The Trump administration’s policies on trade, infrastructure, and deregulation could significantly impact Great Lakes shipping.

The Trump administration could usher in substantial changes for Great Lakes maritime traffic and ports—adjustments that may seem minor on paper but could carry significant economic repercussions for companies and communities alike.

The Great Lakes Navigation System (GLNS) is a vast, 1,600-mile network spanning all five Great Lakes, from Duluth, Minnesota, to Ogdensburg, New York. It supports 60 commercial harbors, 80 recreational harbors, two operational locks, 104 miles of breakwaters and jetties, and over 600 miles of meticulously maintained navigation channels. This intricate system moves more than 250 million tons of cargo annually, generating $50 billion in economic activity and sustaining over 350,000 jobs across the U.S. and Canada.

For regional leaders, the administration’s approach to infrastructure investment and trade policies will shape the future of Great Lakes shipping. John Schmidt, program manager for the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Governors & Premiers (GSGP) Regional Maritime Initiative, emphasizes that securing federal funding for the construction of a new Soo Lock remains a top priority. “Federal programs supporting port modernization, lock maintenance and dredging operations will also influence shipping efficiency and reliability, which are key to the long-term competitiveness of regional transportation,” he notes.

GSGP also co-founded the Smart Ships Coalition, a collective that includes the U.S. Geological Survey, federal and state agencies, and various international and industry organizations. According to Schmidt, continued federal involvement is crucial for advancing autonomous marine technologies that could revolutionize Great Lakes shipping.

But it’s not just infrastructure that’s at stake—trade policies are another pressing concern. Barry Prentice, a University of Manitoba professor specializing in supply chain management, has been closely tracking the impact of Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs. “The Seaway moves a lot of iron ore from Quebec to U.S. blast furnaces,” Prentice explains. “If Canadian iron ore is not restricted by import tariffs, the demand from the U.S. steel plants could be greater behind the tariff barrier. This is a long way of saying, traffic could increase.”

Prentice also sees an opportunity to expand the Great Lakes cruise industry, currently hindered by restrictive cabotage laws and customs procedures. “Given President Trump’s ruminations on annexing Canada, I am not sure that he would want to do anything that would make the current relationship work better. If we had no border, the Great Lakes could become a viable market for the cruise industry. This is now blocked by cabotage restrictions and customs procedures,” he said. “Of course, we could change these rules without political union, if there were political will. Most Canadians are flattered by the offer to join the United States but prefer to be the masters of our own house.”

One of the more unexpected areas where the administration’s policies could have an impact is icebreaking. Jim Weakley, president of the Lake Carriers’ Association, remains cautiously optimistic. He believes that the administration’s focus on Arctic policy might indirectly benefit the Great Lakes. “Many of the technical skills gained by shipyards and Coast Guard sailors on the Great Lakes easily transfer to their polar program,” Weakley points out. “I am hopeful that the new administration will fund the construction of a new Great Lakes icebreaker that is at least as capable as the USCGC Mackinaw.  I’m also hopeful that they will either repower the 140-foot icebreaking tugs or move forward with replacing them.”

John Clemons, vice president for Great Lakes at the American Maritime Officers organization, echoes this sentiment but adds a stark warning. “The U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards have 11 vessels to assist commercial vessels transiting the Great Lakes during the ice season.  They used to have nearly twice that many.  Both fleets are badly in need of updating,” he says. Clemons argues that the Canadian Coast Guard needs to do more, accusing it of focusing primarily on Canadian ports while leaving shared waters for the U.S. Coast Guard to manage.

Much of the administration’s stance on the Great Lakes will likely be shaped by its broader approach to trade and industrial policy. Trump has long championed American manufacturing and has been critical of foreign control over U.S. infrastructure. Any new tariffs or protectionist policies could reshape trade flows through the Great Lakes—potentially reducing foreign imports but increasing intra-North American trade.

Vice President J.D. Vance, an Ohio native, has been particularly vocal about revitalizing the Rust Belt economy. Policies favoring domestic steel, coal, and manufacturing could drive demand for Great Lakes shipping, especially if coupled with infrastructure investment. However, environmental deregulation—an approach Trump favored in his first term—could meet stiff resistance from groups concerned about emissions standards, ballast water policies, and dredging rules.
The administration’s push for “energy dominance” could also impact Great Lakes shipping. Coal and petroleum shipments could see a boost if policies favor fossil fuel production, though this would run counter to broader global trends toward cleaner energy.

Climate change remains a wild card in Great Lakes policy. While Trump has been skeptical of climate change policies, the reality of shifting weather patterns might force some form of response. Coastal flooding, extreme storms, and fluctuating water levels could disrupt shipping routes, making infrastructure resilience a growing priority.

The Great Lakes are not just an American concern. Shared with Canada, the region’s economic vitality depends on bilateral cooperation. The administration could push for improved customs procedures to streamline trade or seek investment in shared infrastructure projects. However, given Trump’s history of contentious relations with Canada, any collaborative efforts will likely require careful negotiation.

Labor policies will also play a role. Trump’s first term saw efforts to roll back labor protections in favor of deregulation—something that could extend to Great Lakes shipping. While port operators might welcome more flexible rules, strong maritime unions in the region could push back.

Technological advancements in port automation and logistics could be another area of focus. The administration may advocate for AI-driven logistics and automated cargo handling to improve efficiency, although this could spark concerns over job losses.

Ultimately, the administration’s Great Lakes strategy will be a balancing act between economic growth, trade policies, and regional concerns. While Trump’s rhetoric often favors deregulation and industrial revitalization, much will depend on how these policies translate into real-world investments.

During his first term, Trump frequently voiced support for infrastructure development but struggled to deliver concrete results. If his administration now follows through with funding for port modernization, icebreaker upgrades, and improved trade logistics, the Great Lakes region could see significant economic benefits. However, any moves to roll back environmental regulations or alter cross-border trade dynamics will likely spark debate.
For now, stakeholders across the region are watching closely, hoping that the administration’s policies align with both economic interests and long-term sustainability.

This article was originally posted in Great Lakes/Seaway Review.