Ahead of a pivotal two-day Congressional hearing that began Monday morning, retailers, ports, manufacturers, ocean carriers and farmers alike have all weighed in on the U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR) proposal to tack on fees for Chinese ships calling at U.S. ports.
Those proposed fees have been met largely with concern among the U.S. retail and container shipping industries. Top worries include increased freight rates, restrictions on exports, fewer port calls and potential job losses, along with lengthier delivery times to due mass ship diversions.
In a joint comment, the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) urged the Trump administration to consider other measures for addressing China’s “unreasonable” dominance in the maritime sector. The firms advised USTR Jamieson Greer to conduct an economic impact analysis and other studies to example the ripple effects of possible policy changes.
NRF and RILA members shared various concerns over the proposed remedies, with one retailer estimating that freight rates for shipments to the U.S. West Coast would be tacked on $500 to $1,500 per container. East Coast rates would be higher, the unidentified retailer said.
Related Stories
“The fees will disproportionately impact importers that import fewer items per container such as furniture, home improvement, etc.,” the retailer said.
Another retailer said that along with several tariffs added for Chinese goods, as well as steel and aluminum tariffs, the new port fees would subject some imports to additional duties between 90 and 95 percent.
“While the individual effect on the economy from the fines by themselves may not be much, combined with all of the other tariffs, they will have a devastating effect on our business,” the company said.
As of Monday morning, more than 330 total comments were filed with the USTR on the ramifications of the proposals, which were the result of a nine-month probe into China’s shipbuilding, maritime and logistics practices.
That investigation found that China’s dominance of those industries has been “unreasonable” and harmful to U.S. economic interests, putting the country in violation of Section 301 trade laws. Among the arguments, the USTR has said China displaces foreign firms, deprives market-oriented businesses and their workers of commercial opportunities and lessens competition across the industries—all while creating more international dependencies on China.
China now produces more than half of the world’s cargo ships by tonnage, up from just 5 percent in 1999, the USTR probe said. Comparatively, the U.S. builds a paltry 0.1 percent, and doesn’t currently have a shipyard capable of meeting building capacity demands.
Container shipping expert John McCown noted the complexities of the USTR proposal as a massive detriment to everyone involved, indicating that the terminologies used throughout like “operator” and “Chinese-built” lend themselves to confusion among all stakeholders.
McCown also pointed out that many media reports commonly cite the “up to $1.5 million” in penalties that would be levied on Chinese-built ships, but that it is just one prong of multiple that often undersells how much a vessel would have to pay.
In one example of China’s Cosco Shipping, which generated $6.7 billion in net profit in 2024, McCown highlighted that one vessel traversing the West Coast would cost the liner $3.5 million per port call. This would add up to $10.5 million for any voyage that involves three West Coast ports—typical of a 10,000-container Cosco ship travelling the trans-Pacific route.
“Different fees will apply to various carriers depending on their own circumstances, but it becomes abundantly clear that the minimums would be in the $1 million to $2 million range per port call,” McCown said.
The one apparel brand and distributor represented among the commenting parties, strongly opposed the proposals on the back of the fees.
Perry Ellis International CEO and president Oscar Feldenkreis said in his submission that the fees would significantly raise the cost of imported goods, in that ocean carriers will either pass the costs onto importers via increased freight rates or reduced service to U.S. ports.
“Delays in shipments due to fewer port calls and higher shipping costs will force businesses like ours to either carry excess inventory—tying up capital and warehouse space—or face stock shortages that will disrupt operations and sales,” Feldenkreis said.
The potential loss of business at American ports like Savannah, Charleston and Miami is a concern of many of the proposal’s detractors.
Soren Toft, the CEO of the world’s largest ocean carrier, Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), previously said the company would stop servicing the Port of Oakland if the fees were put into place. Toft told attendees at the TPM 25 trade and logistics conference that MSC would instead focus solely on the major California ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
“We can’t proceed to Oakland if that costs another million dollars,” Toft bluntly said at the time.
Cary Davis, president and CEO of the American Association of Port Authorities, backed this up in his public comments, noting that ocean carriers would be incentivized to consolidate traffic to larger ports.
“Rather than unloading a third of cargo each at ports A, B, and C, a carrier may unload all cargo at port A, with two-thirds of it needing to be moved by truck or rail to ports B and C. The results could be devastating,” Davis said. “Our nation’s highways and railroads will be clogged with increased truck and rail traffic. Regional ports that support their local economies will see dramatic declines in throughput. Exporters that rely on small and medium-sized ports to get products to the global market will suddenly find that ships don’t come to their region anymore.”
Not all the comments went against the USTR proposal.
The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), which represents West Coast dockworkers, said the extra charges would encourage carriers to unload cargo outside the U.S. and then truck it across the borders with Mexico and Canada. This could lead to job losses at ports if container volumes dive.
But the union had another proposal to complement the port fees, recommending the USTR add a land border fee on cargo originating from China that ends up diverted to Canadian and Mexican ports.
“By implementing this fee, we can level the playing field and eliminate the financial incentive for Chinese ships to bypass U.S. ports,” said Dan McKisson, chair of the ILWU Coast Longshore Legislative Committee. “This approach ensures that if shippers choose to route cargo through neighboring countries, they still contribute to trust funds supporting U.S. port infrastructure, rather than avoiding these essential investments.”
McKisson, along with Alliance of American Manufacturing president Scott Paul, are both speaking at the congressional hearing Monday in support of the wider proposals.
The Alliance of American Manufacturing stood behind the USTR’s proposed remedies, citing risks to national security and logistics networks, and negative impacts on maritime supply chains and the U.S. workforce.
“We cannot expect our companies or our workers to compete against countries,” Paul said. “And we cannot allow our national defense to be undermined and attacked by non-market policies and practices. U.S. shipbuilding production has declined as artificially low prices of ships flood the market.”