed. 🔸Two other ships have been redirected since the blockade was resumed. 🔸No Iranian attacks were reported on vessels in the Strait in the past 24 hours. Kelly Grieco (Kelly Grieco), a Stimson Center senior fellow, said on X that the U.S. strategy in the fight for control of the Strait of Hormuz could be following three paths: 1) “break Iran’s kill chain” by targeting the radars, surveillance sites and communications relays that connect “a sensor to a shooter”; 2) “catch the arrows” by intercepting large volume of Iranian missiles and drones before they hit ships; 3) pursue punishment by escalating costs on Iran by striking Iran until it stops attacking commercial vessels. She said the administration has not said which strategy it is pursuing, “possibly because it hasn’t decided.” Researcher Rosemary Kelanic said in comments to WSJ: "Iran basically thinks that it can attack enough vessels that they’ll effectively suppress shipping in the strait. Trump seems to think the U.S. has found a way to get significant quantities of oil out of Hormuz, even if the Iranians don’t cooperate.” “Who's right? We're currently running the experiment.” 🎥 Clip via Al Jazeera

Drop Site

48,550 views • 2 months ago

KABOOM 💥💥💥 President Trump dropped two executive orders today aimed straight at birthright citizenship and the “birth tourism” industry 1. Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship —— Draws a tighter circle on automatic citizenship. Agencies can’t recognize it for U.S.-born kids when neither parent is a citizen and the parents are: • Alien enemies (terrorists/designated groups) • Certain foreign diplomats/agents • Running commercial or fraud schemes (including surrogacy) to buy citizenship • Or the birth is in a U.S. territory without statutory citizenship. 2. Ending Birth Tourism: — This one goes after the business model itself. It officially defines birth tourism as flying in on a tourist visa just to deliver a baby and snag U.S. citizenship for the child — then hands the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security full power to: - Deny and revoke visas - Block entry - kick people out - Shut down the facilitators and operators - Exemptions only for genuine humanitarian or national-interest cases. This is a great start.
3:20

KABOOM 💥💥💥 President Trump dropped two executive orders today aimed straight at birthright citizenship and the “birth tourism” industry 1. Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship —— Draws a tighter circle on automatic citizenship. Agencies can’t recognize it for U.S.-born kids when neither parent is a citizen and the parents are: • Alien enemies (terrorists/designated groups) • Certain foreign diplomats/agents • Running commercial or fraud schemes (including surrogacy) to buy citizenship • Or the birth is in a U.S. territory without statutory citizenship. 2. Ending Birth Tourism: — This one goes after the business model itself. It officially defines birth tourism as flying in on a tourist visa just to deliver a baby and snag U.S. citizenship for the child — then hands the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security full power to: - Deny and revoke visas - Block entry - kick people out - Shut down the facilitators and operators - Exemptions only for genuine humanitarian or national-interest cases. This is a great start.

MJTruthUltra

48,848 views • 1 month ago

New: Why Should We Care if China Dominates Maritime East Asia? In Episode 163, Ray Powell and Jim speak with retired U.S. Navy Captain Brent D. Sadler, a career submariner, former U.S. defense attaché in Malaysia, Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow and author of two books: U.S. Naval Power in the 21st Century and Naval Power in Action: Seizing the Initiative in the New Cold War with China. Sadler’s answer is blunt: China is exercising growing control over maritime East Asia, as Beijing has spent decades building the military, commercial, and political leverage to do exactly that. He says this is not just a question of aircraft carriers, missiles, and hull counts, but also about China’s strategic commercial footprint in ports, shipping and repair infrastructure, distant-water fishing fleets, maritime militia, and the China Coast Guard. Ray and Jim ask what it means that China’s coast guard vessels are operating east of Taiwan. Are these deployments preparation for a possible blockade? Why are fishing fleets moving in organized formations? And how could Beijing use gray-zone coercion to change the status quo before anyone agrees that a crisis has begun? The conversation also examines the recent China-Russia naval exercises and potential for submarine technology transfer, Russian pressure on Japan around the Kuril Islands, and Beijing’s efforts to turn even limited naval interactions with countries such as Indonesia into political and propaganda victories. Sadler explains why Southeast Asian leaders’ rhetoric must be weighed against what matters on the water: maritime rights, military exercises, commercial ties, and freedom of navigation. Finally, Sadler assesses the military balance approaching the much-discussed 2027 window of war concerns, China’s Taiwan contingency preparations, gaps in America’s carrier presence in the Indo-Pacific, U.S. shipbuilding deficits, the future of unmanned vessels, and what Ukraine’s drone war may mean for Taiwan and regional partners. Sadler’s larger warning is that maritime control is no longer just a contest of fleets, but a contest of coercion, commerce, access, and political will; one in which Beijing can test regional governments, reshape behavior below the threshold of war, and learn whether America and its allies will respond before temporary pressure becomes a permanent advantage. Links to the full episode below.
2:06

