FMC Nominees & the Arctic Watch: The Future of Maritime Policy and Chokepoints

Senate hearings meet Arctic geopolitics. This week’s episode breaks down how U.S. maritime nominees outlined plans to rebuild industrial strength and restore competitiveness—while Russia and China formalized their Northern Sea Route partnership, raising questions about access, influence, and the future of global chokepoints.  

Expanded Description:
In this episode of By Land and By Sea, Lauren unpacks two developments shaping the future of maritime policy and global trade. 

⚓ On Capitol Hill: The Senate Commerce Committee vetted nominees for the Federal Maritime Commission (Robert Harvey and Laura DiBella) and the Maritime Administration (Stephen Carmel). Carmel highlighted that it’s not just about ships—it’s about cargo. Harvey emphasized the impact of enforcement actions and even explained his Great Lakes ties, while DiBella focused on fairness and transparency in detention and demurrage practices and across the supply chain ecosystem. 

🔹 And another thing... Chairman Ted Cruz called for a maritime strategy centered on removing regulatory barriers, modernizing ports, and attracting private capital—signaling bipartisan recognition that maritime competitiveness is national security. 

❄️ Meanwhile, in the Arctic: Russia and China signed a deal to co-develop the Northern Sea Route—the same corridor the FMC flagged as a potential chokepoint. Perhaps the risk isn’t just ice; it might also be access. As these nations coordinate on policy, infrastructure, and fees, the FMC’s chokepoint investigation becomes even more relevant to ensuring global cargo flow remains open and fair. 

🎓 Just-in-Time Learning™ Spotlight:
If all of this has you wondering—“Wait… which agency deals with what?”—you’re not alone.
Check out my less than 30-minute course 👉 “FMC vs MARAD: Who Does What in Maritime Washington” at TheMaritimeProfessor.com
.
It’s plain language, practical.

🎧 Episode: “FMC Nominees & the Arctic Watch: The Future of Maritime Policy and Chokepoints”
👉 Listen now: www.TheMaritimeProfessor.com/podcast
 

#maritime #shipping #FMC #MARAD #supplychain #maritimepolicy #ByLandAndBySea #TheMaritimeProfessor #NorthernSeaRoute #industrialbase #chokepoints 

Chapters

• 0:01 Headlines: DC And The Arctic
• 0:21 Big Question: America’s Maritime Muscle
• 1:40 Senate Hearing Sets The Tone
• 3:47 Why A Real Maritime Strategy Matters
• 6:14 Stephen Carmel’s Case For Demand
• 10:45 Ships Act, Trust Fund, And Cargo
• 14:30 Ranking America As A Maritime Nation
• 17:31 Port Tech And Productivity
• 18:42 Laura DiBella On FMC Guardrails
• 22:20 Enforcement Vs Diagnosis At FMC
• 24:18 Bob Harvey: Enforcement With Restraint

