.jpg)
By Land and By Sea
By Land and By Sea – An Attorney Breaking Down the Week in Supply Chain
Welcome to By Land and By Sea, a weekly podcast hosted by maritime attorney Lauren Beagen—Founder of The Maritime Professor® and Squall Strategies®.
Each episode breaks down the latest developments in global ocean shipping, surface transportation, and supply chain regulation—in plain language. Whether it's a new rule from the Federal Maritime Commission, a tariff shift from USTR, or a regional port policy taking shape, Lauren explains what’s happening, why it matters, and what it means for your business.
Designed for industry professionals, regulators, shippers, and anyone curious about the mechanics behind global trade, By Land and By Sea offers timely insights at the intersection of policy, logistics, and law.
⚖️ Educational, not legal advice.
🌊 Straightforward, insightful, and actionable.
Because, as we say every week: OCEAN. SHIPPING. MOVES. THE. WORLD.
By Land and By Sea
S4.E29 - Season Finale: Maritime Voices, Industry Debates, FMC Budget, and What’s Next
🚢 By Land and By Sea Podcast – an attorney breaking down the week in supply chain
🎙️ Captain’s Log – “Season Finale: Maritime Voices, Industry Debates, and What’s Next”
🗓️ Week of July 26, 2025
The Maritime Professor® presents By Land and By Sea Podcast – an attorney breaking down the week in supply chain
with Lauren Beagen (Founder of The Maritime Professor® and Squall Strategies®)
Before we go on summer break, I’m diving into a packed episode:
🔹 Where’s the maritime voice? DOT launches a new Transportation Advisory Board—but leaves shipping expertise off the invite list.
🔹 Cyber rules get real: The Coast Guard finalizes cybersecurity standards for ports, vessels, and facilities.
🔹 Cargo theft prevention: TAPA Americas rolls out a new freight broker security standard—here’s why it matters.
🔹 Big hearing energy: Highlights from Capitol Hill as Secretary Duffy and Commissioner Dye defend infrastructure, the Jones Act, and FMC’s slimmed-down budget.
🔹 Fact check time: Setting the record straight on FMC investigator roles and industry press narratives.
🔹 Industry debate goes viral: The gCaptain tweet, a White House clapback, and my take on why accountability and accuracy BOTH matter.
🔹 Have your say: DOT is asking for public input on the 2025 National Freight Strategic Plan—maritime voices, speak up! Submit your comments here
🎧 Tune in for the season finale and get caught up on the issues shaping our industry: www.TheMaritimeProfessor.com/podcast
Want to bring this kind of maritime insight to your team? Explore corporate trainings and webinars at www.TheMaritimeProfessor.com.
⚠️ This content is for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice.
By Land and By Sea will be on break in August—I’ll be back in September!
Thank you for listening, sharing, and championing transparent, plain-language maritime updates all season long.
#maritime #shipping #FMC #supplychain #maritimepolicy #ByLandAndBySea #TheMaritimeProfessor #seasonfinale
🎙 Thanks for tuning in to By Land and By Sea by The Maritime Professor! If you enjoyed today’s episode, don’t forget to subscribe ⭐ and leave a review 📝.
📚 Want to dive deeper into maritime topics? Join our live webinars 🎧, explore our e-courses 💻, and expand your industry knowledge with online learning 🌍.
🚢 Need customized corporate training? We offer expert-led sessions tailored to your team’s needs!
🔗 Visit www.TheMaritimeProfessor.com to learn more and stay ahead in global ocean shipping! ⚓
I got soul coming through, flying free. Skies are blue, all the waves it makes a room. I got soul coming through, won't stop in the deep end On top of the world. I got good night. Oh, I'm living bold. This is what it looks like On the tip of my word. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.
Speaker 1:It's that time of the year again. We're about to go on summer break, but before we head out, there are a few major things to cover that happened over the past two weeks. There's a Transportation Advisory Committee that doesn't have maritime voices. There was an FMC Commissioner Dye budget hearing where she was justifying the FMC's budget request. It was the full FMC's budget request. It was the full FMC's budget hearing. And there was also I have a comment on the recent industry news that maritime has hit the doldrums. Personally, I talked about this two weeks ago. Personally, I think that it might just be a reloading phase, but we're going to dive into it a little bit more.
Speaker 1:Hi, welcome back to, by Land and by Sea, an attorney breaking down the weakened supply chain presented by the Maritime Professor. I'm Lauren Began, former FMC International Affairs Attorney and founder of the Maritime Professor and Squall Strategies by Land and by Sea is your go-to resource for navigating the regulatory side of global ocean shipping and me well, I'm your favorite maritime attorney. As always, the guidance is general, for educational purposes only. It should not be construed to be legal advice and there is no attorney-client privilege created by this video or this podcast. If you need an attorney, contact an attorney. This is plain language, maritime created so that anybody, not just lawyers or industry insiders, can understand what's happening in the world of shipping. So let's dive into this week's episode because, as you know, ocean shipping moves the world. All right Again. Programming announcement.
Speaker 1:Before we dive in, this will be the last episode of this season. We always take a little summer break during the month of August. By Land and by Sea will be on pause until September, so there won't be any new episodes until after August. Thank you for tuning in each week, for your questions, feedback and support and for being part of this community. I'll be back in September with more maritime updates, regulatory insights and supply chain stories and guests. I'm going to be adding in guests, more guests. I've had a few guests, but let's add in some more guests. It's going to be my fifth season doing this show by Landon by Sea. I have loved getting to know so many of you really out in the wild. I've gotten to meet you at these conferences. I love it. It is so fun. Thank you so much for your support and for tuning in. Be on the lookout for some more fun updates in our fifth season. Can you believe it? I feel like I'm just getting started here, so let's dive into today's episode though.
Speaker 1:Story number one a new Transportation Advisory Board launched initiatives and some other comments about it. So last week, the US Department of Transportation held the inaugural meeting of a newly established Transportation Advisory Board, and that's all it was. That's all. It was called Transportation Advisory Board. The tab, I don't know Transportation Advisory Board. It's being promoted as a key federal advisory group charged with guiding Department of Transportation, federal DOT, on infrastructure modernization, innovation and investment across all modes of transportation. They said all modes, didn't they? All modes of transportation. This new board, as it was announced on DOT's website and the Federal Register, is focused on four main priorities. So those are developing strategic recommendations for infrastructure modernization and expansion. Identifying key investment opportunities in transportation technology and innovation. Providing insights into regulatory and policy improvements to enhance efficiency and reduce bureaucratic obstacles. And the fourth one is advising on public-private partnerships to maximize funding and impact. So you can go if you want to learn more about this. It's transportationgov USDOT Advisory Board.
