Icebreakers are becoming the litmus test for the U.S. Arctic strategy

The U.S. Coast Guard states that the United States is an Arctic Nation. Its 2019 Arctic Strategic Outlook declares: “The United States is an Arctic Nation, and as America’s maritime presence, the Coast Guard maintains an enduring responsibility for the national security and economic prosperity of the Arctic.”

However, observers argue that if the U.S. wants to be taken seriously as an Arctic nation, it needs to enhance its focus and investment in the region. One critical area under scrutiny is its investment in icebreakers—essential for transportation of heating oil and other commerce, defense and military exercises, rescue missions, and more. The Arctic is a maritime region, and without icebreakers, there is no year-round presence.

The State of the U.S. Icebreaker Fleet

The U.S. currently has two icebreakers, both outdated and frequently out of service. In 2018, it ordered three new icebreakers to supplement its small fleet capable of cutting through Arctic ice. However, progress has been slow, and challenges persist:

• The USCGC Healy canceled its summer mission in August 2024 due to a fire and was out of commission for several months. This was its second fire in recent years; the first occurred in 2020.
• The USCGC Polar Star, commissioned in 1976, is well beyond its expected operational life despite undergoing multiple life-extension phases.

Notably, the U.S. Coast Guard, part of Homeland Security, operates the icebreakers, not the Navy under the Department of Defense.

The Need for Upgrades

Arctic experts emphasize that the U.S. must modernize its icebreaker fleet to maintain influence in the region. Compared to other nations, the U.S. lags significantly:

• Russia reportedly has over 40 icebreakers, including seven powered by nuclear reactors.
• China, self-proclaimed as a “near-Arctic state,” has three icebreakers, with another expected in 2025.
• Finland, which constructs 60% of the world’s icebreakers, has 12. Sweden has five, and Norway has two.

Despite commissioning three new icebreakers five years ago, U.S. shipyards have yet to begin construction. The estimated budget for the project, initially under $2 billion, has more than doubled. Bollinger Shipyards, tasked with building the ships, has not responded to requests for comment.

“If the U.S. wants to be the most powerful nation and match up to others, it needs an icebreaker. Russia and China have newer, more operational fleets, so the U.S. should want them too,” said Mads Qvist Frederiksen, Director of the Arctic Economic Council.

The ICE Pact: A Collaborative Effort

In July 2024, the Biden administration announced the Icebreaker Collaboration Effort (ICE Pact) with Canada and Finland. This agreement aims to strengthen shipbuilding capabilities and build closer security and economic ties among the three nations.

• A Finnish news report indicates a memorandum of understanding will be signed soon.
• Jake Sullivan, U.S. National Security Advisor, stated: “Authoritarian nations that are making or offering the icebreakers to the world want to corner the icebreaker market. We’re determined to have democracies lead in producing icebreaking capabilities.”

Experts suggest the U.S. could benefit from Canada’s and Finland’s expertise in icebreaker manufacturing. Rockford Weitz, Director of Maritime Studies at Tufts University, noted: “The Canadians and Finns have been building icebreakers successfully for the commercial market. The U.S. can leverage that for significant gains.”

Challenges and Opportunities

Despite the ICE Pact, skepticism remains about the U.S.’s commitment to the Arctic:

• The Arctic contributes minimally to the U.S. economy, while it accounts for 20% of Russia’s economy.
• Alaska oil revenue, once a major contributor, has been declining.

“The U.S. hasn’t built a ship like this in over 40 years, and only a few states care about this issue,” said Malte Humpert of The Arctic Institute.

Nevertheless, experts like Tero Vauraste of the Woodrow Wilson Center Polar Institute believe that Russia and China’s increasing Arctic interests may spur the U.S. to act decisively. “International collaboration in design, building, and operation would give the U.S. an operational shortcut and cost-saving pathway to quickly break the ice,” Vauraste said.

Winners and Losers

If the U.S. succeeds in enhancing its icebreaker capacity:

• Winners: U.S. politicians advocating for Arctic investments, the Coast Guard, and Alaska communities.
• Losers: U.S. taxpayers, who will shoulder the higher costs, and Alaska communities, who continue to wait for adequate icebreaking support.

Conclusion

The U.S.’s Arctic aspirations span security, trade, and climate change. Delivering on these ambitions, however, requires significant investment in icebreaking capabilities. With international collaboration and renewed focus, the U.S. has the potential to assert its role as a serious Arctic Nation.

This article was written by Juliana Wheeler, a U.S.-based communications consultant and freelance journalist who regularly contributes to Arctic Today.