What a second Trump administration might mean for icebreakers: Commentary

On Nov. 11, Finland’s President Alexander Stubb posted this on X:

That’s right- President-elect Trump is already discussing icebreakers with the President of Finland. This may seem like a natural result of the ongoing work on the recently announced ICE (Icebreaker Collaboration Effort) Pact between the USA, Finland, and Canada.

To those familiar with President Trump’s first term efforts to acquire icebreakers for the U.S. Coast Guard, this conversation signals much more.

For those of you unfamiliar with this earlier effort, here is a quick recap:

Early term, 2017-2018:

President Trump learned about the dire state of U.S. Coast Guard icebreaking. The first Polar Security Cutter (Heavy Icebreaker) is funded. In the background, the Finnish government continues to talk with U.S. officials about Finland’s ability to assist with icebreaker design and construction.

In remarks at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy Commencement in May of 2017, President Trump said:

Out of the five branches of our Armed Services, it’s only the Coast Guard that has the power to break through 21 feet of rock-solid Arctic ice, right?  You’re the only ones.  And I’m proud to say that under my administration, as you just heard, we will be building the first new heavy icebreakers the United States has seen in over 40 years.  We’re going to build many of them.  (Applause.)  We need them.  We need them.

At the Change of Command for the Commandant of the Coast Guard in 2018, President Trump said:

One of the first times I met the Admiral last year, I asked him, “What do you need?”  He replied, “Sir, we need icebreakers and we need them badly.”  Well, now you’re getting them.  (Applause.)  And to be specific, I’m pleased to report that the Coast Guard is now on course to receive its first new heavy icebreaker in more than forty years, and plenty other ships, and boats, and equipment, and everything you need.

The Second Half, 2019-2020:

Frustrated by the lack of a plan for the U.S. Coast Guard to meet its own required number of icebreakers, the Trump Administration- with support from the top- began to push for other solutions. As part of this, President Trump and Finland’s President Sauli Niinistö discussed cooperation on icebreaker construction during an October 2019 meeting, reflected in the resulting Joint Statement:

The Arctic provides new economic opportunities, but environmental changes such as the diminishing of sea ice raise environmental concerns.  The United States and Finland share a commitment to clean air and water and environmental protection, including the reduction of particulate matter, and with it, black carbon.  Our two countries will use our cold-weather proficiency, understanding, and technology to advance our cooperation in the Arctic, including with respect to the production of new icebreakers.

In 2020, President Trump took the issue public by issuing the Memorandum on Safeguarding U.S. National Interests in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions. The memo is worth a read, although you might find the lack of progress over the past four years quite frustrating. The memo provided explicit direction to the Secretaries of Defense, State, and Homeland Security to provide information and analysis in comprehensive report on icebreaking requirements. Among other things, the memo specifically directed a look at potential allied-built solutions:

….the Secretary of State shall coordinate with the Secretary of Homeland Security in identifying viable polar security icebreaker leasing options, provided by partner nations, as a near- to mid-term (Fiscal Years 2022-2029) bridging strategy to mitigate future operational degradation of the USCGC POLAR STAR….

Further, and in advance of any bid solicitation for future polar security icebreaker acquisitions, the Secretary of State shall coordinate with the Secretary of Homeland Security to identify partner nations with proven foreign shipbuilding capability and expertise in icebreaker construction.

I was the U.S. Naval Attaché in Helsinki at the time and was personally involved in gathering and providing information on Finland’s capabilities for the State Department.

Clearly President Trump had something in mind, as less than one month later he was once again talking about icebreakers, this time in an address to U.S. Southern Command:

And we’re going to be trying to get, if we can, an extra 10 icebreakers. We only have one. Russia has 40; we have one. So we will have 2, but we think we’ll have 10 because we’re trying to do a deal with a certain place that has a lot of icebreakers, and we’re seeing if we can make a really good deal where you can have them very fast. You know about that. We’re working on it, and I think we can surprise you – at a very good price, which will be nice. Much cheaper than the one we’re building, and that’s also nice. You could do about five of them.

The rhetoric was ahead of the process, but the direction was clear. Things were in motion. Unfortunately, the program stalled with the change of administration and then seemed to quietly fade away.

The program stalled mainly because of domestic political considerations. Four years on, it is unfortunate that these “tactical” political considerations outweighed the strategic imperatives associated with U.S. Arctic and Antarctic presence.

Considering that Finland is purchasing 64 F-35 fighter aircraft and the associated weaponry from the U.S. for around $10 Billion, it seems short sighted to kill a $1 billion or less deal to design and produce the lead ship of a new class of icebreakers in Finland.

The ICE Pact is not a continuation of this effort

There are two key differences. First, the Trump Administration was specifically pursuing a deal that involved allied construction of icebreakers. But this did not mean building all of the ships overseas. One proposal under consideration involved the construction of a lead icebreaker (or icebreakers) quickly in a proven allied shipyard alongside shipbuilders from a partnering American shipyard. Once the immediate need was met, production would then shift to the partnering American shipyard which would then have the benefit of recent icebreaker construction experience.

Early statements from the Biden Administration made it clear that the ICE Pact does not involve building icebreakers for the U.S. Coast Guard outside of the USA. Even ideas like lead-ship production are off the table. Second, the ICE Pact initiative comes from the NSC, and is not personally championed by the sitting President.

The ICE Pact’s non-binding Memorandum of Understanding is due to be signed tomorrow, November 13th. Although the headline used on the DHS web page sounds promising (Canada, Finland, and the United States Sign MOU to Build Arctic and Polar Icebreakers), word from the Finnish press is that it will include no concrete programs.

Without any concrete programs, this just becomes another MOU that politicians can point to (see, we’re doing something) as it produces nothing of note or value.

But it could become one

Finland still aims to actually build icebreakers as part of the deal. With strong support from President Trump, a future cooperative agreement to build icebreakers for the U.S. Coast Guard in partnership with allied nations, such as the lead ship partnership mentioned earlier, could come under the auspices of the ICE Pact.

After four years of the status quo, the U.S. Coast Guard is worse off than it was. Its icebreakers are older, and construction has not yet begun on the first Polar Security Cutter. Funded back in 2017, it was supposed to be complete by now. This delay, and the reality of Russian and Chinese presence in polar waters, already led the U.S. Coast Guard to change its mind regarding the commercial vessel Aiviq. Perhaps it will also change its tune about allied built icebreakers. If not, this time it will at least be harder for the naysayers to wait out the President.

Three years ahead of last time

This can only be good news for those who want the U.S. Coast Guard to be able to execute its high-latitude mission sets. It could also be good for a U.S. shipyard willing to partner with an allied (likely Finnish) shipyard in such a project.

Stay tuned!

All the best,

PGR

This is a reproduction of an article that first appeared on Sixty Degrees North. If you would like to read more posts by Peter Rybski, you can sign up for his blog here.

Peter Rybski is a retired U.S. Naval Officer who has been living in Finland since 2017. On his blog, he writes about subjects including military policies and capabilities, history and Nordic living.