Speaker 1:Look, I think that this first one was a great conversation. It was live streamed, it was virtually streamed out so you could watch it and then you could watch it on record later if you didn't catch it live. I thought that this was a great start. They went around the room, they explained their sector of the transportation world kind of all the different members on this transportation advisory board. I love the idea right Anytime that you have private engagement, stakeholders of the industry, experts in the field dealing directly with the public servants that are working at these agencies, I love it. I think that's perfect. But as they went around the room and Secretary Duffy stayed in the room for the first gosh 20 minutes, half hour and actually engaged with the members as they presented the sector and piece of the industry that they came from, different initiatives that they might be interested in or concerned about Secretary Sean Duffy stayed with them, was part of the conversation. It was not just a bring in the secretary, have a small chat and then leave. He actually stayed. He outlined the things that he hoped this advisory board would get done, some of the different directives that he hoped that they would engage in, advice and consent and ideas that he wanted from these members. They all kind of came up. It was quick, right, but it was more engagement than I usually see with kind of the political swooping into some of these advisory committees. So I loved it. I thought that that was fantastic. He listened, he stayed. Voices in the room.
Speaker 1:This new transportation advisory board that said that they were having multimodal, all modes of transportation, does not include a dedicated maritime voice. Look, the board understandably focuses heavily on aviation and bridges and roads. Of course, right, when you think about transportation, except for us mariners. But when the average American thinks about transportation, they're probably thinking cars on the road, maybe the bridges, definitely the aviation in current times because of the problems that we keep hearing about with the aviation sector. But it has to include maritime. It has to, right. I mean, I'm preaching to the choir here. Most of the people who listen to this podcast are maritime people. But look, maritime considerations are integral to the broader transportation ecosystem and these include obvious links like bridges. Right, because what does a bridge go over Maritime, it goes over water, but there's also less obvious connections, such as flight path restrictions around maritime ports. If we're talking about aviation, we also need to make sure that we're including some of these maritime ports that are right next to airports that might have cargo crane heights near airports that need to be taken into consideration.
Speaker 1:I also would like to bring up the elision that happened with the MV Dolly and the Key Bridge. So collision is when two moving items hit each other and two moving things hit each other. Elysion is when one is fixed and the other is moving, and so that's what happened. Right, the MV Dolly hit a non-moving bridge, so it's an elision. But the elision of the MV Dolly with the Key Bridge it underscores obviously that wasn't necessarily a maritime navigation safety thing, but it kind of was. I mean, if there had been perhaps more updated dolphins around the base of the bridge, maybe that would have made a difference. And I'm not going to go into the MV Dali, I'm just trying to raise the issue that it underscores how critical bridge clearance, perhaps bridge, I guess, protection and the maritime navigation that goes all around, because that's worst case scenario on a vessel hitting a bridge. And so this is all coming back to my point of a transportation advisory board that does not have maritime included is a big, big miss.
Speaker 1:However, I don't want to lose the good for the perfect. I want to make sure that, look, every sector, every transportation mode is probably saying something similar that might have been missing. I think that there might have been. Buses might not have been included as well. I think I saw somebody say that, admittedly, maritime is a whole category, but look, I love a federal advisory committee. I think that they are so crucially important to engaging with the private, or the private entities engaging with the public entities. I think that this is so important for the Department of Transportation to hear from the industry stakeholders, but it's so important that they hear from the maritime side too. But again, I'm not going to lose the good for the perfect here. This situation illustrates why maritime stakeholders need representation in all transportation policy discussions.
Speaker 1:Ignoring maritime voices risks overlooking these vital safety and infrastructure issues that might not be automatically thought of if the maritime voices aren't in the room. Right, if you're thinking about aviation, you're probably not thinking about maritime, but I can tell you that that airport that's next to a maritime port is definitely thinking about maritime and the things that are involved there. That's where we get these fixed arm ships or cranes coming into the conversation. You see that down at Port Everglades, you see that up here in Port Boston. There's other ports around the country that have similar restrictions. So these are just things that I would love to see maritime added to this Transportation Advisory Board, but I'm excited to see where they go. I am cheering them on, you know. But I want to say that there was something that was very encouraging with this new group and this new presentation of this Transportation Advisory Board is that it was live streamed. This inaugural meeting was live streamed and I can't say this enough. But that is real time transparency and should be used as a model for other advisory bodies generally.
Speaker 1:Currently, the MITSNAC, which is still waiting to get started with the new administration, but the Maritime Transportation System National Advisory Committee, only opens for a small portion of their full member meeting for public comment and public engagement. Admittedly, they never quite get a lot of engagement or submissions to appear before the Mitzvah in their full meeting. But look, maybe it's because it's not entirely virtually streamed and it's hard to kind of know what happens there if you aren't there in the room or you're not part of it. Look, it's always a struggle, I want to say it's always a struggle to get public engagement. There are so many examples of comments, comment periods from agencies asking for submissions and then they get low numbers of comments filed. That's the trouble, always right.
Speaker 1:But this transparency is essential and I think the transparency has been a consistent focus of mine across maritime regulatory bodies and something that I always point out when I see it done well, because I think that it's a fantastic thing. I've talked about them a lot, but the Federal Maritime Commission's National Shipper Advisory Committee is leading by great example because they are always live streaming their full membership meetings Once a quarter. You can almost bet on NSAC having a public meeting where you can tune in and see what they're talking about and see what initiatives their subcommittees are working on. It is so great to see that level of engagement because they're expanding beyond just the members of the committee and engaging with everybody else admittedly maybe small numbers, but everybody else who might be interested allowing this interested public to be a fly on the wall during these important discussions and to just have a perspective on what they are talking about or how these advisory committees work, something that I would love to see across the board for all advisory committees. But look, of course, subgroups and working committees naturally conduct detailed preparatory work and those aren't live streamed, necessarily. Nsac doesn't live stream those. But it's these full meeting, these full committee meetings that really I think it should become a new standard to live stream them, because it really builds that trust and courage engagement. It's so important to open those virtual doors and allow the public usually people who are just curious and trying to learn more about the agency or the work of the advisory committee. But let's keep that transparency coming. Great job with the Transportation Advisory Committee by also engaging in this live stream. But let's get maritime connected to it right. I don't want the perfect I keep saying this I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good on this. So I applaud their work and I'm going to continue to cheer them on while watching their virtual meetings. I also want to take a minute to talk a little bit more about the MidSnack, not from a transparency perspective, but I do want to mention well, I guess it's a little bit transparency connected in a good way. So MTSNAC, as I said, is the Federal Advisory Committee that advises the Secretary of Transportation, so Secretary Sean Duffy, through the Maritime Administration. So right now it's acting Maritime Administrator Sanghee. Eventually, hopefully, it'll become Steve Carmel, who is, on deck, nominated to be the Maritime Administrator but has yet to be confirmed, so he's not actually in the role yet.
