A push to rebuild U.S. shipbuilding

A senior White House official has emphasized that the United States should work with South Korea and Japan as it tries to rebuild its shipbuilding industry and strengthen its Navy. The effort, part of President Donald Trump’s administration’s broader industrial ambitions, could involve studying how shipbuilders in the two Asian countries design and build vessels, then applying useful practices in the United States.

Russell Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (the agency that helps prepare the federal budget and oversee government spending), made the remarks at a Washington forum. He said the United States wants to learn from South Korean and Japanese shipbuilders and adapt their methods at home.

“We want to learn from them. We want to see how they make ships and then apply it here,” Vought said.

Why shipbuilding is a strategic issue

Shipbuilding is more than a matter of producing commercial vessels. It supports naval readiness, transportation, industrial employment and the network of suppliers that provide steel, engines, electronics and other components. If shipyards lack workers, equipment or steady orders, rebuilding that wider industrial capacity can take years.

The same challenges can affect a Navy’s ability to maintain and expand its fleet. Ships require specialized construction and long-term upkeep, so the strength of the shipyard workforce and its suppliers can influence how quickly vessels are delivered or repaired. In practical terms, a shipyard is like a large construction site that depends on many specialist teams arriving in the right order and having the tools and materials they need.

South Korea and Japan have extensive shipbuilding industries, making their experience potentially useful to U.S. policymakers and companies. Cooperation could include learning about production processes, workforce training or ways to organize shipyard operations; Vought’s remarks, however, did not set out a specific program or timeline.

From industrial know-how to domestic capacity

Learning from overseas companies does not necessarily mean importing an entire foreign production model. U.S. shipyards would still need to adapt processes to domestic rules, labor conditions, supply chains and the requirements of American customers, including the Navy. The central question is how to translate outside expertise into durable capacity inside the United States.

That capacity also depends on more than a shipyard’s buildings. A reliable supply of parts, trained employees, predictable demand and access to financing can all affect whether a facility can expand and keep operating. An investment may help modernize a site, but sustained orders and a dependable supplier network are important if the goal is to build ships consistently over time.

Hanwha’s investment in Philadelphia

Vought pointed to major investments by South Korea’s Hanwha Group, which acquired Philly Shipyard in Philadelphia. He presented the investment as an example of the foreign capital and industrial experience the United States could attract as it seeks to strengthen its shipbuilding base.

An acquisition can give an investor control of an existing facility and the opportunity to put money into its equipment, operations or future production. It does not, by itself, guarantee higher output or new contracts. The longer-term impact would depend on how the business develops, what work it wins and whether it can secure the people and suppliers needed to carry it out.

The example also highlights a policy choice facing the U.S. government: how to encourage investment while ensuring that public spending creates lasting industrial benefits. Policymakers can use contract rules, funding decisions and purchasing commitments to influence which companies expand and what kinds of capacity are built.

A call to widen access to federal contracts

Vought also argued that federal contracting should be open to more companies, rather than concentrating opportunities among established “primes.” In government contracting, a prime is a company that holds a main contract directly with the government and may hire other firms to perform parts of the work.

Established contractors can bring experience with complex projects, but relying heavily on a small group may make it harder for newer or expanding businesses to enter the market. Wider access could give more shipyards and suppliers a chance to compete, although the government would still need to assess cost, performance and the ability to meet demanding requirements.

  • Broader competition could give additional companies a path to pursue federal work.
  • New investment may help expand facilities or improve production equipment.
  • Strong oversight would remain important to ensure that projects meet public needs and deliver on their promises.

Changing who receives contracts would not automatically rebuild the industry. Federal agencies would need to determine which companies can perform specific work, how to manage risks and how to maintain quality and delivery standards. For shipyards, the prospect of future contracts can also matter when deciding whether to invest in costly facilities or hire and train workers.

Rewarding companies that invest

Vought called for the government to reward companies that invest in the United States. The idea is that companies considering a major investment may be more willing to build, modernize or expand domestic facilities if they can see a clear path to winning business and recovering some of the costs.

Possible policy tools could include making contract opportunities accessible to a wider range of firms or providing clearer signals about future demand. Any such approach would involve trade-offs: officials would need to support industrial growth while also protecting taxpayers and ensuring that public contracts are awarded responsibly. Vought’s remarks did not specify which incentives or contract changes he favors.

The central policy question is how to turn investment into lasting U.S. production capacity, rather than simply attracting money for a single project.

This distinction matters because shipbuilding depends on long-term commitments. A company is more likely to invest in specialized equipment and training when it expects a steady stream of work, while government customers need confidence that a supplier can deliver reliably. Aligning those interests can be difficult, especially when projects are expensive and take years to complete.

The challenges ahead

International cooperation and new investment could help address some of the barriers facing U.S. shipbuilding, but they are not quick fixes. Building ships requires skilled workers, reliable materials, specialized machinery and coordination among many suppliers. If any part of that system is weak, a larger investment in one shipyard may not be enough to raise production across the industry.

There is also a difference between learning a technique and putting it into practice at scale. A process that works well in one country may depend on its workforce, supplier base or regulations, so U.S. companies would need to adapt what they learn. Cooperation would have to produce practical benefits for domestic yards while meeting the security and performance requirements of government customers.

The administration’s approach will therefore depend on choices that have not yet been detailed in Vought’s remarks: which firms can compete for work, how contracts are structured and what counts as a meaningful reward for investment. The outcomes will also depend on whether public demand is consistent enough for shipyards and suppliers to plan beyond a single project.

What to watch next

  • Whether the United States establishes specific shipbuilding initiatives with South Korea or Japan.
  • Whether federal contracting rules create more opportunities for companies beyond traditional prime contractors.
  • Whether investments such as Hanwha’s acquisition of Philly Shipyard lead to expanded facilities, hiring or production.
  • Whether government purchasing plans give shipyards enough certainty to make long-term commitments.

What the proposal could mean

For the United States, closer cooperation with South Korea and Japan could provide a source of industrial knowledge as officials seek to expand domestic shipbuilding. For investors, the government’s willingness to offer meaningful opportunities could affect whether major projects appear commercially worthwhile. For the Navy and other public customers, a stronger shipbuilding base could eventually offer more sources of production and support, provided that the industry can meet required standards.

The proposal’s success will be measured not only by announcements or acquisitions, but by whether shipyards can sustain skilled jobs, build dependable supplier networks and deliver vessels over time. Vought’s message links three parts of that effort: learning from experienced shipbuilding nations, opening federal opportunities to more companies and making domestic investment more attractive.

The scale of the challenge means results are unlikely to come from any single deal or policy change. If cooperation, contracts and investment reinforce one another, they could help create a stronger foundation for U.S. shipbuilding. If they remain disconnected, new capital alone may not resolve the industry’s longer-term constraints.