New: Why Should We Care if China Dominates Maritime East Asia? In Episode 163, Ray Powell and Jim speak with retired U.S. Navy Captain Brent D. Sadler, a career submariner, former U.S. defense attaché in Malaysia, Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow and author of two books: U.S. Naval Power in the 21st Century and Naval Power in Action: Seizing the Initiative in the New Cold War with China. Sadler’s answer is blunt: China is exercising growing control over maritime East Asia, as Beijing has spent decades building the military, commercial, and political leverage to do exactly that. He says this is not just a question of aircraft carriers, missiles, and hull counts, but also about China’s strategic commercial footprint in ports, shipping and repair infrastructure, distant-water fishing fleets, maritime militia, and the China Coast Guard. Ray and Jim ask what it means that China’s coast guard vessels are operating east of Taiwan. Are these deployments preparation for a possible blockade? Why are fishing fleets moving in organized formations? And how could Beijing use gray-zone coercion to change the status quo before anyone agrees that a crisis has begun? The conversation also examines the recent China-Russia naval exercises and potential for submarine technology transfer, Russian pressure on Japan around the Kuril Islands, and Beijing’s efforts to turn even limited naval interactions with countries such as Indonesia into political and propaganda victories. Sadler explains why Southeast Asian leaders’ rhetoric must be weighed against what matters on the water: maritime rights, military exercises, commercial ties, and freedom of navigation. Finally, Sadler assesses the military balance approaching the much-discussed 2027 window of war concerns, China’s Taiwan contingency preparations, gaps in America’s carrier presence in the Indo-Pacific, U.S. shipbuilding deficits, the future of unmanned vessels, and what Ukraine’s drone war may mean for Taiwan and regional partners. Sadler’s larger warning is that maritime control is no longer just a contest of fleets, but a contest of coercion, commerce, access, and political will; one in which Beijing can test regional governments, reshape behavior below the threshold of war, and learn whether America and its allies will respond before temporary pressure becomes a permanent advantage. Links to the full episode below.

Why Should We Care: Indo-Pacific Pod

17,222 views • 1 month ago

China just released an audio recording of a recent radio exchange between Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force and the Chinese Navy. The Japanese side identified itself by saying: "This is Japan Navy." The Chinese Navy immediately responded: Your so-called Japan Navy has violated your own constitution. To understand how inappropriate "Japan Navy" is, imagine an employee whose official title is "staff member" walking into a board meeting and declaring: "Good morning. I'm the chairman." That is exactly what happened on the radio. A self-defense force is the strictly defensive organization Japan was permitted to retain after WWII. A navy is a full military branch of a sovereign state, capable of offensive operations. The distance between the two words is huge enough to separate the postwar order from its collapse. According to Article 9 of Japan's Constitution: "Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained." And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Consider Japan's growing list of "small moves" in recent years. 1. Using offensive weapons in military exercises 2. Sending vessels of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force to pass through the Taiwan Strait 3. Putting an active-duty service member on the ruling party's stage 4. Promoting discussions on nuclear deterrence One word at a time. One step at a time. From "self-defense force" to "navy." From "exclusively defense-oriented" to counterstrike capabilities. From preserving the pacifist Constitution to campaigning for constitutional revision. From honoring three nonnuclear principles to opening questioning nuclear taboos. Taken together, they reveal a much larger transformation: A force created in the name of self-defense is gradually shedding that label and reclaiming the identity of a full-fledged military, inch by inch. The most important changes often do not begin with a declaration. Sometimes, they begin with a few words over the radio: "This is Japan Navy." And history is watching who lets them pass.
0:27

China just released an audio recording of a recent radio exchange between Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force and the Chinese Navy. The Japanese side identified itself by saying: "This is Japan Navy." The Chinese Navy immediately responded: Your so-called Japan Navy has violated your own constitution. To understand how inappropriate "Japan Navy" is, imagine an employee whose official title is "staff member" walking into a board meeting and declaring: "Good morning. I'm the chairman." That is exactly what happened on the radio. A self-defense force is the strictly defensive organization Japan was permitted to retain after WWII. A navy is a full military branch of a sovereign state, capable of offensive operations. The distance between the two words is huge enough to separate the postwar order from its collapse. According to Article 9 of Japan's Constitution: "Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained." And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Consider Japan's growing list of "small moves" in recent years. 1. Using offensive weapons in military exercises 2. Sending vessels of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force to pass through the Taiwan Strait 3. Putting an active-duty service member on the ruling party's stage 4. Promoting discussions on nuclear deterrence One word at a time. One step at a time. From "self-defense force" to "navy." From "exclusively defense-oriented" to counterstrike capabilities. From preserving the pacifist Constitution to campaigning for constitutional revision. From honoring three nonnuclear principles to opening questioning nuclear taboos. Taken together, they reveal a much larger transformation: A force created in the name of self-defense is gradually shedding that label and reclaiming the identity of a full-fledged military, inch by inch. The most important changes often do not begin with a declaration. Sometimes, they begin with a few words over the radio: "This is Japan Navy." And history is watching who lets them pass.

Zhai Xiang

224,244 views • 2 months ago