Speaker 1:I've long advocated for mid-snack recommendations. So all of these advisory committees create recommendations. They are then voted on by the full membership and they're then usually posted somewhere. They're supposed to be public documents. They're usually posted somewhere so that you can see them prominently displayed. One thing that I have I think I've mentioned it on here is that sometimes that can be hard to find and that's something that I think that while MidSnack was recently updated the links for the minutes on the MidSn basically landing page for MARAD they updated the minutes so that now those links have been fixed and you can actually go in and see the recommendations that have been made through the last few meetings. At the very end there that the links were unfortunately not quite working.
Speaker 1:But look, those recommendations are labors of love and a crucial element for the engagement of the private industry and the public agency. I'd love to see the recommendations put separately somewhere on the same page that you can actually sort by recommendation and not just having to go look through all of the minutes to go find these recommendations. Because these recommendations are truly a labor of love. They represent kind of hours of behind the scenes conversations from the private industry engaging with other members and stakeholders of the private industry to try to help inform what the next steps for the public sector should be, what the next steps for the advisory agency should be, and so having those recommendations front and center, I think would just be a good thing for continuity, for historical purposes, but also for that engagement passive engagement albeit, but engagement with the public generally so that they know what they're up to right.
Speaker 1:Many of the ideas that are actually in core elements of the new maritime policy push for this administration are actually directly in line with MITSAC recommendations. But unless you go through all those minutes it's hard to find that right. I'm not saying that they directly came from those recommendations, but wouldn't it be nice to see that the ideas that are supported and being presented by this administration are actually supported by industry through this Federal Advisory Committee and maybe, if they need a little boost, you could reference them and say look, this Federal Advisory Committee, made up of many multiple sectors and a diversity of interest in the maritime industry, generally have the same recommendation. That's my vision. That's where I would hope that this would go. We'll see. Who knows, I don't know. I think that that would be kind of cool to have the recommendations, because you can go over to the NSAC website and find their recommendations pretty clearly outlined and pretty front and center. Yeah, so I look.
Speaker 1:I want to just also mention, as we're talking about MidSnack I guess it's my soapbox moment we're still only in story number one, but as we're talking, since we're talking about MidSnack, as we're talking about MidSnack, I also want to mention there was a significant change proposed under the SHIPS Act that I think. I think my opinion here is that it politicizes, or threatens to politicize, midsnack membership. So again, midsnack you may have not heard of it this last charter I am a member of MidSnack this last charter we did some fantastic things. We got some great engagement with the industry. I hope that you go look at these minutes because you'll see that the recommendations are very much in line with some of the things that the industry or that the administration is trying to push through. That is industry supported.
Speaker 1:But this amendment, this modification under the SHIPS Act would shift appointment authority, so who gets to select the members for at least six of those members of this otherwise 20-ish member body? From the Secretary of Transportation, which is actually through MARAD but done really at the staff level inside MARAD offices, it would change the member filling role from that MARAD staffing office staffer office to now congressional leaders, majority and minority leaders. The fear that I have here is that this potentially turns these appointments into political rewards instead of expertise-based selections and instead of somebody self-nominating or submitting their application for nomination and consideration. It's risking the possibility where you know easily could see that the largest donor gets. Why don't you join this committee? I'm going to put your name up for this committee. So instead of somebody having that kind of internal drive to serve, now you have, like I said, a political reward potentially not maybe all, but a political reward being given out and that could erode some of the effectiveness and potentially the independence of this group.
Speaker 1:It's something that I think we need to watch closely. I'm hoping that the language gets changed or modified somehow before the SHIPS Act goes through, because there's so many good things. There's so many good things in the SHIPS Act and if that's where we end up with MITSNAC, then so be it. But look, I think that the way that MARAT has actually been creating membership through the nomination process, through the staffers, it's hard to get that same level of lobbying I guess the word is to a staffer than it is to get to the majority and minority leaders in Congress, where you maybe already have a full budget to lobby to try to get to that impact level. I only want to say I'm concerned about it and it's something that I continue to watch, and me and probably four other people have noticed this, so I wanted to raise it just so that it's for consideration for anybody that might have anything to do with the SHIPS Act. I think that this one is needed to have a little tweaking on it. I'm happy to chat with anybody about that, but I think that it's been done well so far and created an independent and effective committee. So that's it All right, let's hit story number two.
Speaker 1:Let's keep rolling here. That was a long story, number one. Story number two the US Coast Guard finalizes cybersecurity requirements for the maritime transportation system. The maritime industry is facing increasing cybersecurity threats and to address this. The US Coast Guard has finalized a rule adding minimum cybersecurity requirements designed to help safeguard the MTS the Marine Transportation System against current and emerging cyber threats that could cause transportation security incidents. So I will say I think that the Coast Guard has perhaps been a little slow to get these in place, but the industry has been engaged in cybersecurity matters since that major cyber attack happened on Maersk in 2017. So here we are, almost 10 years later, and we have cybersecurity requirements, baseline requirements. But look, the second best time is now right. The first best time is probably before. The second best time to have this in place is now, and here we are, so I'm happy to see Coast Guard getting these in place.
Speaker 1:The final rule applies to owners and operators of US flag vessels facilities and outer continental shelf facilities required to have security plans in place. It requires them to develop and maintain both a cybersecurity plan and a cyber incident response plan. So the cybersecurity plan includes specific security measures that are outlined in kind of three different major categories Account security measures, which is like automatic account lockouts after failed attempts, changing default passwords, kind of baseline things that all annoy us these days but also keep us safe in our even Gmail right Every however long you have to change your password. That's part of what is a baseline requirement for cybersecurity plans. Device security measures including maintaining an approved hardware software list, disabling executable code by default on critical systems, keeping an accurate inventory of network systems and documenting network maps and configurations. So getting a little technical there. And then the third category, data security measures ensuring logs are securely captured and stored with limited access, and deploying encryption to protect data and confidentiality. So kind of baseline things that you would assume are already happening probably already happening, but at least now there's a requirement to make sure that they are happening.
