by Lloyd's List
31 March 2025 (Lloyd's List) - THE US shipbuilding industry will not be revived by taxing foreign ships and operators, according to leaders of two of the major shipowners’ associations.
“This US Trade Representative Office policy will not bring a single order of ships into a US-based shipyard because it’s too expensive. So there will be no effect on that,” BIMCO president Nikolaus Schües said during a recent Capital Link forum in Singapore.
He spoke as the USTR’s Section 301 investigation into China’s maritime and logistics industries, including shipbuilding, continues, with two public hearings held last week to gather industry and public input on potential actions.
Washington plans to levy exorbitant port fees — in some cases more than a million dollars — for every US port call by Chinese vessel operators, Chinese-built ships, all operators that have any ships on order at Chinese yards and, according to some interpretations of the proposal, all operators with any Chinese-built ships in their fleets.
Whether and how these port taxes will be imposed is expected to be announced by April 17, marking one year since the investigation began.
The shipping industry is concerned this would cause major disruption to vessel supply and demand, while also dealing another serious blow to the global trade system on which it has thrived.
“I fully concur with Nikolaus on the shipbuilding side,” said Sotiris Raptis, secretary general of the European Community Shipowners’ Associations, adding that building costs in the US are four times current market prices. “This is an immense cost that will be, of course, passed to the consumers.”
As expressed in his organisation’s comments to USTR, Raptis said Europe and America have similar motivations, including defence, to revive domestic shipbuilding and should discuss solutions together.
He believes investing in advanced technologies, including clean tech, is the answer to restoring Western builders’ competitiveness, rather than protectionism.
“We shouldn’t go down to protectionism; instead we should invest and invest in our advantages.”
Schües, who is also chief executive of Hamburg-based shipping firm Reederei F. Laeisz, stressed US consumers and exporters would be among the biggest victims of the port taxes, echoing many policy critics.
He explained ships bringing containerised imports into the US could be replaced by South Korean or Japanese-built tonnage enjoying a rate premium; US ports would suffer job losses from declining visits; and US energy and grain exporters would lose their competitive edge due to higher freight costs.
“So far, we fail to understand how such a policy serves the goal of making America great again,” said Schües.
Similar views were expressed — albeit more diplomatically — in BIMCO’s recent written comments to USTR.
Privately, some shipping executives believe implementation of the US port fees is inevitable, despite potential exemptions related to American exports.
“Trump is eager to declare victory over China. Whether the US shipbuilding can be resurrected or not, I don’t think he really cares,” said one of them.
“There may be exemptions for tankers and gas carriers, given the strong lobbying from the energy sector.”
One dry bulk broker said clauses have already been added into some charter parties, stipulating charterers will bear all additional US port charges.
“Speaking with different clients over the past couple of weeks, it seems like there’s a lot of contingency planning for different scenarios,” said Mathieu Kissin, Liberian Registry’s Singapore managing director.
“And the general theme seems to be failing to prepare is preparing to fail.”
Schües said he hopes the Trump administration’s policies — whether the port fees, tariffs, or approaches to Russia and Iran — are well considered.
“I personally remain unwilling to believe that the policy coming from Washington lacks a broader plan,” he said, adding it’s hard to imagine that what emerges from there is merely coincidental, random, or driven solely by circumstance.
