President Donald Trump’s talk about blockading the Strait of Hormuz—framed as a way to stop oil and other goods from moving to and from Iran—has quickly turned into a political argument of its own.
Trump’s Hormuz blockade meets a history lesson
In a defense of that approach, Rep.
Byron Donalds, R-Fla., reached back to the early 19th century and the Ottoman-linked outposts that demanded payments from U.S.
shipping in the Mediterranean Sea.
Donals pointed to the sporadic conflicts between 1801 and 1815 that became known as the Barbary wars, arguing the U.S.
Navy’s “creation was actually to free international waters from the Barbary pirates.”
That pitch matters, because it’s not just a historical flex.
Donalds, who is running for the Republican nomination for Florida governor, was asked in an April 12 interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” how Trump’s action would lead to the reopening of the strait.
Donalds answered with the blunt origin-story claim, saying, “Our Navy — its creation was actually to free international waters from the Barbary pirates.
That’s why we have the U.S.
Navy.”
Misryoum newsroom reporting notes that Iran has controlled the vital shipping route since shortly after the U.S.
and Israel launched attacks Feb.
28.
When Iran said it would charge tolls for ships attempting to pass, Trump initially condemned the idea, floated a U.S.-Iran tolling “joint venture,” then settled on the blockade plan.
And even without getting into the politics, the temptation to draw a neat line between those eras is obvious—ships, routes, payments, and the threat behind the bill.
There’s a moment, the kind you notice when listening to political talk live, when the room goes quiet—like people are waiting for the punchline. But the historical record is more complicated than a single soundbite.
How the Barbary past maps onto today
Historians who study the period say there are definite echoes between the two conflicts.
Frederick C.
Leiner, author of “The End of Barbary Terror” and “Prisoners of the Bashaw,” said the “threat from the Barbary regimes was critical for the creation of the U.S.
Navy.” Another historian, Adrian Tinniswood, author of “Pirates of Barbary,” put it more plainly: “U.S.
ships were declared a legitimate target by Barbary pirates operating out of Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli, hence the U.S.
Navy’s involvement in the area.”
But Misryoum editorial analysis also finds the comparison doesn’t work in every detail.
The U.S.
had a navy during the American Revolution, yet after debt and a weak central government, the country decided against maintaining a standing fleet.
The continental navy disappeared when the Alliance—a 36-gun frigate—was sold to a private merchant in 1785.
So the Navy as a permanent institution didn’t simply pop into existence because of a single grievance.
Under President George Washington, piracy pressure from the Barbary states—particularly Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli, loosely affiliated with the Ottoman Empire—grew during his tenure, and Britain, no longer invested in protecting its former colony, stepped away.
Countries paid “tributes” to secure safe passage; those that refused faced boarding, hostage-taking, and cargo confiscation.
Technically, this wasn’t piracy by non-state actors; it was government-backed privateering, often called “corsairing.” Even so, the effect on American commerce was real.
Initially, the United States tried paying.
Washington lobbied Congress to authorize six ships, but before the order was completed, the U.S.
agreed to pay a large tribute to Algiers.
Lawmakers then cut back the number of ships to three plus some smaller vessels.
With that modest force, the U.S.
fought France in what became the Quasi War (1798 to 1801).
After Thomas Jefferson took office in 1801, he rejected Tripoli’s demand for payment; Tripoli then declared war, and hostilities ended years later with a negotiated settlement in which the United States paid a smaller tribute than initially demanded.
Then came the blockade logic—similar on the surface, different in the fine print.
As happened in the current Iran conflict, the U.S.
mounted a blockade with Congress’ authorization.
It was reasonably successful until the frigate Philadelphia ran aground; its 307-man crew was captured and imprisoned for 19 months.
Jefferson ordered more ships to focus on securing the crew’s release, which eventually happened in 1805 after payment of about $50 per man.
The second Barbary war, against Algiers in 1815, was shorter—helped by experience from the War of 1812—and it largely ended the era of Barbary piracy.
It’s fair, one senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mark Cancian, said, that the Navy became permanent because of the Barbary pirates.
Misryoum newsroom reporting also points out that modern Americans often remember this era through the Marine Hymn lyric “to the shores of Tripoli.” But beyond the music, the key question is whether Donalds’ line holds up.
Our ruling: Misryoum rates the statement Mostly True.
Donalds is accurate that the Barbary problem shaped the creation of a standing Navy.
He also tied the story to today’s Iran situation, but he didn’t fully address the differences—like the Barbary conflicts’ hostage-for-ransom component.
Both cases involved military action to protect trade from efforts to extract tributes or tolls, and Misryoum editorial analysis says the comparison is valid in that sense.
Yet Cancian added that the blockade of Iran is an “element of a broader war with Iran” with no Barbary-pirate parallel.
Iran has reportedly assessed tolls on certain vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz, though Iran has denied doing so in at least some instances.
Leiner warned that forcing every ship that passes to pay money to assure safety adds costs—an economic warfare dynamic.
Still, Donalds’ history works best as a foundation, not as a perfect mirror.
And the more you dig, the less the story stays contained in a single sentence—whether you want it to or not.
Texas Medical Board sanctions doctors after pregnancy-care deaths
Growing backlog in immigration applications leaves millions waiting
Israel-Lebanon ceasefire strains as Trump-Pope Iran feud escalates