For South Korea and the United States to move ahead with MASGA (Make American Shipbuilding Great Again), their joint shipbuilding project, they must clear two obstacles: U.S. laws protecting the domestic shipbuilding industry and opposition in Congress. The Donald Trump administration wants to strengthen naval power by tapping shipbuilding technology from allies such as South Korea, but Congress and the U.S. shipbuilding industry are blocking overseas warship construction on the grounds of protecting domestic industry.
Trump signed a presidential memorandum on Aug. 13 expanding the use of overseas shipyards, according to major foreign news outlets on the 17th. The aim is to broaden the so-called "Finland model," under which initial vessels are built at a foreign shipyard before production facilities are moved to the United States. Washington previously applied the approach to icebreaker construction cooperation with Finland.
The U.S. Department of Defense has also requested a budget of $1.85 billion (about 2.4750 trillion won) to review the capacity of allied shipyards to build cruisers, destroyers and frigates, and to examine the possibility of procuring initial vessels. South Korean and Japanese shipyards are the main candidates under review. The Trump administration is pursuing a plan to build two surface combatants and two non-combat support ships at overseas shipyards.
The House of Representatives, however, included a provision restricting purchases of warships and combat support vessels built at overseas shipyards in the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) it passed in July. The provision reflects a determination not to hand the U.S. shipbuilding industry's production base, jobs and warship supply chain over to other countries. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) formally objected after the NDAA cleared the House, saying the measure would also limit the U.S. government's policy flexibility to use foreign shipyards with specific technologies and production capabilities for national security purposes.
The Senate Armed Services Committee has also drafted legislation restricting overseas warship construction. It included an exception allowing up to two non-combat support ships to be built abroad, on the condition of direct investment in the U.S. shipbuilding industry. A defense spending bill prepared by the House Appropriations Committee likewise bars the use of funds for vessel construction at overseas shipyards.
Existing laws are another obstacle. The Jones Act, enacted in 1920, imposes requirements including U.S. construction and ownership on vessels carrying cargo between U.S. ports. That limits merchant ships built in South Korea from entering the U.S. coastal shipping market.
There is also the Burns-Tollefson Act, which in principle bars overseas construction of U.S. warships. The law, enacted in the 1960s, allows the president to grant exceptions when required for national security. But if Congress restricts the use of funds, pursuing overseas construction on the strength of a presidential waiver alone could prove difficult.
Opposition from the U.S. shipbuilding industry is another barrier. The Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA) has called on the administration to reconsider its policy, arguing that building warships abroad would transfer jobs and production capacity that should go to U.S. shipyards. Still, South Korean companies investing in shipyards on U.S. soil or building vessels at facilities in the United States face different legal conditions than overseas construction. The outlook for MASGA projects is therefore expected to differ depending on whether warships are built directly at South Korean shipyards or South Korean firms invest in U.S. shipyards to expand their production capacity.