Transcript

SPEAKER_00: 0:01

Ready to go. You're listening to By Land and By Sea, powered by the Maritime Professor. Are shaping maritime headlines this week. One flowing through Washington and one cutting across the Arctic ice. In DC, senators vetted three maritime nominees who could shape how the U.S. rebuilds its maritime strength. And thousands of miles away, in the northern region, Russia and China are finalizing a pact to co-develop the Northern Sea route. Sounds familiar, it should. The very corridor the FMC has already flagged as one to watch. Both stories ask the same question. Can America strengthen its maritime muscle while keeping the world's trade lanes open and fair, or at least watching them? Hi, welcome back to Byland and by Sea, an attorney breaking down the weekend supply chain, presented by me, the Maritime Professor. I'm Lauren Beegan, former FMC International Affairs Attorney and founder of the Maritime Professor and Squall Strategies. By Land and By Sea is your go-to resource for navigating the regulatory side of global ocean shipping. And me, I'm your favorite maritime attorney. As always, the guidance service general and for educational purposes only, it should not be considered legal advice. There's no attorney client privilege created by this video or this podcast. This is plain language maritime created so that anybody, not just lawyers or insiders, can understand what's really happening out there. Now let's dive in because as you know, ocean shipping moves the world. All right. Well, the first story, let's get right into it. This week, the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Senator Ted Cruz, held a hearing that could set the tone for the next phase of U.S. maritime policy. And you know we're watching it. We have been watching all of this unfold. So Ted Cruz opened with a clear theme. We need a maritime strategy focused on removing regulatory barriers. Now, look, I love that for two reasons. One, we need a maritime strategy. We've been saying this. If you were to go back and look at every recommendation series from MIT Snack, the Maritime Transportation System National Advisory Committee, you will see, at least for the past 10 years, at least, maybe longer, they've been calling for an actual maritime strategy. And for Ted Cruz, Senator Cruz, to open up this hearing with, we need a maritime strategy. I mean, that was that was fantastic. And then focused on removing regulatory barriers, we just got to get there, right? We just got to get moving on the maritime side. So he's saying we got to focus on the maritime strategy, removing these regulatory barriers so ports, shipyards, and carriers can actually compete. And that's the part that I really want to see, the competition part. We can't just prop it up. We have to have it be competitive. And he said it straight: streamline regulation, increase port productivity, shore up the merchant marine, and ensure the free flow of commerce. Easier said than done, but I love that the intention is out there. And that tone carried through the hearing, which it kind of felt less like introductions of new nominees and more like an audit of America's maritime pulse. And certainly maybe even edging on the side of like a brainstorming session, similar to one that USTR had taken when they were doing their section 301 and they had the whole industry come together. Here we had three, well, we had four nominees, but three maritime nominees, two FMC, one mayorad, coming together and asked, being asked very specific questions on how they plan to move us forward as a maritime nation. First up, first to speak with Stephen Carmel. He's nominated to head mayorad after decades with Mayor's Land Limited, and he didn't sugarcoat it. And I really liked his approach. I had followed him a little bit on some of the media outlets that I've seen him appear on, and he's given a couple of remarks, but actually hearing him just not slice and dice it and come to the table with just such a clear vision of where we go with Maread, I was really impressed. I thought he did a great job. Sang Yi, the current acting maritime administrator, has been doing a fantastic job in that role. And so honestly, I was kind of thinking, all right, Steve's gonna have to bring it. Steve Carmel's gonna have to bring it in my mind if I think that he is going to do a good job or a better job than Sang. And I don't know if he'll do a better job, but he will at least do just as fantastic of a job. I feel it in my heart. I think he will. I've I'm excited for him. I think that this is great and he has a very clear vision. But like I said, he is a longtime Marisline Limited executive. He he is he's which means he's been in the U.S. maritime system. So Marisline Limited is the U.S. branch of the otherwise global company of Mares. So Marisline Limited, he was also a U.S. Merchant Marine Academy graduate, so King's Pointer. His testimony echoed what he's been saying publicly for years. The U.S. has become a naval power without becoming a maritime power. And he told senators bluntly, we do not carry our own commerce, meaning we don't carry our own cargo. He said, we do not carry our own commerce for ships and international trade. We can't build them at all. A strong maritime sector isn't nostalgia, it's strategy. What a great sentence. Oh my goodness. I loved it. I thought that he was right on. So Carmel also supports the Ships for America Act. He said that very plainly. And what the Ships Act, we've talked about it a little bit, but it seeks to rebuild domestic shipbuilding capacity and generate cargo preference for U.S. flag carriers. He linked that to President Trump's April Executive Order on Maritime Dominance and the proposed maritime security trust fund, one that he brought up a few times, emphasizing that it's not just about ships, it's about cargo. And I love that he said that because I have been feeling so much that all we're talking about is ships, and all we're talking about is military ships. And we can't only talk about military ships, we have to talk about commercial ships, and we have to talk about the cargo that goes on them. And I'm so happy that he said that. It's not just about the ships, it's about the cargo. So without demand generation, he warned shipyards and mariner pipelines alike will continue to erode without demand