The U.S. trade representative’s decision to suspend port charges targeting China’s maritime and shipbuilding sectors has split the shipping industry and exposed deep divisions over how the U.S. should deal with Beijing’s industrial dominance.
Also Read: US, China agree to one-year freeze on port charges amid trade truce
The one-year moratorium, from November 10, 2025 to November 9, 2026, halts measures that went into effect just weeks earlier on October 14. The charges were introduced after a Section 301 investigation by the United Steelworkers and United labor groups, which accused China of using government subsidies to fund shipping quotas.
To guide implementation of the suspension, USTR opened a one-day public comment period—a deluge of responses that revealed stark contrasts in stakeholders’ views.
Many transport and logistics organizations welcomed the move as a much-needed cooling off period. Mike Jacob, president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, stressed that federal investment remains key to sustaining the U.S. maritime sector, and said the pause provides space to “continue discussions on the current document.”
Lasse Kristoffersen, CEO of Valenius Wilhelmsen, described the suspension as “an appropriate step” to allow shipyards, logistics companies and supply chain operators to make long-term investment decisions with greater confidence. The Transportation Institute echoed that sentiment, emphasizing the vital role the U.S.-flagged fleet — both domestic and international — plays in supporting national security.
However, labor unions expressed disappointment, arguing that the shutdown would undermine efforts to rebuild US shipbuilding capacity. The United Steelworkers, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers criticized the suspension as “short-term considerations” and warned that “workers, shipyards, and national security interests are once again marginalized.”
Hunter Styers, a non-resident fellow at the Navy’s Union Maritime Strategy Center, went further, calling the decision “a major strategic mistake.” He argued that Beijing’s strong response to the port charges shows how effective the measures have been in challenging China’s dominance.
Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, questioned whether the talks could meaningfully change China’s behavior. “China has a proven track record of non-compliance,” he said, calling the pause “a gamble with little certainty of long-term results.”
The short-term period of active port spending had global consequences. America’s Matheson reported $6.4 million in costs from Chinese cross-border charges in just three weeks, while China’s state-owned COSCO faced about $1.5 billion in annual US port charges.
The measures targeted three categories of ships: Chinese-owned or operated ships, Chinese-built ship operators, and foreign-made vehicle carriers, each designed to hit different sectors of China’s maritime industry.
Despite the temporary ceasefire, the main issue remains unresolved. China accounted for 53 percent of all global ship orders by tonnage in the first eight months of 2025, underscoring the scale of its control over global shipbuilding. Critics say dominance poses long-term risks to both business competitiveness and supply chain flexibility.
As the comment period ended, debate intensified over whether the suspension was a strategic reset to rebuild US naval power or a missed opportunity to counter China’s entrenched industrial advantage.
While the Trump-Xi deal may have eased immediate trade tensions, it raises a deeper question for US policymakers: Can the US stop confronting China without losing momentum to restore maritime leadership?
About the Author
