I am a Jones Act lawyer. I have spent my career representing injured maritime workers — seamen, deckhands, engineers, tankermen, offshore platform workers, and the families of those killed on the water. I have tried Jones Act cases in federal and state courts across Texas and the Gulf Coast. I have taken hundreds of maritime depositions. My firm, VB Attorneys, has recovered approximately $455 million for our clients, and I have personally handled 138 Jones Act matters resulting in approximately $137.6 million in recoveries, including a $44 million wrongful death verdict.
I say all of that not to impress anyone but to establish something important: when I tell you that a well-funded campaign is underway to eliminate the legal rights of injured maritime workers, I am speaking from direct experience with the law, the industry, and the people who depend on both.
The Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C. think tank, has spent the last seven years and millions of dollars running a campaign it calls the "Project on Jones Act Reform." The project is led by a single individual, Colin Grabow, whose work for the last several hundred consecutive publications has focused on one objective: repealing or gutting the Jones Act. When you follow the money behind that campaign, the trail leads to foreign corporations, the European Union, and a dramatic spike in undisclosed corporate funding that coincided precisely with Grabow's arrival at Cato.
As a maritime injury lawyer who represents the human beings this law protects, I believe the public — and especially injured maritime workers and their families — deserve to know who is paying to take their rights away.
Before I get into the money, I want to make sure every maritime worker, every seaman's family member, and every referring attorney reading this understands what is at stake.
The Jones Act, formally Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, does two critical things. First, it requires that vessels transporting cargo between United States ports be American-built, American-owned, American-flagged, and American-crewed. This is a national security provision. Second, and just as important for the workers I represent, the Jones Act gives injured seamen the right to sue their employers for negligence and to have that case decided by a jury.
If you are a Jones Act seaman — a deckhand on a supply vessel, an engineer on a tanker, a worker on an offshore platform that qualifies as a vessel — the Jones Act is the reason you have the right to hold your employer accountable when their negligence causes your injury. Without the Jones Act, injured maritime workers would be limited to the kind of workers' compensation benefits that land-based employees receive, which in most cases provide a fraction of the compensation available through a Jones Act negligence claim.
Every time someone at the Cato Institute publishes an article calling for Jones Act "reform" or "repeal," they are calling for the elimination of this right. They do not frame it that way. They talk about shipping costs and consumer prices and economic efficiency. But the practical effect of what they are advocating is stripping injured maritime workers of their ability to bring a negligence claim before a jury.
As a Jones Act injury lawyer, I have represented workers with spinal cord injuries sustained on vessels with known safety deficiencies. I have represented families of maritime workers killed in incidents that could have been prevented with basic safety protocols. I have deposed corporate representatives who admitted under oath that they knew about dangerous conditions and chose not to fix them. In every one of those cases, the Jones Act was the legal mechanism that gave my client access to justice. Repeal the Jones Act, and that access disappears.
The Cato Institute does not disclose its individual donors. But its annual reports break contributions into categories, and the pattern that emerges when you compare those reports over time is striking.
In the two fiscal years before Grabow joined Cato in September 2017, corporate contributions to the institute averaged approximately $466,000 per year, representing about 1.2 percent of total contributions. In the six fiscal years since Grabow arrived and began his exclusive focus on attacking the Jones Act, corporate contributions have averaged approximately $1,171,000 per year — an increase of $705,000 annually, more than 2.5 times the prior average. By fiscal year 2023, corporate contributions reached a record $1,688,000, nearly 3 percent of total contributions.
John D. McCown, a maritime industry expert with more than four decades of experience, has conducted the most detailed public analysis of this funding pattern. McCown co-founded and served as chief executive of Trailer Bridge, a Jones Act container shipping company. He worked on a daily basis for more than twenty years with Malcom McLean, the inventor of container shipping. He holds a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School and is the author of "Giants of the Sea." McCown's credentials in this industry are beyond dispute.
McCown's assessment: certain corporations that would benefit directly from changes to the Jones Act are funding Cato's campaign, and routing those dollars through a think tank allows the corporations to avoid the disclosure requirements that accompany direct lobbying. He has identified three foreign corporations he believes are the primary funders of the campaign, all with commercial interests related to liquified natural gas, two of which are large European corporations. McCown believes the central goal of Cato's campaign is to exempt liquified natural gas shipments from the Jones Act, which would open American coastal and inland waters to foreign-flagged vessels.