generation. Haven't I been saying this? I mean, if you can't tell, I am jazzed about Steve Carmel taking this role. I love that focus on the commercial side. We can't just keep doing what we've always done and expect a different result. We have to focus on the cargo. We have to be just as competitive in the ocean shipment of goods. Now, when Senator Moreno asked where the U.S. ranks as a maritime nation, he said, top 10, top five, where do you think we are? Carmel replied, and almost a little bit like I hate to say it, but he said, I'm not even sure we're on the scale. And I mean it's true, right? Right now, current today, how we rank as a maritime nation. We can get back there, but today, which means he understands the severity. He reminded everyone that America won World War II because it could build fast and at scale. And that industrial capacity, Carmel says, has since rotted. He said every time we've needed to ramp up production for a war, we did. But then that boom and bust, we let it collapse again. Now we said Carmel's focus on demand generation, not just fleet funding, not just building ships, shows his commercial instincts. As he put it, it's hard to attract people into the industry if the ship or job they signed on to isn't there a year later. Now that's a clear signal. Rebuild confidence first, cargo will follow. But also, I love that he's so focused on cargo. He clearly and strongly backs the Ships for America Act and a maritime security trust fund, both designed to redesign and revive shipbuilding through cargo preference and predictable demand. And like I said, I just keep saying it. He did such a good job about mentioning that we need the market-driven demand. We need to be competitive with cargo. He also echoed Cruz's port modernization message, basically saying, use tech to enhance labor, not replace it, but we have to enhance our ports. Now, the next nominee up was Laura Dabella. Laura is known very well across Florida's maritime scene. She was the former port director at Ferdinandina. She was the past head of the Florida Harbor Pilots Association. Now, to go from both a port to the Pilots Association means that she's been in the gritty, she's been in the maritime industry. She has been there, she has been part of the actual boots on the dock, right? But then she also rose to be the state's first female Secretary of Commerce. She emphasized in her remarks oversight and transparency within the FMC's limited but critical mandate, particularly when dealing with the dozen or so carriers that now handle nearly all U.S. cargo. But her takeaway was certainly the carriers make the market, but the FMC can ensure good oversight and fair treatment of shippers. And that aligns exactly with the mission of the FMC, right? It's for the benefit of the U.S. importer, exporter, and consumer. And they really regulate and monitor the fair and efficient movement of goods. She kept saying that, the fair and efficient movement of goods. She's to efficiency, pointing out that demerge and detention enforcement shouldn't just punish, it should reveal why cargo is delayed. And I think that that's an important distinction and something that the FMC needs to understand what's happening in the ecosystem. And she even used the word ecosystem. I believe Bob Harvey did as well. They need to understand the ecosystem to understand where those guardrails should be applied. And I applaud the FMC for years and years and years, and probably attributed to the current FMC Commissioner Rebecca Dye. We did an interview with her, I believe it was last season. Go back and listen to that. But I credit Commissioner Dye with helping to make sure that the FMC doesn't go above and beyond or mission creep into other areas. She has been such a strong voice for a guardrails approach to the FMC. And I think that that's fantastic. And I love that Laura now is coming in with not only an economic understanding from her F from her Florida experience, but also a larger picture understanding of the maritime industry from the ports and the pilots perspective, from that kind of operational perspective. There's a critical distinction. Enforcement is one thing, diagnosis is another, and that's something that the FMC can lean into with better data. And I think that that's something that the FMC will lean into. Then came Bob Harvey, Robert Harvey, a former Navy Jack and securities attorney with deep roots in the Midwest, which I mean, if you know me, actually, we we do have quite a few new listeners. If you don't know, and if you're watching my video, I have a little Michigan back there. I am from Michigan originally. So look, nothing gets my heart pumping like talking about the Great Lakes. So look, I love that he's got this Midwest background. He said plainly, nothing gets an industry member's attention like an enforcement action. He's worked, he said, on the other side. And so he understands the use and perhaps restraint of enforcement actions, but they do get the attention of the industry and they can be used effectively. Basically, to say he likes the authorities, or it seemed to say that he likes the authorities of the FMC and he can use them or would use them potentially in strategic ways that maintain fairness. They're not for overuse, right? It's that guardrails approach. But it's his economic development background. So he led Florida's Opportunity Fund and the Development Finance Corporation, and he suggested he'll bring a financial innovation angle to the FMC. He talked a lot about technological investment and how he's already been part of those conversations. He talked about using private capital and technology investment to modernize ports and streamline perhaps last mile delivery, showing a clean understanding of innovation can and should coexist. And when the conversation turned to the Great Lakes shipping, like I said, Harvey spoke from experience and he said, growing up in the Midwest, I think specifically it was Illinois, and watching de-industrialization hollow out maritime jobs, his quote was there's no way to restore maritime dominance without restoring industrial dominance. Now, that line to me kind of linked everything together: the enforcement, the efficiency, the real rebuilding of the base that makes any of it all possible. Now, this hearing seemed to focus a lot on reconstruction