USTR Announces Updated Chinese Ship Fee Schedule

A broad coalition of U.S. interests—including farmers, shippers, exporters, port authorities and trade groups—is taking a close look at the latest recommendations by the office of the U.S. trade representative (USTR) designed to revive U.S. shipbuilding by penalizing Chinese-built vessels. The office announced the new fees April 17. While some interests are cautiously supportive, others are beginning to push back.

The recommendations emerged from a report developed by the Biden administration following a petition by a group of maritime unions a year ago. That investigation—conducted under the auspices of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a law addressing unfair foreign practices affecting U.S. commerce—was separate from a series of measures included in the SHIPS for America Act but broadly aligns with its goals of reviving American shipyards and shipbuilding capacity.

Original proposals included measures like a $1 million fee on each port visit by a Chinese-built vessel. Exporters and shippers, though, opposed that as ruinous to U.S. commerce. The Chinese government has aggressively targeted shipyards as a vital sector eligible for favorable financing as a key part of its “Made in China 2025” plan released in 2015.

Chinese-made bottoms make up at least three-quarters of all large blue-water commercial ships. One Chinese shipyard alone built as many commercial vessels in 2024 as the entire United States has built since World War II, according to one report.

“Ships and shipping are vital to American economic security and the free flow of commerce,” said U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Jamieson Greer. “The Trump administration’s actions will begin to reverse Chinese dominance, address threats to the U.S. supply chain and send a demand signal for U.S.-built ships.”

Updated Proposed Fees

The new plan is a more nuanced and complicated multi-phased schedule of fees that ratchet up gradually. Fees will be waived for a 180-day comment period, and the USTR will hold further hearings May 19 for more feedback.

Under the new plan, ships based out of China will be charged up to $50 per ton starting October 24. The tonnage fee would increase to $80 a ton on April 17, 2026, with eventual increases bringing the fee to as high as $250 a ton.

Companies not based in China but using Chinese-built ships will be charged $18 per ton, or $120 per container, whichever is higher.

Fees on car carriers of $150 per car could still amount to as much as $1 million per car-carrying vessel, given a capacity of 6,000 cars.

The fees would be per voyage, not per port call as was originally proposed. Ships arriving at U.S. ports empty or carrying less than 50,000 tons, no matter where from or where built, won’t have to pay the fees.

There is broad agreement on the goal of reviving U.S. shipbuilding.

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) said in a news release, “Thanks to President Trump and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer for putting America first by placing industry-friendly service fees on Chinese-manufactured ships that carry U.S. farm commodities. China has dominated global shipping fleets for too long. This move protects American agriculture, boosts domestic shipbuilding and strengthens our national security.”

Ag Interests Cautiously Optimistic

National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) President Kenneth Hartman Jr. said, “While we are still working to understand how this new version will impact the corn industry, we believe this final action is more workable than the initial proposal.”

NCGA said the original proposal could have cost corn growers as much as $0.64 per bushel, or 14 percent higher costs from current price levels. The original proposal had the potential to shrink U.S. corn exports and blunt overseas market access, the group said.

U.S. Wheat Associates (USW) and the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) said in a joint statement, “We appreciate USTR’s understanding of the impact the original proposals could have had on wheat growers and the grain trade. The uncertainty about the proposals was already causing problems for overseas customers, who were hesitant to make purchases with additional port fees looming.”

The International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA) said, “While the USTR’s actions may affect agricultural and perishable products, we appreciate that the revised fee structure appears to take several concerns unique to the agricultural sector into account.”

IFPA said it will submit formal comments to the USTR in advance of the May 19 hearing.

Port Authorities Demur

Cary Davis, president and CEO of the American Association of Port Authorities, said, “America’s ports appreciate the Trump administration’s willingness to incorporate industry’s concerns in their efforts to counter China’s dominance in the maritime space. This policy will, however, still drive up the cost of shipping, reduce volume through our nation’s trade gateways and make goods, especially automobiles, more expensive for everyday American consumers.

“While the final remedy is significantly improved from the original, the new policy will likely severely impact specific cargo segments like automobiles,” Davis added. “The USTR remedy includes a fee on foreign-built vehicle carriers of $150 for every car it has capacity to carry. This poses new and unique burdens on many ports specializing in roll-on roll-off trade business. If a typical ro-ro vessel can transport 6,000 cars, the total fee could reach almost $1 million per vessel.”

Responding to the potential for an additional 100 percent tax on cargo handling equipment, which would bring that tariff to as high as 270 percent on ship-to-shore cranes, Davis said, “[T]he Administration must remember that there are currently no domestic manufacturers of ship-to-shore cranes. Without action from the administration to create an incentive for their production, there won’t be for several years. High tariffs on ship-to-shore cranes, without affordable alternatives from either domestic or allied sources, function as a crippling tax on port development and seriously threaten our nation’s ability to expand cargo movement.”