In October 2024, a Foreign Agents Registration Act filing made the picture even more troubling for anyone who cares about who is influencing American maritime policy.
StorySquad Media, a Washington, D.C.-based media firm, filed a disclosure revealing that it had been hired by IBF Connect SA, a Belgian consulting company that serves as an outside contractor for the European Commission, the European Parliament, and other European Union institutions. The filing stated that the European Commission was financing the project and that it would be implemented by the European Union delegation in the United States.
The objective: producing anti-Jones Act videos and executing a multi-phase lobbying campaign targeting American policymakers and coastal communities. The Foreign Agents Registration Act filing explicitly stated that "a partnership with Cato was developed for executing this activity." The filing described Cato as being "at the forefront of the battle against the Jones Act" and detailed Cato's planned involvement at each stage of the campaign.
When reporters confronted Cato about this disclosure, the institute denied any involvement, stating it had never met or worked with IBF Connect. But a spokesperson for the European Union delegation contradicted that denial, confirming that the European Union regularly works with think tanks in Washington, including the Cato Institute.
This prompted a bipartisan Congressional response. In March 2025, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Sam Graves, Ranking Member Rick Larsen, and Subcommittee leaders Mike Ezell and Salud Carbajal sent a formal letter to the European Union Ambassador raising serious concerns about foreign efforts to undermine American maritime law and demanding an explanation.
A foreign governmental body — the European Union — financed a lobbying campaign designed to weaken an American law that protects American workers and American national security. The think tank at the center of that campaign is the same organization that has been publishing what it calls "research" arguing for the Jones Act's repeal for seven years.
If Cato's work were genuine academic research produced by disinterested scholars, the funding sources would be less concerning. But independent analysis has repeatedly demonstrated that the numbers published by Cato's Jones Act project are not just inaccurate — they are inaccurate by extraordinary margins, and every error runs in the same direction: overstating the costs of the Jones Act.
McCown has documented instances where Grabow's published claims overstated the actual cost impact of the Jones Act by a factor of 50. In one analysis, Grabow claimed the Jones Act adds more than $4 billion annually to the cost of gasoline. Using publicly available data from the United States Energy Information Administration, McCown demonstrated the actual incremental cost was approximately $84.8 million — less than 2 percent of the figure Cato published.
McCown has also shown that Cato's frequently cited claim of a five-times cost multiple for building ships in American shipyards versus foreign shipyards overstates actual comparables, which run closer to three times for tankers and four times for container ships. More importantly, Cato uses that build-cost multiple to imply that the total shipping cost difference is the same multiple, ignoring that fuel costs, port costs, and the majority of other operational expenses are identical whether a vessel is Jones Act-qualified or foreign-flagged. McCown estimates the actual total cost differential for container shipping is in the range of 15 to 20 percent — not the 500 percent that Cato's presentation implies.
When a researcher is consistently wrong by factors of 10, 25, or 50, and every error favors the same conclusion, and corporate funding has more than doubled since the researcher arrived, you are not looking at independent scholarship. You are looking at advocacy dressed in academic clothing.
I want to speak directly to three audiences.
To maritime workers: the Jones Act is your right to hold your employer accountable when their negligence injures you or kills someone you work with. The people funding the campaign to repeal this law are not thinking about you. They are thinking about replacing you with foreign crews who will work for a fraction of your wages and who will have none of the legal protections you currently have. Every argument about "cost savings" and "consumer prices" is built on that foundation.
To referring attorneys and maritime injury lawyers: the Jones Act is the legal architecture that makes your maritime injury practice possible. If you handle Jones Act cases, if you refer Jones Act cases, if you have clients who work on vessels, you need to understand that a sophisticated, well-funded, multi-year campaign is actively working to eliminate the legal framework that gives your clients standing. This is not an academic exercise. Bills have been introduced in Congress. State legislatures have passed resolutions. The campaign is real, it is ongoing, and it is being funded by parties with a direct financial interest in the outcome.
