On October 14, 2025, the United States launched a new round of "sanctions war" on port charges against China. Ships owned or operated by China are charged at US$50 per net ton, and this has increased year by year since then.
The original intention of the United States 'move was to add congestion to China's shipping industry. As a result, the U.S. shipping market exploded first.
In just a week, the U.S. and U.S. East routes have increased dramatically, with a crowd of U.S. consumers and business owners full of questions.
The Trump administration really shot itself in the foot this time. It wanted to contain China, but as a result, it raised its price first. Is it a sanction against China? Or add trouble to yourself?
The port fee policy was tough, but I didn't expect it to be me who would be hurt.
The United States has initiated the so-called port charges, saying the truth is not a temporary initiative, but a carefully designed one.
How to collect it? The direct charge for Chinese ships is US $50 per net ton, and it will increase year by year in the future, even rising to US $140 in 2028.
It looks quite accurate, targeting Chinese shipping companies and shipping companies, and the abacus is very detailed.
But the problem is that global shipping is like a pot of rice with a lid attached to it, and it will lead to a large piece of rice if it moves.
When the Chinese side saw this operation, it was unambiguous and immediately countered. The reciprocal special port fee of 400 yuan/net ton was put on the shelves on the same day.
Now you accept it and I accept it, and cargo ships around the world began to "detour". Many shipping companies simply transferred non-Chinese-funded ships to transport goods, and some directly switched to Busan, South Korea for transshipment, trying to avoid this "toll".
The ship has gone by, the time has stretched, and the cost line has risen.
It doesn't matter if this increase is the transportation costs of U.S. importers, and U.S. consumers are the last ones to settle the bill.
Originally intended to "restrain" China with this trick, and did not think of taking the price increase in the first place.
What's more interesting is that the United States wants to use this wave of operations to revitalize its own shipping industry, but as a result, it makes the already resource-strapped ports even more congested.
There are too many ships, not enough people, and the equipment can't keep up, which makes the already stressful port operation worse. Do you think this is a competition with yourself?
Shipping prices rise, inflation directly "returns" to Trump
As soon as the port fee policy was implemented, the domestic response in the United States can be said to be "fryer". Not only shipping companies complained, but also the retail, electrical appliances, toys, automobiles, and agricultural products industries were all affected.
It used to be a tight transport chain, and now adds a "money bag burden."
The automotive industry also suffered, many manufacturers reflected, the direct line of cost of transportation of parts rose, the production pace was disrupted, and had to compress production capacity.
The export of agricultural products is also easy, and the shipping costs are high, and the advantage of U.S. farmers' corn and soybeans in the international market has declined.
Peterson Institute of Economic Research has given a forecast: the cost of shipping increased by 15%, the U.S. inflation increased by 0.8 percentage points.This is equivalent to the fact that Trump himself gave the U.S. Federal Reserve, and the high interest rate problem was not resolved, which turned into a "high increase", and it was difficult to drop.
In the final analysis, this port fee seems to be a "precise attack" on China, but in fact the United States itself has imposed an "invisible tax" on itself. Consumers pay the bill, enterprises suffer losses, and the policy has become "spending money to pay for it."
Does the revitalization of shipping rely on port fees? Reality poured cold water on Trump
On the surface, the United States 'move this time is aimed at China, but the intention behind it actually hides the calculation of "helping itself." I want to increase import costs through port fees and pull shipping orders to the United States.
But the problem is that the U.S. shipbuilding industry has long been less than it used to be, production capacity cannot be tracked, costs cannot be pressured, and it is too difficult to draw back on this policy.
In the past, U.S. shipbuilding once had a place in the world. However, for decades, the manufacturing industry has flowed out and the industrial chain has been broken. Now it is not a matter of time to rebuild.
The number of large merchant ships built in the United States in 2024 is very small. It is not that it has no ideas, but it is that it lacks the ability.
High labor costs, thin technical reserves, slow equipment updates, and lack of systematic support policies make it impossible for local U.S. shipbuilding companies to accept large-scale orders.
In comparison, China's shipbuilding industry not only leads in scale, but also has a complete industrial chain and efficient delivery capabilities.
From design, construction to delivery and maintenance, a mature system has been formed, and its share and reputation in the global market cannot be underestimated. This time, the United States wanted to "force back" Chinese manufacturing through policy means, but it turned out that even if it was given an opportunity, no one could take it.
More realistically, American shipbuilding companies generally rely on government subsidies and lack market competitiveness.
If we continue to rely on port fees to "protect" local companies, it will easily allow them to stay in their comfort zones for too long and lose motivation for improvement.
The ships are built and not stacked by policy.The support of the laws of the market often does not lead to real industrial upgrading.
Written at the end: Policy is a "boomerang", you have to be able to catch it if you throw it out
This port fee "war" seems to be a heavy blow, but it is actually more like a "stress test" of the United States' own supply chain.
China quickly responded reciprocally, without fierce counterattacks or emotional actions. Instead, it showed the attitude of a big country with a consistent steady rhythm.
The United States has fallen into a self-cycle: it wants to rely on tariffs to check and balance China, but it is backfired by inflation; I want to revitalize the local industry, but I find that the foundation has long been hollowed out.
Policy is like a boomerang. When it is thrown out, it is menacing, and then it turns around and hits itself on the head.
The trade rules are not based on who screams and who wins, the real test is who can see far, bear, and go steadily.This port-expenses confrontation, in fact, is only a small part of the Sino-U.S. economic trade game, but clearly reveals a reason: the consequences of policy, not written on paper, but on the bills.
Will the U.S. then continue in the cycle of “tariff-inflation-reverse” or start to rethink industrial policy and the logic of global cooperation?
Source of Reference:
Ministry of Transport: Starting from October 14, special port fees will be charged for US ships-2025 - 10 -10 15:05·Beijing News
Article case process, pictures are all from the network, no misguided and other bad guidance.If the case involves copyright or personal infringement issues, please contact us in time, we will remove the content!