Speaker 1:Coast Guard regs also say owner operators must also prepare a cyber incident response plan outlining how to respond to cyber incidents and designating a cybersecurity officer or a CISO responsible for implementation, annual audits, personnel training, kind of making sure that this stays top of mind. So this went into effect. The effective date of this is July 16th. It does have kind of a graduated implementation piece to it, but if you have anything to do with this, if you think that this applies to you, go take a look at it, go check this out, make sure that you're compliant, and this is important because I think that this shows that obviously, cybersecurity is a thing there are these cyber response teams out of the Coast Guard. So if you think that you might have been a victim of cybersecurity and it doesn't have to just be ports or directly maritime I mean, it has to be maritime-related for it to be a Coast Guard-related thing but they have these CPT, these cyber response teams that can go and check your systems in case you think that you might be having a cyber incident, or you thought that you may have already had one, or you just want to scrub your system and make sure that you are safe. So I love this. I think that this is fantastic. I'm happy to see that the cybersecurity requirements and programs are being outlined by the Coast Guard in the protection of all of our maritime assets.
Speaker 1:All right, speaking of protection of assets, so story number three TAPA Americas launched a new freight broker security standard to combat cargo theft. So TAPA Americas, or the Transported Asset Protection Association, is an industry-driven organization that develops global standards and best practices aimed at preventing cargo theft. Their standards are I mean, I keep hearing widely respected and used by shippers, carriers and logistics professionals. You can get certified in these standards for TAPA, for Transported Asset Protection Association. In my mind, they really are on this cargo theft side of things, but they just recently announced the release of its landmark TAPA freight broker requirement standard. So it's a critical new framework designed to protect high-value cargo and reduce supply chain risks in today's increasingly complex but also increasingly cargo theft aware and, unfortunately, cargo theft hits happening to the supply chain. It's specifically tailored for freight brokers. There's other standards that TAPA offers and you can actually go to the TAPA website and check that they have other standards that are free to look at and review, but it offers a structured, tiered approach to security protocols that align with the needs of shippers and carriers.
Speaker 1:For anyone involved in the shipment of goods, cargo theft, I don't have to tell you, is a serious risk and something worth paying close attention to, and I think that this is something that you should look at. Look, I shared this announcement on LinkedIn this week and what I actually said on my post was Tapa Americas has standards related to cargo theft, which basically means they have baseline things that you should do to help protect your cargo during its movement. I encourage you to take a look and spend some time on the website. It can be a little technical. It can be a little technical, but don't get discouraged. If it seems that way, try to trench through, try to keep reviewing it, because once you get past that initial look of this oh this seems technical you're actually going to find things that help you in there. You're going to find that it's actually not as technical or complicated as it seems. I really encourage you to take a look at the freight broker standard if you have anything to do with freight brokerage and go take a look at the rest of what TAPA has to offer, because I think that TAPA's America really has some great baseline things to do to help protect yourself as members of the supply chain industry.
Speaker 1:All right, story number four DOT is seeking industry input for the 2025 National Freight Strategic Plan. So anytime you hear strategic plan, sit up straight, pay attention, get involved, because these don't happen often. So this is the 2025 update of the National Freight Strategic Plan. They, department of Transportation, us Department of Transportation, published a request for information in the Federal Register, which is inviting stakeholders, industry professionals and the public to help shape this National Freight Strategic Plan. Update the NFSP. I'll just say the National Freight. I'll just say the whole thing.
Speaker 1:National Freight Strategic Plan is a major policy document that sets national priorities, strategies and objectives for the movement of freight across all transportation modes, including highway, rail, air pipeline and, of course, maritime. And I'm saying of course maritime because this is the same DOT that might have left the maritime off of that Transportation Advisory Board. But here we are. It's back for the National Freight Strategic Plan. All right From the RFI directly. I wanted to read from the specific request for information.
Speaker 1:They give a little background on the National Freight Strategic Plan. It says the nation's freight transportation system is a complex network of almost 7 million miles of highways, railways, navigable waterways and pipelines. The components of this network are linked through hundreds of seaports, airports and intermodal facilities. This system accommodates the movement of raw materials and finished products from the entire spectrum of the ag, manufacturing, energy, retail and other sectors of the United States economy. It goes on to say in September 2020, dot issued the National Freight Strategic Plan. This is the update from the 2020 version. So, continuing on, the 2020 National Freight Strategic Plan defined DOT's vision and goals for the national multimodal freight system, assessed the conditions and performance of the freight system and barriers to freight system performance, and define strategies to achieve its vision and goals. The plan was developed through a multi-agency effort involving extensive consultation with freight stakeholders in both the public and private sectors. Dot has used this plan to guide national freight policy programs, initiatives and investments, to inform state freight plans, to identify freight data and research needs, and provide a framework for increased cross-sector, multi-jurisdictional and multimodal coordination and partnerships. So that's from the RFI.
Speaker 1:What is DOT seeking input on here? New and emerging trends impacting freight movement and supply chain since the 2020 plan. So what's happened in the past five years? Trends impacting freight movement and supply chain since the 2020 plan. So what's happened in the past five years? It has been a busy five years. Five years ago was 2020. All right, the COVID years. So five years from now, all the things that have changed? They're asking for new and emerging trends, major challenges and bottlenecks facing freight infrastructure, innovative strategies and technologies to improve safety, efficiency and resilience, the intersection of freight movement with climate and environmental goals, and ways to enhance coordination among federal, state, local and private sector partners. This matters because this National Freight Strategic Plan influences long-term federal policy and funding decisions. That includes grants, permitting and priorities for port, waterway and intermodal infrastructure. Grants permitting and priorities for port, waterway and intermodal infrastructure.
Speaker 1:If the maritime perspective isn't well represented during this call for information, look critical issues like port congestion, inland waterways, international trade choke points could be overlooked Whenever agencies ask for feedback. Start getting ready, start getting your thoughts together. They're accepting written comments, data and recommendations from stakeholders until August 14th 2025. This is a real opportunity for everybody that has a piece of national freight strategic policy. But also just I'm calling on the maritime sector here. Right, we want to be part of the conversation. We might have gotten overlooked with the freight advisory board that I talked about earlier. Let's not get overlooked on this National Freight Strategic Plan. Let's get our voices together. Let's get going, let's get our RFI comments in on this. Look, if we care about the future of America's freight network and we definitely do, we definitely do we have to ensure the maritime voices are heard. Let's weigh in, get ready, get your comments going, get them in All right. Story number five House Transportation and Infrastructure was busy last week and this week.
