Washington Shouldn't Make a Habit of Refereeing Transportation
AP
X
Story Stream
recent articles

In 1966, American psychologist Abraham Maslow opined that “it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” Washington fits snugly into that paradigm, tending to view government regulation as the default solution to every challenge. The result is the creation of new problems instead of remedying old ones. 

The Jones Act, an obscure but problematic maritime law, offers a compelling example. Enacted more than a century ago, the rule requires goods transported between U.S. ports to travel on ships that are American-built, American-owned, and American-crewed. 

While the policy was originally intended to support domestic shipbuilding and strengthen national security, the Jones Act has become an albatross hanging around the neck of the U.S. economy. How? Limiting the number of vessels that transport goods between American ports artificially inflates the cost of shipping, a financial punishment that inflicts consumers in the form of higher prices. 

In March, as the war in Iran rattled global supply chains and energy markets, the Trump administration temporarily waived the Jones Act—later extending the freeze by 90 days. The results were immediate. During the waiver’s first 70 days, more gasoline and jet fuel were shipped from the Gulf Coast to the West Coast than during the entire five year period between 2020 and 2025. 

The Jones Act is hardly the only example of overly enthusiastic government intervention. U.S. leaders have fallen for similar traps regarding federal oversight of the flying economy, where some regulators believe competition is best managed from inside the Beltway. 

That thinking was on display during a recent House hearing examining competition in the airline industry. Several Democratic lawmakers portrayed the sector as highly concentrated and harmful for the average consumer—implying that Uncle Sam should tighten its grip on the market. Congresswoman Becca Balint (D-VT), for example, argued that “a handful of [airline] companies… control and limit our freedom of choice.” 

The reality is far more nuanced. The U.S. airline sector remains a highly competitive marketplace that enjoys robust competition. According to the latest Department of Transportation data, more than 20 carriers compete for passengers, routes, and gate access across the country. That means airlines are constantly finding new ways to innovate. 

Consumers have been among the biggest beneficiaries of this competition. According to a recent Government Accountability Office report, the cost to fly has fallen by 15 percent over the past two decades. Today, nearly nine in ten Americans have flown in their lifetimes—up from less than half in the 1970s. Meanwhile, in-flight perks that travelers have come to expect—from free WiFi and in-flight entertainment to quieter cabins—are byproducts of a competitive marketplace. 

The recent collapse of Spirit Airlines—and the loss of thousands of jobs—is a sad example of what can happen when the federal government micromanages the private sector. It stems from a blocked merger between the budget airline and JetBlue that unfolded under the Biden administration, which argued the deal would undermine competition. Does that rhetoric sound familiar? 

Fast forward to today, and that logic has aged like milk. In reality, the government intervention eliminated a path provided by the free market to keep Spirit Airlines economically viable. It just goes to show that mergers are not inherently anti-competitive and, in fact, can be a useful free-market mechanism that enhances consumer choice in the long run. 

None of this means Uncle Sam has no role to play. The Federal Aviation Administration exists to ensure the safety and efficiency of the nation's airspace. But the government should resist temptations to micromanage the travel economy beyond its core responsibilities.

Whether in shipping or aviation, the lesson is clear. Private markets best benefit consumers when Washington doesn’t wield the regulatory hammer too hard or too frequently. More often than not, politicians should avoid reaching into the toolbox altogether.



Comment
Show comments Hide Comments