The Daily View: Universal port fees are tariffs in disguise

ONE year ago, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in an interview on CNBC: “You ever see a cruiseship with an American flag on the back? They have flags of Liberia or Panama. None of them pays taxes. Every supertanker — none of them pays taxes.

“This is going to end under Donald Trump,” said Lutnick. “Those taxes are going to be paid.”

That interview, conducted just after Lutnick was confirmed, was the first sign of things to come.

Port fees targeting Chinese-built and -operated ships and foreign-flag car carriers were promulgated over the following months by the US Trade Representative. The USTR port fees went into force on October 14, 2025, and were suspended for one year on December 10 as part of the US-China trade détente.

On a separate track, the US was putting together its strategy to revive its shipbuilding industry. That process began with US President Donald Trump’s executive order on April 9, 2025, which called for the creation of a Maritime Action Plan.

The MAP is now out, and includes a universal fee of $0.01-$0.25 per kilogram of import cargo for US port calls of all foreign-built ships.

It’s just a plan at this point. It’s unclear how a fee would be enacted. If it requires legislation, it may never happen.

If it is enacted, how much would a ship pay per US port call? Pick a number, because it would be different for every call, depending on the weight of the cargo onboard.

What is the average kg per teu in the case of container shipping? If you use the full-year average of US container imports measured in kg divided by total teu, the number is a third of the maximum payload figures, and there are other estimates in between.

Would US imports on tankers be included? The term “universal” implies that they would, even though US crude and products imports were effectively excluded from 2025’s USTR fees due to vessel-size exemptions.

A per-kg fee would be particularly impactful to tanker shipping, because the per-call cost could not be spread across hundreds of importers.

The MAP argues: “As foreign-built vessels benefit from US market access, this policy ensures they contribute to the long-term revitalisation of America’s maritime capabilities.”

This is the very same argument the Trump administration has used with tariffs: that foreign companies benefit from access to US consumers, so they should pay.

But foreign companies do not pay for US tariffs. The research continues to pile up and the verdict is clear: US importers and consumers overwhelmingly pay for US tariffs.

The same would apply to universal port fees.

If tankers are covered, US crude and products importers would be billed for the fee in the charter party. They would then pass the cost along to US motorists.

Car carriers would require US vehicle importers to pay to the extent their long-term contract terms allow.

Container lines would try to pass the cost along to US importers, as well. They could seek to implement a surcharge, and if prevented from doing so by the US government, they would attempt to cover it in the freight rate.

If the freight rate doesn’t initially compensate for the universal fee expense, carriers would pull back on loss-making US services, and that would increase the freight rate. Eventually, US importers would be left footing the bill.

Universal port fees are just another tariff on US importers, in disguise.

Greg Miller
Senior maritime reporter, Lloyd’s List

Click here to view the latest Lloyd’s List Daily Briefing