Speaker 1:So last week they had a hearing with Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. We were talking about DOT quite a bit today. Look, last week the House T&I Committee had a hearing featuring Secretary Sean Duffy covering the Department of Transportation's priorities and fiscal year 2026 budget requests. So, while the hearing covered a broad range of transportation topics, several key maritime related issues stood out. So Secretary Duffy reaffirmed strong support for the American maritime industry. He emphasized the critical role of the Jones Act in preserving US maritime jobs and economic output. You may have seen this mentioned if you follow LinkedIn and you follow some of the maritime voices on LinkedIn, because when Sean Duffy made this statement that the Jones Act plays a critical role in preserving US maritime jobs and economic output, these maritime voices were celebrating. They were celebrating the Jones Act mentioned because the maritime voices in the US like to see as kind of a general statement, like to see the Jones Act supported by Department of Transportation and Maritime Administration. I mean it's something that those agencies are responsible for. Yeah, that you might have seen the celebrating on LinkedIn from that.
Speaker 1:But also Sean Duffy in the hearing acknowledged the administration's commitment to revitalizing US shipbuilding as part of the president's executive order. We've been talking a little bit about we haven't heard a lot about shipbuilding. I guarantee you it's still moving forward. It is still moving forward. Secretary Duffy talked about that and he also indicated ongoing efforts to supercharge funding and remove barriers to domestic shipbuilding.
Speaker 1:Port infrastructure also came up. Secretary Duffy recognized the challenges faced by ports in securing timely and efficient grant funding, specifically mentioning improvements underway to streamline the PIDP, so the Port Infrastructure Development Program. He pledged to accelerate permitting and grant processes so vital port projects can move forward faster, supporting economic growth and national security. And the Secretary also addressed workforce concerns. He stayed more on the aviation side, but he did highlight efforts to expand and retain air traffic control or workforce and underscoring the broader need for investment in transportation infrastructure, which includes ports, waterways and intermodal connections and ensure the resilience and competitiveness of America's transportation system. So committee members of the House T&I Committee raised concerns about delays in the grant awards right, that's why it was a major issue here and infrastructure projects impacting port and maritime communities. Admittedly, maritime was not the top priority. There was a lot of talk about aviation and roadways and highways and bridges. But maritime did come up and Secretary Duffy said that he was committed to working collaboratively with Congress to improve transparency and expedite funding.
Speaker 1:The hearing reflected a shared recognition that maritime infrastructure is essential to the nation's supply chain and economic security. Overall it was a great hearing. Secretary of Department of Transportation did a great job. Sean Duffy did a great job. The committee seemed well informed on the topics, which I always love to see, because you don't always see that in some of these committees. I thought that the congressman did a good job of being prepared, having relevant questions, having targeted questions, having questions that actually related to the jurisdiction of Department of Transportation. There was obviously clearly a lot of discussion about air traffic controllers and aging airports and aging air traffic controller systems, but maritime was sprinkled in, and so I thought that it was, overall, a pretty good hearing and worthy of watching to see what's going on at DOT. Pretty good hearing and worthy of watching to see what's going on at DOT.
Speaker 1:All right, story number six. This is a longer update. I meant to do this episode last week, and then we just kept having things trickle in of things that I wanted to cover, and then I saw that we were about to have the FMC's budget request hearing this week, and so, when this episode was going to air last week, I wanted to make sure that we captured it before we went on break. So here we are. This is story number six. This was added on to the episode that was supposed to air last week and now here we are doing the whole thing this week. So the House hearing transportation and infrastructure, like I said, they were well actually, no, this was another subcommittee, this was Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation. So the House and their subcommittees were busy. This week is how I guess I should frame that. But this week, earlier this week, future of U FMC's requested $40 million budget for FY2026.
Speaker 1:We still don't have her named as the chairman. I, you know, I think that Commissioner Dye is fantastic. I would love to see her be the chairman of the FMC. She has been there for over 20 years now. She has such long history with the ebbs and flows of the FMC and did a great job representing the FMC at this budget hearing. I'll note that the name was named, part 1.
Speaker 1:This is just an aside which made me think okay, well, what's Part 2? Are they going to have a conversation with the Democrats of the FMC, right? Are they somehow splitting this? We're going to have Commissioner Dye in the majority, with the one seat, and the minority with the two seats of the Dems. And then it got me thinking a little bit more. No, usually what happens in this Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation hearing is that they have both FMC and MARAD. They only had FMC and so my hunch is that part two is probably just the MARAD conversation. So for MARAD's budget we had DOT budget with Secretary Sean Duffy the week before. I think this part one is FMC and the part two will then be the MARAD conversation.
Speaker 1:But the key highlights from this hearing budget justification and agency efficiency. So Commissioner Dye emphasized that this flat so it's a flat $40 million request, so unchanged from last year is essential for salaries, operational needs and modernizing the agency's outdated IT infrastructure. The last time that the IT was really updated in a significant way was under former Chairman Mario Cordero, who's now the Executive Director of Long Beach. When he was there we had a whole overhaul and we actually got like like updated computers, because we had some pretty old computers when I was working there. It infrastructure is always something that is a concern and something that needs to be continually updated, and so I think that that was something that she brought up as part of the $40 million request and why it needed to be $40 million. I'll also have you know that a lot of that $40 million is staff and salaries, and it really doesn't go that far. They don't have a lot of people that work there.
Speaker 1:The FMC is small but she noted that it's agile and it has kind of reorganized or reconfigured, I guess I would say its enforcement and competition offices, which makes it better equipped to act swiftly and be a little bit more I don't even want to say thorough but effective in its competition review, the competition authority watchdog. It's watching the supply chain and the anti-competitive or monopolistic behavior which is said another way, is the competition happening in the ocean shipping side of things. So in the hearing the congressman really hammered on the flat budget request, saying, well, if you have all this authority and all these new authorities and it was OSRA 22, and we gave you all this new stuff to do and you're saying that you're doing great with the budget, well then, maybe that's it. Maybe you don't need any more money, even if it's a flat budget. Look, of course Commissioner Dye had to be supportive of it, right? This is something that the FMC is asserting. They had guaranteed that they had to work closely with the administration when they're submitting these budget requests.
