In an age where global commerce and military strategy are deeply intertwined, the question of whether the United States should enforce freedom of navigation on the seas is more relevant than ever. The recent leaked Signal chat about striking Houthi targets in Yemen reignited this debate.
Vice President JD Vance voiced skepticism, pointing out that more European than U.S. trade passes through the Suez Canal.
Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz argued strongly in favor, with Hegseth calling freedom of navigation “a core national interest." They are absolutely right.
The Role of U.S. Naval Power
Historically, America’s ability to project power and protect its interests has hinged on control of the global commons. A strategy document from U.S. Joint Forces Command put it plainly: “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.”
This isn’t just a military concern—it’s an economic one. Around 80 percent of all global trade is carried by ocean, and open sea lanes ensure the steady flow of commerce. The disruptions in the Red Sea, caused by the Biden administration’s failure to act decisively against Houthi attacks, have already driven up global inflation and forced ships to take longer, costlier routes around Africa.
Europe, despite being more dependent on Suez Canal shipping, lacks the naval capability—or the will—to address the issue. The unfortunate truth is that if the United States doesn’t enforce order at sea, no one else will. And history teaches us that power vacuums at sea don’t lead to peace; they lead to chaos, piracy, and the rise of hostile powers dictating terms to the world.
History’s Lessons: A Tradition of Defending the Seas
The necessity of protecting trade routes is as old as America itself. The United States fought the Quasi-War under John Adams because French privateers were seizing American ships in the Caribbean. Thomas Jefferson, when faced with piracy from the Barbary States, wasted no time in ordering the U.S. Navy to “sink, burn or destroy” hostile ships. The War of 1812 was fought, in large part, over British interference with American trade and the impressment of American sailors.
These weren’t aberrations; they were foundational moments in U.S. history. Adams, Jefferson, and Madison understood that naval power wasn’t optional—it was essential. Jefferson himself wrote to James Monroe, warning that unless the U.S. maintained a strong naval presence, “the smallest powers in Europe… may dictate to us.”
Even in more recent history, U.S. naval dominance has kept the world’s shipping lanes open and secure. As Gregg Easterbrook notes in The Blue Age, there hasn’t been a major naval battle since 1944. This unprecedented period of maritime peace isn’t a natural state of affairs—it exists because of American power.
What Happens If America Steps Back?
The assumption that global trade will continue unhindered without U.S. enforcement is dangerously naive. When the Biden administration allowed the Houthis to harass Red Sea shipping, insurance rates soared, and shipping companies had to make costly detours. One analysis found that these attacks added 0.7 percent to inflation in global core goods in just the first six months of 2024.
And if America stops enforcing freedom of navigation altogether? That vacuum won’t remain empty. Either chaos will reign, or China will step in and shape global maritime trade to its own advantage. Beijing’s military buildup, aggressive territorial claims in the South China Sea, and investment in overseas naval bases all signal its ambitions. If the U.S. relinquishes its role, China will dictate the terms of global trade—on its terms, not ours.
The Trump Approach: A Return to Realism
President Trump’s decision to strike the Houthis wasn’t just a military action—it was a statement of principle. It reaffirmed that the United States still recognizes the importance of keeping sea lanes open, not just for our benefit, but for the stability of global commerce.
