Sign up to learn about a potentially asymmetrical investment opportunity that nobody is talking about……….

On February 19, President Trump started the countdown to potentially the biggest government disclosure in history:

March 19, 2026 2pm EST

Register For My Free Webinar:

Replay will be sent out after the webinar to all registered attendees.

For years, investors have been trained to look for the “next big thing” in software. Faster chips. Smarter models. Better prompts.

But the real pivot showing up in policy is brutally analog: steel, dry docks, welders, nuclear reactors, and shipyards.

Because the uncomfortable truth is now being said out loud in official documents: the U.S. produces less than 1% of commercial ships globally, while China produces roughly half.

That’s not a “nice-to-fix-someday” statistic. That’s a national-security vulnerability. And it’s why Washington is moving from speeches to frameworks—directing agencies to produce a Maritime Action Plan and (critically) to find ways to secure durable federal funding to rebuild domestic maritime capacity.

This is the part most investors miss: shipbuilding is not a typical stimulus story. It’s not “GDP pop this quarter.” It’s a multi-year industrial mobilization—where the bottleneck becomes the investment thesis.

If you want a mental model, stop thinking “defense spending” and start thinking “constraint economics.”

The Maritime Action Plan itself points out how thin U.S. capacity really is—only a small number of shipyards can build large vessels, and the plan repeatedly frames this as a core limitation.

That matters because when Washington decides it wants ships—commercial or military—it can’t snap its fingers and create shipyards, skilled labor, and supplier ecosystems overnight.

So the winners won’t just be “anyone with exposure.” The winners will be the firms that already own the chokepoints:

The Maritime Action Plan is stuffed with mechanisms that look like classic “make demand durable” industrial policy: incentives, financing programs, procurement commitments, and attempts to make the economics work for domestic build.

One eye-popping detail: the plan discusses a funding approach where a universal fee on foreign cargo could generate enormous revenue over time—the document explicitly notes that a 25-cent-per-kilogram fee would yield close to $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
Whether that exact mechanism survives politics is almost beside the point. The signal is: they’re not thinking “tens of billions.” They’re thinking “industrial-scale funding.”

The U.S. Trade Representative has also acted against China’s maritime/logistics/shipbuilding dominance—laying out escalating measures tied to Chinese-built vessels and operators, structured in phases over time.

Translation: policy is trying to raise the cost of relying on the China shipbuilding machine, while lowering the friction for building (and maintaining) at home.

Even if you ignore every grand plan… the Navy still has to:

That’s not optional. That’s recurring revenue—often less glamorous than “new build,” but frequently more immediate.

If you’re looking for why this matters to stocks, it’s this:

Markets love stories that scale instantly. Software scales instantly. AI scales instantly.

Shipbuilding does not.

And that’s exactly why it can create outsized equity moves:

But there’s a catch—and this is where the reality check matters:

Shipbuilding booms can create revenue… and still create stock pain if execution slips and costs balloon. This is one of the most complex manufacturing ecosystems on earth, and it’s labor constrained. The “supercycle” can turn into an “overtime-and-margin” story if management teams aren’t disciplined.

So you don’t just want “shipbuilding exposure.”
You want the right kind of shipbuilding exposure.

If Washington is serious about rebuilding maritime capacity, the most obvious scarcity asset is the yard footprint and workforce already doing the work.

HII is one of the clearest ways to express that. Recent coverage of the company underscores ramping shipbuilding throughput and the operational push to increase production.

Why it can win:

What can go wrong:

GD gives you shipbuilding exposure through its marine businesses, but you’re not betting the firm on shipyards alone. It’s a portfolio defense prime, and that matters if the market turns risk-off.

Why it can win:

What can go wrong:

If new-build is the dream, repair/modernization is the paycheck.

BAE’s Norfolk ship-repair operation, for example, has been awarded large Navy modernization and maintenance work tied to specific depot periods.

Why it can win:

What can go wrong:

Note: BAESY is the U.S.-traded ADR for BAE Systems.

If this becomes a real industrial ramp, the best trades sometimes sit one level below the headline primes:

These names can benefit because they’re less about “winning the contract” and more about “the work has to happen.”

If policy raises friction for Chinese-built vessels and operators, the cost doesn’t disappear—it gets pushed through the system.
That can mean:

If freight costs rise structurally, low-margin importers and “cheap goods” models feel it first. This is not a neat, single-ticker short—it’s a theme risk.

This is the sleeper risk for investors chasing the headlines: shipbuilding is slow. If the market prices this like a software adoption curve, it’ll create disappointment cycles.

If you’re trying to decide whether this is “trade talk” or “a decade theme,” here are the tells:

This isn’t just a “defense stocks up” story.

It’s Washington admitting—on paper—that the maritime industrial base is strategic, fragile, and dominated elsewhere… and attempting to rebuild it with real tools: financing, procurement, and trade pressure.

If you want to express the theme with a short, clean basket:

If you want to get more aggressive, the next layer is the suppliers—and that’s where the market often misprices the duration of the cycle.

Today is FOMC. Nobody expects a cut, or Powell to bail Trump out with a bullish forecast. After two green days in a row, the market is vulnerable to a hawkish statement.

This is probably Art of the Deal stuff, but you never know……

Just the possibility ought to be a positive for European aerospace and defense names…….

Today’s stock is UBER (we own it in MEMY)…….

They announced a partnership with NVDA and popped above the 50 day moving average.

The H.E.A.T. (Hedge, Edge, Asymmetry and Theme) Formula is designed to empower investors to spot opportunities, think independently, make smarter (often contrarian) moves, and build real wealth.

The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the Chief Executive Officer and Portfolio Manager for Tuttle Capital Management (TCM) and are subject to change without notice. The data and information provided is derived from sources deemed to be reliable but we cannot guarantee its accuracy. Investing in securities is subject to risk including the possible loss of principal. Trade notifications are for informational purposes only. TCM offers fully transparent ETFs and provides trade information for all actively managed ETFs. TCM's statements are not an endorsement of any company or a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. Trade notification files are not provided until full trade execution at the end of a trading day. The time stamp of the email is the time of file upload and not necessarily the exact time of the trades. TCM is not a commodity trading advisor and content provided regarding commodity interests is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a recommendation. Investment recommendations for any securities or product may be made only after a comprehensive suitability review of the investor’s financial situation.© 2026 Tuttle Capital Management, LLC (TCM). TCM is a SEC-Registered Investment Adviser. All rights reserved.