U.S.-China Trade Policy Shifts and Their Impact on Global Shipping and Logistics Sectors

The U.S.-China trade rivalry has entered a new phase, with 2023–2025 marked by escalating tariffs, strategic infrastructure investments, and a reconfiguration of global supply chains. For investors in maritime infrastructure and alternative trade routes, these shifts present both risks and opportunities. This analysis examines how trade policy changes are reshaping the logistics sector and outlines strategic positioning for capitalizing on emerging trends.

Trade Policy Escalations and Supply Chain Disruptions

The U.S. has intensified its economic competition with China through targeted sanctions, export controls, and tariff escalations. A 10% baseline tariff on all imports, with higher rates for trade deficit countries like China, has led to a 44.55% decline in ocean freight volumes between the U.S. and China over three months in 2025, according to a Silk Road Consulting analysis. Retaliatory Chinese tariffs, such as a 125% levy on U.S. imports, have further destabilized trade flows, creating volatility in freight pricing and rerouting cargo through Southeast Asia and Europe, the Silk Road Consulting analysis also notes.

A temporary 90-day tariff truce announced in May 2025 offered short-term relief but failed to resolve underlying tensions, the Silk Road Consulting analysis observed. Meanwhile, China has imposed export controls on rare earth materials and technologies, compounding supply chain fragility - dynamics that have pushed U.S. companies to stockpile inventory while Asian manufacturers reduced purchasing activity, signaling a fragmented global trade environment, as described in the Silk Road Consulting analysis.

Strategic Infrastructure Investments: U.S. and China's Rivalry

China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has expanded its maritime footprint, with 129 port projects globally as of 2024, 115 of which remain active; these ports, such as Piraeus (Greece), Gwadar (Pakistan), and Chancay (Peru), are strategically located at critical chokepoints and often possess dual-use capabilities, accommodating both commercial and naval vessels, according to a Braumiller Law overview. For instance, the Braumiller Law overview notes that 14 BRI ports can host aircraft carriers or destroyers, enhancing China's geopolitical influence.

The U.S. has responded with a multifaceted strategy. Executive Order 14269, "Restoring America's Maritime Dominance," prioritizes revitalizing domestic shipbuilding, port infrastructure, and workforce development; the details are set out in Executive Order 14269. The order mandates a Maritime Action Plan (MAP) to boost U.S. maritime competitiveness, including tariffs on Chinese-made ship-to-shore cranes and partnerships with firms like CMA CGM for $20 billion in port infrastructure investments. Additionally, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has imposed escalating fees on Chinese-flagged vessels, with potential costs reaching $8.3 million per port call by 2028, according to ASCE's ports infrastructure page.

Federal funding for U.S. ports has also increased, with the Port Infrastructure Development Program allocating $450 million annually to modernize facilities and accommodate larger vessels, ASCE reports. These investments aim to counter China's dominance in global shipbuilding, which accounts for 50% of commercial vessel production, as described in the Executive Order.

Financial Performance and Risk Assessments for Investors

Maritime infrastructure investments are influenced by trade tensions and macroeconomic volatility. U.S. ports handled $2.1 trillion in international trade in 2023 and supported 1.8% of GDP through the marine economy, ASCE reports. However, returns depend on geographic proximity to trade corridors and the ability to adapt to shifting demand. For example, ports in Southeast Asia and the Mediterranean have seen increased traffic as companies diversify supply chains away from China, the Silk Road Consulting analysis finds.

China's BRI projects, while strategically significant, carry risks of overleveraging host nations and geopolitical backlash. Dual-use ports like Hambantota (Sri Lanka) and Ream (Cambodia) have drawn scrutiny for potential military access, raising concerns about long-term stability, the Braumiller Law overview cautions. Investors must weigh these risks against the economic benefits of China's $62 billion CPEC (China–Pakistan Economic Corridor) and other BRI-linked rail and port projects, the Braumiller Law overview adds.

Strategic Positioning for Investors

1. Diversify Exposure to Alternative Trade Routes: Investors should prioritize regions like Southeast Asia, the Mediterranean, and the Caribbean, which are gaining prominence as U.S. and Chinese trade flows shift. For example, BlackRock's proposed acquisition of stakes in Chinese-operated ports could offer a hybrid model balancing risk and reward, a possibility discussed in the Executive Order.
2. Leverage U.S. Policy Tailwinds: Federal funding and executive initiatives present opportunities in domestic port modernization and green infrastructure. The $450 million annual PIDP funding and incentives for electric cargo handling equipment align with long-term sustainability trends, ASCE notes.
3. Monitor Geopolitical and Environmental Shocks: Stress-testing supply chains against scenarios like Chinese mineral export bans or extreme weather disruptions is critical. For instance, a hypothetical neodymium ban could cost the U.S. economy $12 billion annually, underscoring the need for diversified sourcing, according to an Atlantic Council brief.

Conclusion

The U.S.-China trade rivalry is redefining global shipping and logistics, with infrastructure and alternative routes becoming central battlegrounds. Investors who align with U.S. policy initiatives, diversify into high-growth corridors, and mitigate geopolitical risks will be best positioned to navigate this turbulent landscape. As both nations vie for maritime dominance, the next phase of trade policy shifts will likely accelerate innovation and competition in the sector.