A new proposal from the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), based on findings from an investigation into Chinese shipbuilding and maritime policies, could dramatically increase costs for global vessel operators. The proposed U.S. port fees, as detailed in Greg Miller’s analysis in Lloyd’s List, extend well beyond targeting Chinese-owned shipping companies. Instead, they introduce financial penalties for any fleet with a Chinese-built vessel or an active newbuilding order at a Chinese yard. If implemented, this policy will have ripple effects across all shipping sectors, from container carriers to bulk commodity operators.
The proposal is open for public comment until March 24, with a hearing scheduled to gauge industry responses. However, the final decision rests solely with U.S. President Donald Trump, making it a politically charged development.
How the U.S. plans to charge Chinese-linked ships
Under the USTR plan, any ship operator with Chinese-built vessels—regardless of whether they call at US ports—could face fees ranging from $500,000 to $1.5 million per port visit. The structure of these fees varies based on an operator’s fleet composition:
- Chinese maritime transport operators, including state-owned COSCO, face a charge of up to $1 million per U.S. port call.
- Operators of Chinese-built vessels calling at U.S. ports would pay up to $1.5 million per visit.
- Companies with fleets comprising 50% or more Chinese-built ships must pay $1 million per port call for any vessel in their fleet.
- Those with 26–49% Chinese-built ships pay $750,000 per port call.
- Even an operator with a single Chinese-built ship—whether or not it trades in the U.S.—incurs a $500,000 per port call fee for all vessels in its fleet.
Additionally, the proposal includes penalties for companies with new orders at Chinese yards. If 50% or more of a company’s order book is tied to China, it must pay $1 million per U.S. port call. Those with 26–49% pay $750,000 per call, while operators with just one ship on order in China face a $500,000 charge per call.
Container shipping faces a major cost surge
If enacted, these fees could drastically alter cost structures for container shipping. Major alliances, such as the Ocean Alliance—comprising COSCO, CMA CGM, Evergreen, and OOCL—would be significantly affected. With container services often making multiple stops per US rotation, costs could escalate to $2–3 million per loop, making certain routes financially unviable.
Some operators might seek to restructure their businesses by segregating Chinese-built ships from their U.S.-facing fleets. This approach could accelerate the rise of so-called “parallel” shipping networks, a trend already seen in segments such as crude oil transportation.
Bulk and tanker shipping not immune
While container shipping grabs headlines, bulk and tanker operators will also feel the impact. Charterers could introduce clauses passing these surcharges onto cargo owners, driving up costs for U.S. importers and exporters alike. This could particularly affect trades dependent on Chinese-built bulk carriers and tankers.
One possible outcome is the reallocation of Chinese-built ships to non-U.S. routes, forcing vessel shortages and rate spikes for U.S.-bound cargo. However, since even a single Chinese-built ship in a fleet triggers penalties across all port calls, this workaround is far from foolproof.
U.S. exporters face compliance challenges
Beyond port fees, the USTR proposal introduces new U.S. export cargo preferences, a move aligned with the broader push to bolster the American shipbuilding industry. Under this plan, a rising percentage of U.S. exports must be transported aboard U.S.-flagged and U.S.-built vessels:
- Year 1: 1% of U.S. exports must ship on U.S.-flagged vessels.
- Year 2: The requirement rises to 3%.
- Year 3: 5%, with at least 3% on U.S.-built vessels.
- Year 7 onward: 15% of exports must move on U.S.-flagged ships, with at least 5% carried on U.S.-built vessels.
This requirement poses significant logistical challenges, as the U.S. lacks sufficient shipbuilding capacity and trained crew to support such a shift. No new U.S.-built tankers have been delivered since 2017, and the last LNG carrier constructed domestically dates back to 1980. Foreign operators may need to reflag existing tonnage to comply, though the availability of U.S. crews remains uncertain.
What happens next?
With the comment period open until March 24, industry stakeholders will have a brief window to respond before the proposal advances. If the plan is approved, vessel operators may need to rapidly restructure their fleets, shift ship orders away from China, or seek alternative U.S.-free trade routes.
For U.S. importers and exporters, the most immediate consequence will be higher costs, passed down through freight rates and surcharges. The ability of the shipping industry to adapt will largely depend on whether alternative shipbuilding hubs—such as South Korea or Japan—can absorb demand currently met by Chinese yards.
As the global shipping industry watches closely, the full impact of these U.S. port fees will become clearer only if, and when, they take effect.