The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has unveiled an unprecedented proposal aimed at imposing hefty port fees on Chinese shipping companies, vessels built in China, and operators with even a single Chinese-built ship in their fleets. This move represents the most aggressive financial threat to vessel operators under the Trump administration, escalating tensions in global maritime trade.
Announced on Friday, the plan outlines steep fees for ships calling at U.S. ports, effectively penalizing Chinese operators and those with Chinese-built vessels. The action follows a USTR investigation initiated in March 2024, which concluded that China engages in unfair shipbuilding and maritime practices. Public comments on the proposal will be accepted until March 24, with a public hearing to follow. The final decision rests solely with President Donald Trump.
Broad Impact on Global Shipping
If implemented, the proposal would substantially increase costs for a wide range of vessels docking at U.S. ports. These costs would inevitably be passed on to importers and exporters through surcharges in container shipping, higher freight rates for bulk commodities, and charter party clauses.
Under the proposed rules, Chinese maritime transport operators—such as state-owned shipping giant Cosco—would be charged $1,000 per net ton, capped at $1 million per port call. Given that most commercial vessels exceed 1,000 net tons, each call at a U.S. port would likely trigger the maximum charge. For container shipping alliances like Ocean Alliance, which includes CMA CGM, Evergreen, and OOCL, multiple U.S. port calls per loop could mean charges of $2 million to $3 million per voyage.
The rules would also impact operators with Chinese-built ships, even if those vessels never call at U.S. ports. The fee structure is tiered based on fleet composition. Operators with 50% or more of their global fleet built in China would face $1 million per port call. Those with 26%-49% Chinese-built ships would pay $750,000, while those with as little as a single Chinese-built vessel—purchased years ago and never calling in the U.S.—would be charged $500,000 per call.
Implications for Future Ship Orders
Adding another layer of complexity, the USTR proposal extends to future ship orders. Operators with vessels under construction at Chinese yards—scheduled for delivery within 24 months of the rule’s implementation—would also be subject to additional port fees. Companies with over 50% of their newbuild orders in China would face a $1 million charge per port call. Those with 26%-49% Chinese orders would pay $750,000, while operators with any orders at Chinese yards would incur a $500,000 fee per call.
The language suggests that these fees are cumulative, potentially stacking on top of those already imposed on Chinese maritime transport operators and Chinese-built ships. This could leave companies scrambling for legal and operational workarounds, such as separating fleets into distinct entities to avoid penalties.
Reshaping Global Shipping Routes
With costs skyrocketing, many operators could be forced to reroute vessels away from the U.S., furthering the fragmentation of global shipping networks. This move accelerates the trend of “parallel” fleets, where shipping companies maintain separate operations for different trade lanes to mitigate geopolitical and regulatory risks.
Meanwhile, the proposal also includes cargo preference requirements for U.S. exports. Under this plan, a rising percentage of U.S. exports—starting at 1% and escalating to 15% by year seven—would need to be transported on U.S.-flagged and U.S-operated vessels, with 5% requiring U.S.-built ships. Given the current state of American shipbuilding, where no new tankers have been built since 2017 and the last LNG carrier was completed in 1980, meeting these requirements presents significant challenges.
With the shipping industry already grappling with geopolitical tensions, regulatory hurdles, and economic pressures, the USTR’s aggressive measures signal a potential reshaping of global maritime trade dynamics. The coming months will determine whether these proposals move forward—and how the industry will respond.
Source: lloydslist
