U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer is considering large penalties on such ships constructed in China. This move is meant to help ensure that strong domestic shipbuilding industry when these ships come into U.S. ports. The proposal has understandably raised alarm from farmers and the ocean carriers as well as other industry stakeholders. They caution that these retaliatory tariffs may be counterproductive and hurt American businesses and consumers.
Under the plan, these new port fees would massively increase the cost of shipping U.S. exports. Estimates indicate a landing fee increase of up to $600 – $800 per container. This would essentially double the costs for American exporters, putting them at a competitive disadvantage to their global peers.
The World Shipping Council (WSC) has expressed powerful opposition to the possible impacts of these tariffs. According to the WSC, the proposed regulations would potentially cover 98% of all liner vessels, including container and cruise ships, calling on U.S. ports. This huge reach has led to panic over a so-called domino effect of widespread disruption and skyrocketing costs throughout the entire shipping industry.
Those would be the U.S. government’s heavy duties designed to punish ocean carriers that put Chinese-built ships into service serving American trade. This strategy is focused on rebuilding the domestic shipbuilding base. Critics say this approach could backfire, ultimately hurting the businesses it’s meant to protect.
In 2024, deep-sea container liner vessels set a record with 12,410 U.S. port calls. This increase highlights the immense amount of maritime trade that would be impacted by the proposed punitive tariffs.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration’s latest data, the U.S. flagged fleet consists of 182 ships. A typical vessel has a useful life of 20-30 years. This emphasizes the urgent, long-term investments required in shipbuilding and maritime operations.
The liner shipping industry is not only essential to our national economy and security. It helps create and sustain over 6.4 million American jobs and adds over $1.1 trillion to our nation’s gross domestic product. This strong economic impact all across the country highlights how important it is to have a healthy, thriving and competitive maritime industry.
WSC members currently operate three-quarters of the U.S. Maritime Administration’s Maritime Security Program Fleet. This highlights, more than anything, their important and indispensable role in upholding the security and reliability of maritime transportation.
The USTR’s proposed port fees could result in multiple $1,000+ charges per container. According to our estimates, fees would amount to nearly $6,350 for a 40-foot container on a typical-sized, 6,600 TEU containership.
Container vessels serving the U.S. typically call on 3 to 4 ports each trip. That’s almost $800 million at the proposed fees just on these 12 ports alone, a major hit to both these ports and their associated businesses.
To put that in comparison, Sea-Intelligence reported there were only 1,692 total port calls to Canadian ports in 2024. This gap sheds light on the risk of cargo diversion if U.S. ports are unable to compete because of the new tariffs.
USTR’s proposed port fees would lead to fewer port calls in the U.S. This amendment will especially hurt the smaller and medium-sized ports. This change would redirect millions of truck trips to larger ports, forcing bad traffic and inefficient forms of congestion upon them.
"The proposals will result in increased costs for U.S. exporters and consumers as well as supply chain inefficiencies, while failing to provide China with effective incentives to alter its acts, policies, and practices," - Joe Kramek, president of the WSC.
Stakeholders from virtually every sector have vigorously opposed the proposed tariffs. They are fearful of increased inflation, loss of economic competitiveness, and potential destabilization of global supply chains.
"The nation's agriculture exporters are united in concern and opposition to the proposal," - Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition.
Like most of the Southern economy, the ag sector has made do and profited from exports, baby. They’re most concerned about the impact tariffs will have on their ability to compete in global markets.
"If they were available at a reasonable cost, U.S. exporters, including agriculture, would already be using this option," - Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition.
This provision implies that price, and availability of U.S.-built ships are the primary determining factor in whether or not exporters will adopt them.
"You've essentially told those exporters you're out of business," - Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition.
This statement highlights the danger that the tariffs will punish American exporters by rendering their products less competitive.
"Even when they are, they are not competitive, making them an unfeasible option for U.S. exporters and importers," - Nate Herman, senior vice president of policy at the American Apparel & Footwear Association.
It’s this lack of competitiveness for U.S.-build ships that is the primary barrier to their use by exporters and importers on a large-scale.
"We are already in an inflationary economy. Americans cannot afford further price increases and product shortages. And American manufacturers and farmers cannot afford to lose more export markets. This is especially true when many of those export markets are already closing due to retaliatory tariffs." - Nate Herman, senior vice president of policy at the American Apparel & Footwear Association.
American consumers and businesses are understandably concerned about further administrative price increases. They share deep concerns about product shortages in an already inflationary economy.
"The fees would generate congestion at larger ports while reducing service at smaller ports as vessel operators minimize the number of U.S. port calls their vessels make on each route," - Joe Kramek, president of the WSC.
Our concern would be that larger ports might see more congestion, which is a big concern. At the same time, smaller ports face lower levels of service that jeopardize the overall efficiency of the U.S. maritime transportation system.
"A revitalization of the U.S. maritime industry would be very positive," - Joe Kramek, president of the WSC.
Stakeholders from many corners recognize the myriad potential benefits to revitalizing this important U.S. maritime industry. They are strongly opposed to any actions that would negatively impact American businesses and consumers.
"Instead of limiting which vessels can carry exports and imposing backward-looking, retroactive fees on shipping companies that help to drive the American economy, the Administration should work with Congress on a forward-looking strategy that is constructively designed to revitalize the U.S. maritime industry," - Joe Kramek, president of the WSC.
This statement calls for a more comprehensive and forward-looking approach to revitalizing the U.S. maritime industry, one that avoids punitive measures and focuses on constructive solutions.
