Trump Is Right to Want Open Sea Lanes

By Rich Lowry

Tuesday, April 01, 2025

 

Is it worth it to the United States to enforce freedom of navigation on the seas?

 

That question was a subplot in the instantly famous leaked Signal chat over an operation to hit Houthi targets in Yemen.

 

Vice President JD Vance expressed skepticism, noting that more European than U.S. trade passes through the Suez Canal. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, on the other hand, were strongly in favor. Hegseth correctly called freedom of navigation “a core national interest.”

 

Open sea lanes are necessary to U.S. commercial shipping and trade (80 percent of all global trade is carried by ocean), as well as to lines of communication with our allies and U.S. bases overseas. A strategy document from U.S. Joint Forces Command observed a few years ago, “The crucial enabler for America’s ability to project its military power for the past six decades has been its almost complete control over the global commons.”

 

The fact is that President Trump’s decision to hit the Houthis toward the goal of open sea lanes was fundamentally American.

 

We’ve long recognized the wisdom of the 17th-century English adventurer Walter Raleigh when he said, “For whosoever commands the sea commands the trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself.”

 

We fought the Quasi-War with France during the John Adams administration over French privateers seizing our shipping in the Caribbean.

 

President Thomas Jefferson reacted similarly to the Barbary states’ harassing of shipping in the Mediterranean. He ordered U.S. ships to go after the corsairs, urging our commander to “chastise their insolence — by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & vessels wherever you shall find them.”

 

Jefferson’s actions were in keeping with his belief that we should be a trading nation and, as he had put it in a letter to James Monroe, “this will require a protecting force on the sea. Otherwise the smallest powers in Europe, every one which possesses a single ship of the line may dictate to us.” He concluded that “naval force then is necessary if we mean to be commercial.”

 

During James Madison’s presidency, we fought the War of 1812 over British interference with our trade and impressment of sailors.

 

Needless to say, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison aren’t strange interlopers in the American experience; they are among our most honored statesmen and were fully vested in freedom of navigation.

 

In the aftermath of the two world wars — also involving questions of freedom of navigation — the United States had the power to enforce peace on the seas, and it’s been a boon to the U.S. and to the rest of the world. As Gregg Easterbrook points out in his compelling book, The Blue Age, there hasn’t been a major fight on the sea since the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944. Trade has increased accordingly, and increased wealth here and elsewhere.

 

There is nothing inevitable about any of this. In fact, considering the sweep of world history, conflict and predation at sea are the norm.

 

If we step back, a vacuum isn’t going to be filled by selfless or friendly powers. It either won’t be filled at all, feeding chaos, or a hostile power like China will enforce an arrangement to its liking.

 

The Red Sea demonstrates the dynamic in microcosm. President Biden’s abdication allowed insurgents to attack commercial shipping, sending insurance rates soaring or diverting vessels away from the Suez Canal to the longer, more expensive route around the Cape of Good Hope. One analysis says the attacks added 0.7 percent to inflation in global core goods during the first six months of 2024.

 

Europeans navies aren’t going to deal with the problem (they barely exist), and so it falls to us.

 

Thomas Jefferson wasn’t available to be added to the Signal chat about the anti-Houthi operation. Still, there is no doubt that he would have approved.