Speaker 1:In a world of doge and cuts across the board of the federal government, to have a flat budget request, I think actually is saying something positive about the FMC than it is, because the FMC potentially could have submitted a lesser budget. They really run lean, I'm telling you. They run so lean. So having a flat budget, yeah, they should have supported, they should have put forward and had administrative support for a higher budget. But look, that's what we're at here In this world where everybody is kind of budget cutting, with the FMC able to put forth a flat budget from last year, this $40 million.
Speaker 1:I think that says good things. But look, let me be clear and let me say what Commissioner Dye probably couldn't say yes, the FMC needs more money. The FMC needs more money. They have gotten so good at doing more with less, but they've been doing that for like 20 years. They need more money. $40 million, that's the entire agency. That is a line item for other agencies and that is half as much as grants are given out $40 million. Think of that. You have some projects that have $10 million and you have some projects that have $200 million. This entire agency has $40 million. When I was there and we were going through federal furlough times and these federal furlough Fridays, we were cutting magazine subscriptions. If that gives you an indication of just how lean this agency runs, anyways. So let's look at the numbers here to kind of illustrate this point, because this is pretty remarkable and I really want to hit on this because, like I said, this is something that I think needs attention.
Speaker 1:The FMC has, through this conversation of the hearing, it was said that the FMC has lost 26 employees due to the early retirement buyouts or this whole process of kind of reduction of force. So they're dropping from what I think was about 140. I think that's where we I think last year or the year before we were hearing that in some of the budget hearings that they were right around that 140, maybe 150 mark. So if they lost 26 employees, we're starting to look at maybe the 115, 120 is what their numbers are. That's where they kind of hover. They kind of for the past 20 years, have hovered around this 115, 120 full-time employees number. If we look at that from a larger perspective, so the global ocean shipping economy is valued at approximately six trillion dollars annually, which means I mean this is an exaggeration, but this is kind of not totally an exaggeration if each fmc staff member, if each FMC staff member, is responsible for a part of that global ocean shipping economy.
Speaker 1:You are looking at $50 billion per person that the FMC is overseeing this US connection to the global ocean shipping economy that they are the competition authority for and they only have 115, 120 people maybe and they're only getting $40 million to do their job and they're being given all of this new authority under ASRA. They're being under this budget reauthorization. They're going to have potentially two new advisory committees a ports advisory committee, a seaports advisory committee and an ocean carriers advisory committee, which is going to take staff to manage and administer and kind of facilitate. They're being asked to do more with the same amount, but they've been doing that for years. They've gotten really good at it, but that doesn't mean that they don't need more money, right? So look, I went back. So I remembered when I was there in kind of the mid 2010s. I looked back at 10 years ago, so the fiscal year 2015,. Their budget request was $25.7 million. Now they're up to $40 million. Their budget request was $25.7 million. Now they're up to $40 million. That increase over just 10 years is $14.3 million and I don't want to diminish we're still talking about millions of dollars here but it's only increased by $14.3 million and it's kind of a modest rise, considering the scale and complexity and the amount of people that know what the FMC is, who they are and what they do, and the amount of shippers that know what they do and who they are and that are filing complaints rightfully so, because this is the venue to file some of those complaints and yet their budget hasn't really risen to the occasion that they're being asked to rise to. And so, like I said, things that Commissioner Dye maybe perhaps couldn't have said while she was on the hearing the other day, I think that these are things that need to be part of the larger conversation.
Speaker 1:Other things that came up in the hearing, though OSRA 22 implementation progress. Commissioner Dye reported strong progress implementing OSRA 22, of course, including final rules on detention, demurrage, billing and unreasonable physical deal. She mentioned that the litigation is ongoing for some of those rules, but carriers are already complying and enforcement is active and the detention demurrage rule has become kind of commonplace in the overall world we went from I always say this a world of the wild, wild west, where you could have a bar napkin that says $2,000 on it and sent across the table and say here's your charge for demurrage. So now there are 20 invoice requirements so that you can actually check the work of the demurrage bill or demurrage or detention bill, so that you can actually make sure that it lines up, that it makes sense. So she talked about that.
Speaker 1:Charge complaints Since Osra's passage, over $5 million in disputed charges have been refunded or waived, many voluntarily, because of this FMC charge complaints process which was directly created under OSRA 22. So the Commission plans to introduce the new rulemaking to streamline these challenges even further and formalize rapid charge resolutions. We've talked about that in the past. I think we're going to get a little bit more into charge complaints. Is it all charges? Is it only D&D charges? But what I want to remind you is that one of the executive orders that came with this new administration is that there is a 10 to 1 repeal. Under Trump 1, there was a 2 to 1 repeal. Under the current Trump administration there's a 10 to 1, which what that means is that for every one new government agency action or rulemaking, the agency has to repeal 10 government actions or rulemakings. The FMC runs lean on that too. They don't really have 10 agency actions to repeal. So I think they have to get strategic on what they're going to be repealing, because they don't have a lot of fluff there in things that they can repeal. They have always taken a more lighter approach to monitoring and regulating the global ocean shipping world that deals with the US. So as they approach this charge complaints, rulemaking, know that they have to be very careful with when and how they do that, because they're going to have to repeal some stuff too.
Speaker 1:Flag convenience investigation that came up. Commissioner Dye detailed the ongoing investigation into this flag's convenience. So what are those? They're foreign flag vessels operating under countries that have more minimal regulation, the concern being that lower oversight could potentially jeopardize vessel reliability and safety, undermining US flag operators or undermining just the overall safety and security and fairness and just general favorableness of global ocean shipping. So this is something that I think also falls squarely under the Foreign Shipping Practices Act and Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. We've talked about both of those before, but that's what gives them their authority to take corrective action on unfair, unfavorable shipping conditions. These flags of convenience are being purported to be part of something they're investigating. Right, they haven't said that it is for sure, but something that they're investigating. Is there some sort of corrective action that the FMC should and could be taking here in flags of convenience FMC is looking into it, and Commissioner Dye talked about that. Flags of convenience FMC is looking into it and Commissioner Dye talked about that.
