Docking Fees on Chinese Ships: A Double-Edged Sword for U.S.-China Trade

The U.S. proposal to impose docking fees on Chinese-owned or Chinese-built vessels entering its ports—a policy framed as a counter to China’s maritime dominance—has ignited a firestorm of criticism from both sides of the Pacific. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has condemned the move as economically self-destructive, while U.S. industry groups warn of cascading costs for consumers and exporters. At its core, this policy reflects a miscalculation: instead of weakening China, it risks undermining U.S. economic interests while accelerating Beijing’s push for self-reliance.

The Policy’s Design and Immediate Reactions

The proposed fees—up to $1.5 million per port call for non-Chinese operators using Chinese-built ships and $1 million for Chinese-owned operators—aim to incentivize domestic shipbuilding and reduce reliance on China, which commands 81% of global container ship orders and 48% of LPG carriers. Yet the policy’s structure highlights its flaws. By targeting vessel capacity rather than fixed fees, it disproportionately burdens smaller U.S. ports like Mobile, Alabama, and Oakland, California, which depend on Chinese ships for cost-effective service.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has responded with a mix of condemnation and strategic warnings. In April 2025, it urged the U.S. to “immediately halt the misguided action,” arguing the fees would “drive up global shipping costs, disrupt supply chain stability, and heighten inflationary pressures.” This rhetoric aligns with broader retaliatory threats, including maintaining 34% tariffs on U.S. goods, a clear signal that Beijing will not cede ground without a fight.

Economic Fallout: A Zero-Sum Game?

Industry data paints a grim picture of mutual harm. MSC CEO Søren Toft estimates the fees could add $600–$800 per container, totaling $20 billion annually for the shipping industry. For U.S. exporters, this translates to higher costs for transporting goods like agricultural products and chemicals, which rely heavily on Chinese-built tankers. The chemical sector alone faces a crisis: Gina Fyffe of Integra Petrochemicals warns tariffs on Chinese gas tankers could halt ethane and LPG exports, jeopardizing a $160 billion industry contributing 25% of U.S. GDP.

Meanwhile, Chinese exporters are already pivoting. Container bookings from China to the U.S. fell 25% year-over-year in early 2025, with global bookings dropping 18.4%, according to SONAR Container Atlas. Companies like Jaguar Land Rover have paused U.S. exports, while Bremerhaven port in Germany reports stockpiles of unsold autos. The ripple effects are global: European ports like Antwerp-Bruges face surges in Chinese electric vehicle imports, raising fears of market distortions and dumping.

The Shipbuilding Mirage

The policy’s long-term goal—to boost U.S. shipbuilding—is equally fraught. The U.S. has only 185 U.S.-flagged merchant vessels, and constructing replacements is prohibitively expensive. A U.S.-built container ship costs $330 million, compared to $60 million for a Chinese equivalent, while crew costs are double those of Chinese or South Korean crews. Even if Congress approves tax incentives under the Ships for America Act, analysts estimate rebuilding capacity to meet the 2032 target of 15% U.S.-flagged exports would take over a decade—a timeline incompatible with the urgency of today’s trade war.

The Geopolitical Tightrope

China’s response underscores its resolve to defend its economic interests. By refusing to remove retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods, Beijing has amplified the pain for American farmers and manufacturers. Ningbo Customs reported a 30% drop in U.S.-bound cargo volumes in early 2025, signaling a structural shift in trade flows. Meanwhile, China’s shipbuilding industry, backed by state support, shows no signs of retreating: it holds 45% of global ship order backlogs, ensuring its dominance for years.

Conclusion: A Costly Detour for Both Sides

The docking fee proposal epitomizes the perils of unilateral trade measures in a globalized economy. While the U.S. aims to curb China’s maritime power, the policy risks:
- $23 billion in annual fees (based on 2024 port traffic data) that burden U.S. ports and exporters,
- 30–70% cost increases for chemical shipments, eroding U.S. competitiveness, and
- Accelerated trade diversion, with European ports like Bremerhaven and Antwerp-Bruges absorbing displaced cargo.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry’s warnings are prescient: this policy harms U.S. consumers and industries far more than it pressures Beijing. Instead of reshaping global trade dynamics, it deepens economic rifts, leaving investors in shipping, ports, and export-reliant sectors facing prolonged uncertainty. As Daniel Evans of S&P Global notes, the real losers are not China’s shipbuilders but the millions of Americans whose livelihoods depend on affordable, efficient trade—a lesson policymakers would do well to heed.