Is America now a Barbary pirate?

Opinion>Opinions - National Security The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill Is America now a Barbary pirate? Comments: by Michael Szalma, opinion contributor - 08/06/26 11:30 AM ET Comments: Link copied by Michael Szalma, opinion contributor - 08/06/26 11:30 AM ET Comments: Link copied Title: Iran US Israel Image ID: 26060593188960 Article: This image provided by U.S. Central Command shows Navy sailors, assigned to Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Thomas Hudner (DDG 116), standing bridge watch as the ship fires a Tomahawk land attack missile (TLAM) in support of Operation Epic Fury, on Sunday, March 1, 2026. (U.S. Navy via AP)

Title: Iran US Israel Image ID: 26060593188960 Article: This image provided by U.S. Central Command shows Navy sailors, assigned to Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Thomas Hudner (DDG 116), standing bridge watch as the ship fires a Tomahawk land attack missile (TLAM) in support of Operation Epic Fury, on Sunday, March 1, 2026. (U.S. Navy via AP)

This image provided by U.S. Central Command shows Navy sailors, assigned to Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Thomas Hudner (DDG 116), standing bridge watch as the ship fires a Tomahawk land attack missile (TLAM) in support of Operation Epic Fury, on Sunday, March 1, 2026. (U.S. Navy via AP)

The Iran War continues to turn unexpectedly. One recent twist surprised much of the world: President Trump announcing a 20 percent toll for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz. The very next day, he changed his mind. Rightfully so. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was on record stating that such action violates international law.

Nonetheless, Trump’s announced replacement plan is problematic. Although accepting financial investments from the Gulf States in lieu of these tolls may be legal, Trump is still flouting a core principle held by the U.S. since its inception. In doing so, he flies in the face of the origin stories of two branches of our military, negates American efforts in two world wars and flips a position taken by the United States in the Middle East during the Cold War.

In short, it would upend almost 250 years of America’s history as a beacon for commercial freedom.

From Trump’s perspective, accepting these as-yet unspecified investments is a means of defraying the costs of American military presence in the region. It fits with his transactional approach to policymaking. But this perspective misses the larger point and reverses what America has traditionally symbolized.

Part of the U.S. Navy’s mission statement is to “keep the seas open and free.” This task and purpose traces back to its very creation. Although there had been a Continental Navy during the American Revolution, it disbanded by 1785. However, within 10 years, it became clear that a naval arm was necessary due to an extortion scheme perpetrated by four semi-independent states along the Barbary Coast of North Africa.

These states, dubbed Barbary pirates, forced the newly established United States to pay tribute for its merchant ships’ safe passage — as well as ransom for sailors held hostage — in the Atlantic near North Africa and in the Mediterranean Sea. In response, President George Washington signed an act establishing the United States Navy in 1794.

In doing so, Washington promulgated the principle of freedom of navigation. But navies take time to build. Washington, and his immediate successor John Adams, attempted diplomacy while continuing to pay. In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson rejected tribute payments and sent a small fleet to the region.

Over the next few years, the conflict escalated. Every U.S. Marine has heard of their predecessors’ first major battle in 1805, immortalized in the Marine Corps Hymn’s line about the “shores of Tripoli.” Tensions continued until 1815, after American force and European threat compelled the Barbary Pirates to end their practices.

Now, some 200-plus years later, Washington’s latest successor is flipping our country’s role in maritime protection rackets. True, the U.S. Navy won’t be enforcing a toll system counter to its origins and its mission as Trump had originally planned. However, the Gulf States have pledged investments in lieu of tolls. This should not be taken lightly nor considered as an off-ramp for a potential international crisis. This is still a form of tribute. It is a scheme similar to what made the Barbary pirates America’s enemies over two centuries ago.

Yet, the Barbary Wars were only the beginning. Freedom of navigation and trade are at the very foundation of America’s role as a great power.

In January 1918, during World War I, President Woodrow Wilson outlined his 14 points plan to prevent another world war. Point two was “absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war.” Even his caveat, “except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants,” mentions nothing about protection money and instead emphasizes international accord regarding any potential action.

Two decades later, President Franklin Roosevelt outlined core principles in what became known as the Atlantic Charter. The seventh principle in this agreement with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill stated that after defeating the Nazi threat, the “peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance.”

Upholding this principle even informed President Dwight Eisenhower’s actions during the 1956 Suez Canal Crisis. After Egypt nationalized the canal, taking control away from the British and French, the Eisenhower administration took the position that as long as Egypt compensated the private company that owned the canal, and allowed the free flow of traffic through it, the nationalization of the canal was legal.

In adopting this view, Eisenhower risked alienating two key allies. Although there were other factors in Eisenhower’s response to this crisis, it cannot be ignored that preserving freedom of the seas was a vitally important consideration.

Regardless of political affiliation, all Americans should be asking if the spirit behind Trump’s new policy reflects who we are as a people. Our history suggests it does not. America has long protected freedom of navigation. America does not collect tribute, whether in the form of illegal tolls or legal investments in their stead.

Michael Szalma is a retired U.S. Army officer who deployed to Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. He is now a history professor in Central Florida.