Speaker 1:Foreign competition and carrier dominance Lawmakers pressed Commissioner Dye about foreign state-backed carriers, particularly those subsidized by China. They talked about the controlled carriers list and they raised concerns about fair competition and national economic security. Commissioner Dye confirmed that five of the six controlled carriers currently registered Actually I think that they are all. I think that that's. I want to pause there. Either way, most, if not all, of the controlled carriers on the FMC list are Chinese-backed and noted that the commission was actively monitoring for market manipulation and anti-competitive behavior. That's what this controlled carrier list is all about. So 50% or more, so more than half, either owned or controlled by a government entity and boom, you get landed on the controlled carriers list. So that's what we're talking about here, and what happens is, if you are more than 50% owned or operated or controlled by a government and sometimes it can be a collection of governments but a government or governments the concern is that there might be unfair subsidization of that otherwise competition private business, and so you get landed on this controlled carriers list so that you can be kind of watched by the FMC to watch for market manipulation and anti-competitive behavior, dropping of rates in not an economically supported way but in a subsidized by a government way. That's kind of the intention there.
Speaker 1:So staffing and leadership challenges of course came up right. The FMC is still reeling from the impact of the federal deferred resignation program, like we talked about. It led to a nearly 20% reduction in staff, which the number that they were talking about was 26 staffers. They are still currently without a chair, with the departure of Chairman Sola, who just left June 30th, so just almost a month ago. Two vacant commissioner seats, so both of those are Republican. So, as we've talked about five commissioners at the FMC three of the leading party, two of the minority party we only have one of the majority party and that's Commissioner Dye. So the two missing seats that we have are Republican seats, majority party, and that's Commissioner Dye. So we are the two missing seats that we have are Republican seats. However, commissioner Dye reassured Congress at this subcommittee hearing that the agency remains fully operational and is still coordinating with the OMB and OPM to hire key replacements, particularly in enforcement and economic analysis. She also talked about bipartisan support and reauthorization momentum. That came from the conversation. Generally, members from both sides of the aisle, including Representatives Johnson, garamendi and Carvajal, reaffirmed strong support for the FMC's mission.
Speaker 1:I keep getting asked do you think that the FMC is going to stick around? They're having this reduction in force, they're having a flat budget. They don't have a chairman. They've been missing this Republican spot. Now they have two Republicans missing. Is all of this consistent oversight, this increased funding or the need for increased funding here and this reauthorization package to bolster the agency's future Bottom line here? The FMC is small, they're strategic, but they're essential. If Congress wants stronger enforcement, supply chain resiliency and fairer global competition, this is the agency to fund. I call for Congress to increase the budget. Maybe the FMC will get a birthday surprise and they'll have a higher budget than the 40 million flat request. But either way, fund it fully at the requested level. Maybe even give more. 120 people, right? I mean, that's kind of what I always say is basically the number that the FMC has and it's really not a lot.
Speaker 1:This last piece I want to get into story number seven industry critique and White House response, the debate over federal maritime efforts. So last week, and I want to be a little bit careful here because I also don't want to fall victim to the same critique that I'm giving out. But last we had John Conrad of GCaptain posted a pretty sharp critique on Twitter or X challenging the federal government's handling of recent supply chain and maritime issues, and I think that it's important to still challenge where things are or aren't happening, and he was capturing widespread frustration across the industry. Look, I get it. I talked about something similar the week before on my podcast. There was word of personnel changes. The industry hadn't heard much about maritime progress in a while. The FMC, as I keep saying, is down to just three commissioners of the otherwise five that they're supposed to have. I'm starting to get worried too. I mentioned it and I just said we need some wins on the maritime side.
Speaker 1:But I do want to say I kind of think that John might have gone a little far here, but he might have done it on purpose, right. Maybe we've certainly seen the same kind of bombastic approach taken with the Trump administration to try to pull out answers or to try to get better results. Maybe that's what was happening here. But this for my personal comfort. This felt like it might have gone a little too far. So John Conrad's tweet voiced concerns about what he described as an absence of leadership and decisive action, fueling the conversation about delays and operational challenges affecting ports, shipbuilding and maritime operations. And I'm not going to go through the whole list, but even though parts are perhaps off base, I think that it's worth still taking a look at because it does kind of have a nice summary of all the things that we're watching and waiting for. But but it was, it was. It was critical. So to know a few.
Speaker 1:He mentioned that Ian Bennett, the President's Special Assistant for Shipbuilding at the White House, was fired. That's actually something that I know not to be true, and he did reference another report saying that he was fired. Look, he wasn't fired as far as I know, and I have pretty reliable knowledge that that didn't happen. He left, he's not, he's no longer there, he's in the private sector, but he wasn't fired, and so I saw that. Okay, not great.
Speaker 1:Conrad also mentioned that nobody had seen or heard from Secretary Duffy's new acting maritime administrator. I strongly disagree with that one. I actually shared a message on LinkedIn in response to that post where I said look, I think the acting administrator Sang-Yi has been very present and made positive impacts. He was visiting Hanwha Philly shipyard recently. He met with ports. I clearly remember seeing a LinkedIn post of a meeting with acting administrative Sang-Yi and Kerry Davis of the American Association of Port Authorities. He also met with Gene Sirocco pretty quickly after becoming the acting administrator and he also awarded maritime service honors to deserving mariners. I've noticed that in his short time as acting he has been very public about his activities and that he's been getting out there in the field.
Speaker 1:I did say at the conclusion of this post I'm concerned about the news of the White House shipbuilding office being closed. That was part of what John Conrad had said. I knew of some of the recent personnel changes, but I didn't think that it would mean the closure of the office. So later that day the story continues. Conrad made the ex-post.
Speaker 1:The conversation took another turn when White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly replied to this tweet. She replied on Twitter, which also was a little wild to have the direct White House response via Twitter, but it was, I mean, fantastic, right Transparency. She called Conrad's post total fake news based on anonymous sources. She clarified that the shipbuilding Office will continue to operate under the Office of Management and Budget, omb, she emphasized. This comes on the heels of the recent $43 billion shipbuilding investment included in the major infrastructure legislation known as the One Big Beautiful. Bill Kelly challenged Conrad directly, asking if he had even covered that. So there was a little tension going back and forth, she said. Kelly further tweeted we've been saying this to reporters who have asked but John Conrad clearly didn't do his due diligence Embarrassing, which I thought that was a little kind of funny because she had the exclamation point.