To the public: think tanks serve an important function in American policy. Genuine research, conducted by independent scholars, advances public understanding. But when a think tank's corporate funding more than doubles coinciding with a single-issue campaign, and a foreign government is caught financing lobbying efforts through that same think tank, the public deserves to know. If Cato's Jones Act project is independent research, there is a simple way to prove it: disclose the donors. Tell the public which corporations are paying for Colin Grabow's work. Until that happens, every publication, every Congressional testimony, and every social media post from Cato on the Jones Act should be evaluated with full awareness of who is likely paying for it.
I will keep representing injured maritime workers. I will keep trying Jones Act cases. I will keep deposing corporate representatives who put cost savings ahead of worker safety. And I will keep telling the truth about who is trying to take these rights away.
If you are a maritime worker who has been injured due to your employer's negligence, you have rights under the Jones Act. If you are a lawyer looking to refer a Jones Act case to a Board Certified trial lawyer with deep experience in maritime injury litigation, I welcome the call.
The Jones Act has protected American maritime workers for more than a century. It should not be for sale to the highest foreign bidder.
Brian Beckcom is a Board Certified Personal Injury Trial Lawyer and founding partner of VB Attorneys in Houston, Texas. He is one of the most experienced Jones Act and maritime injury lawyers in the United States, with approximately 138 Jones Act cases and $137.6 million in personal recoveries in maritime matters. His firm has recovered approximately $455 million across more than 1,200 cases.
Beckcom has represented crew members in some of the most significant maritime cases in recent history, including the Maersk Alabama piracy incident and the Captain Wren Thomas kidnapping case in the Gulf of Guinea. He holds a background in computer science and philosophy in addition to his legal credentials, has been named a Texas Super Lawyer for 14 consecutive years, and is Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. He hosts the Lessons from Leaders podcast.
If you need a Jones Act lawyer or a maritime injury attorney, contact VB Attorneys in Houston, Texas.
What is the Jones Act and how does it protect injured maritime workers?
The Jones Act is a federal law, formally Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, that gives injured seamen the right to sue their employers for negligence. Unlike workers' compensation, which limits recovery to scheduled benefits, the Jones Act allows maritime workers to recover full damages including lost wages, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of earning capacity. A Jones Act injury lawyer can help you understand whether you qualify as a seaman under the statute and what your claim may be worth.
Who qualifies as a Jones Act seaman?
To qualify as a Jones Act seaman, a worker must contribute to the function of a vessel or fleet of vessels in navigation and must have a substantial connection to that vessel or fleet. This can include deckhands, engineers, captains, tankermen, cooks, offshore supply vessel crews, and in some cases workers on offshore platforms or drilling rigs that qualify as vessels. If you are unsure whether you qualify, consulting an experienced Jones Act attorney is the most important step you can take.
Why would anyone want to repeal the Jones Act?
The Jones Act requires that vessels transporting cargo between United States ports be American-built, American-owned, American-flagged, and American-crewed. Foreign shipping companies, foreign-flag vessel operators, and corporations that would benefit from using cheaper foreign labor on domestic shipping routes have a financial incentive to repeal or weaken the Jones Act. As this article documents, the campaign to repeal the Jones Act has been funded in part by foreign corporations and the European Union.
How do I choose the best Jones Act lawyer for my case?
When selecting a Jones Act lawyer, look for Board Certification in Personal Injury Trial Law, significant trial experience in maritime cases specifically, a track record of substantial recoveries in Jones Act matters, and a deep understanding of maritime industry operations and federal maritime regulations. The Jones Act is a specialized area of law, and your case will benefit from a lawyer whose practice is focused on maritime injury litigation rather than general personal injury.
What should I do if I have been injured on a vessel or offshore platform?
Report the injury to your employer immediately and seek medical attention. Do not sign any documents or give recorded statements to your employer's insurance company without consulting a maritime injury lawyer first. Document the conditions that contributed to your injury if possible. Contact a Jones Act attorney as soon as you are able. There are time limitations on Jones Act claims, and early consultation with an experienced maritime injury lawyer protects your rights and preserves critical evidence.
Can I file a Jones Act claim if my employer is based outside of Texas?
Yes. The Jones Act is a federal statute, and Jones Act claims can be filed in federal court or in state court. An experienced Jones Act lawyer in Houston can represent maritime workers injured anywhere in the world, including on vessels operating in the Gulf of Mexico, along the United States coastline, on inland waterways, and in international waters. VB Attorneys regularly handles Jones Act cases involving employers and vessel operators based throughout the United States and internationally.