Great Lakes groups, like the Lake Carriers Association, have spent the better part of two decades advocating for funding a new icebreaking ship.
The advocates say a new Coast Guard vessel, which could help open up commerce on the Great Lakes during the winter, would stop billions of dollars lost due to shipping delays.
An early version of President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” included federal money to build it, but those dollars were removed without warning.
With a 10 year timeline to build the icebreaker after funds are received, some groups are concerned about the continued economic impact of operating without.
“We put a man on the moon faster than they could build an icebreaker,” said Eric Peace, vice president of the Lake Carriers’ Association.
His group represents the interests of commercial shipping vessels operating on the Great Lakes, which mainly transport bulk cargo, like iron ore and coal, that is used in industry and infrastructure.
According to one Great Lakes advocacy group, the lakes fuel a $6 trillion regional economy, with more than 1.5 million U.S. jobs generating $62 billion in annual wages.
Approximately 55% of the Great Lakes’ regional economy is dependent on key shipping channels, according to an April 21 report from the Congressional Research Service.
In the winter months, it’s often necessary to break apart Great Lakes ice to ensure ships carrying cargo can move throughout the lakes.
The U.S. Coast Guard is required by law to assist in keeping channels and harbors open using nine ships in its fleet - six icebreaking tugboats, two buoy tenders and the 240-foot heavy Great Lakes Icebreaker Mackinaw, which can break out stuck vessels and crush ice more than three feet thick.
With only one ship of the Mackinaw’s size and a great deal of need during the winter months, advocacy groups have said the Coast Guard’s existing heavy icebreaker isn’t keeping up.
These groups have continued to advocate for a second Great Lakes icebreaker. The funding was briefly included in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, a sprawling reconciliation package that among other things, included a nearly $25 billion investment to the Coast Guard.
The Great Lakes icebreaker was specifically mentioned in the U.S. House-passed version of the legislation, but appears to have been removed from the Senate’s version and what was ultimately signed by Trump.
Peace said with only one heavy icebreaker on the Great Lakes, “it impacts our ability to move commerce.
“She can only be at one place at one time, and it’s often difficult to get her to where she needs to be.”
Economic analysis done on behalf of the association found that inadequate icebreaking during the winters of 2014, 2015 and 2019 combined cost the region $2 billion in economic activity and 11,000 jobs.
In the winter of 2018 alone, the economy took a $1 billion hit, and 5,000 jobs were lost.
In 2020, the association said the first commercial vessel to transit the Soo Locks became stuck in the ice because the Mackinaw could not cover the 500 square miles in Whitefish Bay, located on Lake Superior.
Peace, a former U.S. Coast Guard commander with over 20 years’ experience specializing in icebreaking operations, said the Coast Guard’s own analysis has determined a second Great Lakes icebreaker is necessary, “but we’ve struggled to get funding for it.”
The Coast Guard has estimated the total cost of the ship would be about $350 million. Legislation adopted in 2023 authorized the funds for the vessel “at least as capable” as the cutter Mackinaw, but lawmakers have yet to appropriate the full funds.
Peace said at this point, the service has received $60 million in funding from Congress to jumpstart the acquisition and design process for the icebreaker. A program management office has been set up.
“We still need a significant amount of money in order to get this thing built,” he said.
The U.S. House’s version of the latest Trump reconciliation bill included specific language to fund the heavy Great Lakes icebreaker, part of a nearly $5 billion line item for “Arctic security cutters and domestic icebreakers.”
The enrolled version of the bill, however, includes only $816 million for domestic “light and medium icebreaking cutters.”
Peace said as the Mackinac is considered a heavy domestic icebreaker by Great Lakes standards, it likely wouldn’t be included under the line item, though he said it could be up to Coast Guard interpretation.
Coast Guard Chief of Media Relations Steve Roth confirmed that the bill as approved by Congress and signed by Trump “does not include funding for production of an additional Great Lakes icebreaker” because of its designation by the Coast Guard as heavy.
“The Coast Guard is proceeding with previously appropriated funding to support pre-acquisition activities and analysis of future ship design and requirements,” Roth said. “Pending receipt of funding through the annual appropriations process, the program remains on track to acquire a Great Lakes icebreaker to bolster domestic icebreaking capabilities.”
In a June 27 letter, U.S. Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Zeeland, wrote that Great Lakes legislators were not aware of any reason why “the Great Lakes icebreaker, among all icebreakers requested by the Coast Guard, should go unfunded in this bill.”
He and eight other members of Congress, including U.S. Reps. Jack Bergman, R-Watersmeet, Lisa McClain, R-Romeo, Tim Walberg, R-Tipton and Tom Barrett, R- Charlotte, called for a return of the funds in the letter, sent to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R- South Dakota and Sen. Ted Cruz, R- Texas.
A Rep. Huizenga spokesperson did not return multiple requests for comment.
Peace said advocacy groups are now also trying to seek clarity about why the funding was removed from the Senate’s proposal.
When asked about next steps for Great Lakes advocacy groups, he said, “We’re not done.
“We’ll continue to fight this fight,” Peace said. “We’ve been doing it for two decades. We’ll continue to do it until this thing gets built in the Great Lakes.”
But even when the funding is fully appropriated, he referenced Coast Guard estimates that the icebreaker would still take 10 years to build, meaning more years with potentially significant economic disruption.
©2025 Advance Local Media LLC. Visit mlive.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