of confidence, of industry, and of policy, right? So Carmel reframe maritime as national security, which we have been talking about basically since forever one, but also the executive order of April 9th, where it plainly said restoring maritime dominance. And also the signal when Mike Waltz of the Kelly Waltz, that now is the SHIPS Act, when what when Mike Waltz was elevated up to national security advisor, that was part of the signal that maritime security under the Trump administration is national security. And that was something that Carmel really reaffirmed. Laura De Bella put efficiency and transparency at the center of shipper protection, a fantastic thing. Efficiency and transparency both are so critical to an effective and efficient ecosystem of supply chain. And Bob Harvey tied competition policy back to America's manufacturing backbone and really showed such a great understanding of, I mean, he's an attorney, right? So I would hope that he would understand the regulations well. And he did. And I think that he showed a really great understanding of when to effectively use and when to have effective restraint for that guardrail approach. All three of these nominees are fantastic as far as I'm concerned. And if they're all confirmed, and it seems like they probably will be, we're likely to see hopefully FMC, maybe not more aligned, but perhaps work together. So choke point monitoring on one side, domestic modernization on the other, but making sure that that maritime dominance, that that return to maritime dominance is one that is all agency-wide. If you deal with anything maritime, that it feels like everybody's on board with it. Now, if Congress picks up Cruz's call for a barrier removal maritime strategy, I think we're probably going to see more hearings on shipyard reform, Jones Act modernization, and port automation funding. And I don't think we're going to see the red tape. I think we're just going to see opportunities for long-term development of programs, perhaps, where funding opportunities can come in and hopefully grant development. Internationally, look, I think we're about to talk about it, the Northern Sea route. I think that we are going to see there's there's some things that I want to talk about for geopolitical influence here. Now, if you're sitting here thinking, wait, remind me, what's the difference between the FMC and Marad again? Don't worry, I created a just in time learning course for this. Go check out my course, FMC vs. Marad, who does what in Maritime at the W at the excuse me, at the Maritimeprofessor.com. It's less than 30 minutes, plain language, no government acronyms left unxplained. And yes, I even settled the age-old debate of who is better. No, I'm just kidding. It's just plain language, who's the FMC, who's Mayrad. Look, you get just a quick and dirty what you need to know about the difference. All right. Now the segment number two that I want to bring up, the Northern Sea route. Now, why am I bringing it up while we also have a nominees? Well, one for one thing, I just kind of grab bag on different stories, but for two, I think it relates to the FMC, and you'll see why. While the U.S. was talking about rebuilding its maritime muscle here, Russia and China were potentially expanding theirs, is what I'm seeing. They've now signed an agreement to jointly develop the Northern Sea route, the Arctic passage along Russia's coast that connects that connects Asia to Europe. Now, under this pact, Russia and China will reportedly coordinate on Arctic infrastructure, icebreaker fleets, and logistics. And there's already some promise of Costco shipping of China expected to increase transit under joint management. There's been some reports of shorter distances and effective transit routes through this area. Now they're calling it the transport artery of the 21st century. But here's where I want you, and I'm not saying too much about this because we still have to see what it looks like. But for the US, this route was called out by FMC's ongoing maritime choke points investigation. It was flagged as one that could evolve into a policy-driven bottleneck. Now, the commission's choke point and inquiry isn't just about narrow straights like Suez or Panama Canal. They're watching for policy leverage, right? That's what they're trying to figure out because they're looking at unfair or unreasonable practices out there in the world, and they have that authority under the Foreign Shipping Practices Act, which is something given to them by Congress, and Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. Both of those deal with foreign unfair or unreasonable practices and give the FMC to take corrective action, which could be a million dollars per voyage, could be turning away of flagged fleets, could be a whole host of things. Wouldn't that be wild if we were to get to a position where because of this northern sea route, Russia, China work together? I don't even want to say it. We could, the FMC could potentially turn away all Chinese flagged vessels if they found, now it's not just for geopolitical reasons, but if they found unfair or unreasonable activity happening by a country. Now it doesn't have to be the northern sea route of China. It's obviously the northern sea route of Russia. But if China is found to be part of that and the FMC finds that it is unfair or unreasonable, under this maritime choke point investigation, there might be another lever here to pull on the thousand cuts to China that the US seems to be taking, because we've already talked about Panama as one of those thousand cuts for leverage, right? And I think right now we are in the USTR port fees world, right? October 14th is when it all began. We saw the mirror, I talked about this last week. We saw the mirror response out of China, not escalation mirror, which to me signals some things that they were not escalating it, that perhaps they're not interested in the war or the trade spat. They just had to say face. They had to be exactly mirrored. But now, I don't know if they even, I'm sure they probably thought of this, but this Northern Sea route, it now adds China into one of these routes where the FMC, one of the corrective actions that's exactly listed, is turning away of flag vessels. Now, if China has flagged and they're found, like I said, to be unfair or