Speaker 1:But look, this sharp rebuke underscores the heated nature of public discourse around federal maritime policy and the friction between industry voices and government representatives, and maybe not even that far. I don't agree with John's approach here to blast on this shaky list some of these things as truth, especially when I knew that two or three of them as soon as this post was listed, that this was something that I knew to be the opposite of what he was asserting. But that's kind of John's approach and that's OK. It was effective because we got clarity on the shipbuilding office. Now I want to reflect a little bit on this because last two weeks ago on this podcast I did share some of my own frustrations with the pace and visibility of maritime, federal maritime efforts. But also I kept a positive tone with it because we risk unraveling some of our progress if we throw stones among our friends. Right, I appreciate pushing each other and holding each other accountable that's essential.
Speaker 1:But I know that Ian was not fired. I know and the work under the executive order on maritime dominance is still very much ongoing, not only at the White House through the National Security Council and that's the part that had some people concerned about the personnel changes but I know that it's ongoing, with MARAD, dot, us Coast Guard and others continuing to do their part on this executive order. My point two weeks ago was more about needing greater visibility or a clearer public update on these efforts. To say that acting maritime administrator saying he isn't doing anything is, I mean, patently unfair, really potentially harmful to the momentum we're building too. I think that he's only been there right seven or eight weeks and we can have honest and we should have honest critiques, but over sensationalizing frustrations among friends trying to work together is counterproductive. I do appreciate John Conrad's passion, though. He has a clear passion and I will not take that from him and I certainly won't cast him aside for this because I know that he wants the maritime industry to succeed as much, if not more, than most. Right? He created an entire industry, entire platform, g-captain watching the maritime industry and reporting on it. It is so crystal clear that he wants this industry to succeed. But we also have to give credit where it's due and be cautious about reporting on verified rumors as fact. So we need to keep this conversation truthful, constructive and focused on real progress so together we can strengthen this vital industry.
Speaker 1:On that same note, I also want to report, or I also want to respond to an article last week that the Lodestar ran. So the Lodestar published an article titled Strange Going Ons at the USFMC Is it Still Fit for Purpose? Okay, not a great title, right? It seemingly implies that the FMC doesn't hold relevance anymore. I mean, just look at that title. But it also said and implied that recent departures of FMC investigators could impact how the FMC handles complaint cases. The article referenced something it called a West Coast Investigatory Panel, suggesting that this was a concerning development, along with implications of an East Coast Investigatory Panel. Taking caution For a little bit of background here before we dive in, this is talking about area reps, area representatives who were turned into investigators under part of what the FMC kind of reorg restructuring was.
Speaker 1:I believe that's what these investigatory panels are referring to. But let's set the record straight here there is no West Coast investigatory panel at the FMC. There's also no East Coast investigatory panel. So that is patently false. That is not a thing. These are simply not accurate descriptions and they're being asserted as like the title of these panels. They're not a thing. West Coast Investigatory Panel, east Coast Investigatory Panel it's not a thing at the FMC. So descriptions that are inaccurate on how the FMC operates or structures in investigatory and enforcement processes, we have to be accurate. We have to be accurate with these things.
Speaker 1:Fmc investigators were previously known as these area representatives. Like I said, their primary role was, and kind of still remains, even as investigators enforcement, compliance, outreach and providing on-the-ground industry expertise, on-the-ground industry expertise. Recently these roles were renamed to investigators, like I said. But this reorg did not create separate investigatory panels or regional factions and actually at the National Shipper Advisory Committee you might have seen, there was a discussion about whether these investigators should return to headquarters in DC or remain in the field, and I think that's what this whole article is starting to. Not even certain. I think that's kind of what they're talking about here. But that internal operational discussion does not reflect any regional divisions or investigative panels at the FMC. Right, that's not. These investigators were not composed of West Coast panels. It's simply an operational matter concerning how best to maintain effective industry outreach and regulatory oversight. Right, should the investigators stay out in the field or should they go back to DC? Perhaps they should stay out in the field?
Speaker 1:I think that there is value to keeping investigators and area reps out in the field, but things were being reorged kind of federal government-wide right, so documented complaint cases at the FMC are not handled by investigators. That is something that this article also gets wrong. These formal complaints are managed through established legal procedures involving administrative law judges and small claims officers. We've talked about that. If you want to file a complaint at the FMC, you want to file a lawsuit. It will go through administrative law judges or small claims officers as kind of your first stop. The suggestions that if investigators are leaving the agency or departing the agency could somehow influence case adjudication and their ability to review cases and cases filed at the FMC completely misunderstands how FMC's case and jurisdictional judicial side of things, like how that whole process works. That's not what the investigators are there for. They do not review the cases as they come in, as these lost, like, as these complaints are filed with these FMC. They don't take the lawsuits.
Speaker 1:I'm bringing this up right after the tweet discussion because, again, I think it's essential for industry, press and stakeholders to have accurate information. Mischaracterizations can cause confusion, misunderstandings and they can undermine the very regulatory oversight we all rely on. I think it's so important to stay clear, focused and informed. Look, maritime is an interesting industry. We're resilient when things get complicated or take a turn or get shaky. Maritimers don't go running. We dig in. We recommit to the cause.
Speaker 1:It's time for us to do that. We've been given this opportunity of a lifetime to reinvigorate Maritime. Let's keep pushing, but let's keep pushing together. Let's quit with the cheap shots. Let's make sure that we have our facts straight before we publish stories that draw conclusions. We can't have material, incorrect summaries leading the discussion. We need to make sure that when we throw shots, that they are critiques that help push things forward. And admittedly, the tweet did do that on some front, so it got the job done. But let's just be careful here. Right, we're all among friends. Maritime as a whole is among friends. We're all trying to get this done, so let's use these next few weeks, as Congress is on their recess, to reset our own maritime interests. Let's come back in September ready, refocused and reunited. Maritime is ready. Let's go On that note.
Speaker 1:I'll mention again my programming note. This is my last episode before a short summer break by Land and by Sea will return in September. Thanks for listening and being a part of this community. I really, truly appreciate each and every one of you. Enjoy your summer and I'll see you back here with new episodes in September. If you like these episodes, be sure to follow, subscribe and even leave a review.
Speaker 1:Want to go deeper on these topics or bring this kind of insight to your team? Visit themaritimeprofessorcom to explore corporate trainings, tailored briefings and on-demand webinars, all designed to make complex maritime regulations practical and easy to understand. And if your organization needs help navigating the legal and strategic side of ocean shipping head over to Squall Strategies, that's where I provide my consulting services, regulatory guidance and policy support for clients working with the federal government across the global supply chain. As always, this podcast is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you need an attorney. Contact an attorney. Until next time, I'm Lauren Began, the Maritime Professor and you've just listened to, by Land and by Sea. See you next time.