unreasonable. This investigation, maritime choke points, just got a whole lot more interesting. But look, the net the Northern Sea route, Russia already controls passage through and it permits and mandatory through permits and mandatory icebreaker escorts. And that's kind of why it was identified as one of these maritime choke points to watch. Now add China, both its capital, its vessels, its its presence, its maritime dominance, really right now, suddenly the rules of the Arctic access become a bilateral policy decision. Not necessarily, it could still be, but not necessarily, right? This is what we want to watch. Open market conditions. Look, the Northern Sea route is not blocked yet. It's not blocked. It seems to be something that continues to move vessels. However, that's why it's on the maritime choke points, because they want to know more about what are some of those permits and mandatory icebreaker escorts. Are they fair? Are they facilitating the free and efficient movement of goods? This partnership is a little bit problematic because it could formalize the potential for more selective access. And that's why the FMC is right to keep it on the radar. And I think probably worthy of looking into this new I look, I think it's worthy of just taking a good look at, right? That's what I'm trying to say. I think that the FMC, through its maritime choke points, as it will do with all the identified seven choke points that they that it mentioned, but then perhaps any others out there, look, I think they just need to take a look at this. And I think that there could be, as shippers that are listening to this podcast, I think that there's some potential for if you if your vessels that you're looking at potentially are going through this area, if you are shipping on Chinese vessels, I think these are all things to be very aware of. And they play into a larger geopolitics discussion. However, I'm focused on the maritime side of things, so I don't want to go too far into the geopolitics again, but like I said, maritime choke points just got more interesting at the FMC. So what I'm watching, right? Governance is the new geography. Physical choke points are predictable, regulatory ones aren't. Russia-China coordination potentially equals leverage. They might be testing what influence through infrastructure really looks like. We've seen it a couple different areas. Perhaps we're seeing it here. And the FMC's foresight on this one matters. It was one of the few U.S. agencies studying these issues and continuing to study them before they erupt into crisis. Now, what I'm watching is how Russia sets next season's access and icebreaker fees, right? We are heading into the winter and whether any of these Costco investments or Chinese investments, or if there are getting investments or just political discussions, are getting any preferential treatment. And I think that's the fairness piece that the FMC will partly look at. So what ties Washington hearings and Arctic routes together? Capacity, right? The US is trying to rebuild it. Russia and China are at least in this one area, could be seen as squeezing it. That's the concern. That's the that's what we need to watch for. And Cruz's call for removing regulatory barriers, Carmel's warning about a decayed industrial base and Harvey's Great Lakes, deindustrialization, realism all converge on a single truth. You can't have maritime dominance without industrial capacity. And I think that this is something that we continue to talk about. I always bring up this F-150 of a traditional vessel versus a cyber truck of a cool new model of a vessel. I think that that will help draw some of that industrial capacity or certainly the industrial workforce back because all of a sudden we go from perhaps a very low number of workers who are interested in being in the industrial side of things to now they can tell their friends, do you know if I'm working on that new ship? Do you know? Um, yeah, I get to go and I get to work on that. That's that's part of what we're building at that place, right? If there's some excitement there. And certainly I think there's also excitement for the F-150s because look, we're we're I built that ship that our US cargo is now moving on, right? There's gotta be that pride. And I think there is inherently in the industry, anyways, right? We are a very this is a passion industry. Maritime is a passion industry, and I think we are all passionate and we all want to be and continue to be excited. There's just more excitement here. We gotta, we gotta get more people excited about doing this and proud to share what they're doing. Look, this is one of those rare weeks when all parts of the maritime conversation, policy, industry, and security, all come together. The question is can we keep the alignment long enough to act? Can we continue to build on this? We have a few weeks until we have the maritime action plan due. November 5th is the date. We'll see if it comes out that day. I think OMB, it has to go through an OMB Office of Management and Budget Review, which usually slows things down. But we'll see. We'll see where it is. November 5th is the date that the executive order gave. So we'll see. I'm gonna keep watching it all. Don't you worry, and I'll keep reporting it out here on Byland and By Sea. You keep it tuned in here. If you like this episode, be sure to follow, subscribe, and leave a review. Want to go deeper or bring this kind of insight to your team, visit the maritimeprofessor.com for corporate trainings, tailored briefings, and on-demand webinars, all designed to make maritime regulations practical and easy to understand. And if you need to know, just need to know what the difference between the Federal Maritime Commission and the Maritime Administration are, FMC vs. Mared, go check out my just in time learning, maritimeprofessor.com. And if your organization needs legal or strategic help navigating ocean shipping regulations, head over to School Strategies. That's where I help clients engage with all things across the global supply chain, particularly as it relates to the maritime federal regulations in DC. As always, this podcast is for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. So until next time, I'm Lauren Beegan, the Maritime Professor, and you've just listened to By Land and By C. See you next time.