Commentary

By Lars Jensen

The US trade dispute has become multidimensional, all of which impact shipping and supply chains.

Seen from the container shipping sector, the US trade dispute has become multi-dimensional and global in nature. The complexities are likely to grow further with shipping as a centrally impacted industry.

Initially, the trade conflict mainly focused on tariffs— i. e., which countries were being hit, by what magnitude and on which commodities. The so-called Liberation Day, where reciprocal tariffs on all countries in the world were announced, was the clear embodiment of this early phase.

Had this been the only element to the trade dispute and had the first round of tariffs been kept in place, container shipping would have adapted. Tariff wars are not new, and the impact of such actions is somewhat predictable.

Sourcing will shift and adapt to the new landscape, and goods will be sourced where it is most advantageous given the new landscape. Ships will follow and trade lanes adapt accordingly. It could potentially result in an overall demand reduction, but swings in demand and supply are something shipping stakeholders have been handling literally for centuries.

This is not to imply it would have been without cost, but simply to point out that the situation would have been within the parameters of what has also previously been handled.

Yet as the months have gone on, the trade dispute has become multi-dimensional, developing many different elements, all of which impact shipping and supply chains.

A second front is that the speed of change in tariffs is accelerating. Deadlines for implementation of new tariffs, and details thereof, have become progressively faster, to the point where cargo already loaded on vessels would now be subject to tariffs with the importer having no recourse but to accept the sudden increase in cost for goods already purchased.

Neither shippers nor carriers can physically adapt to the supply chain at the speed of recent tariff changes. This creates an environment for shippers where planning a stable long-term supply chain is no longer a risk-mitigating activity but a source of risk. And in an environment for shipping lines where large-scale capacity reduction or capacity increases are necessary at extremely short notice— resulting in poor schedule adherence as well as erratic vessel capacity shortages( and excesses)— port congestion problems emerge at destination and at origin.

We arrive at the third dimension of the trade dispute: port fees based on nationality. At the headline level, this came with ample warning time from the US where Chinese shipping interests are targeted, albeit a range of details are still missing. Shipping lines planned and adapted accordingly by shuffling vessels in the network— a process taking place over a period of months.

But then came the Chinese reaction in the form of similar tit-for-tat rules directed against US shipping interests. There was almost no lead time for the shipping lines that are still processing what the precise impact will be and how they will once more reshuffle vessels to mitigate it.

Regarding this aspect of the trade dispute, the impact is especially important for Cosco Shipping, OOCL, Hede Shipping, Matson and APL, highlighting the clear US-China conflict. What is unknown is whether the next steps in this aspect will be to escalate or de-escalate.

The fourth dimension has been brewing for six months and came to the headlines early in October in the form of the US opposition to the International Maritime Organization’ s( IMO) net-zero framework. The IMO on Oct. 17 said it would delay voting on the emissions reduction plan for at least one year.

But the US made its position clear: had the framework been adopted, countries voting“ yes” would have been penalized. A range of possibilities were listed such as fees on vessels or entry bans to US ports. If any of the proposed actions are implemented in 2026, this would open a fourth front of the trade dispute and directly impact shipping.

A fifth front looms on the horizon: the US Federal Maritime Commission’ s( FMC) investigation into unfair practices related to flag state competition, especially from flags of convenience. This is on hold as the FMC staff is sent home due to the government shutdown, but eventually, the study will be completed, and it is highly likely a conclusion will be reached that points to examples of what, from a US perspective, would be seen as unfair competitive practices.

Looking at the actions the US government took following the USTR investigation of Chinese shipping practices, it is very likely the FMC study will open yet another front in the trade war involving shipping directly.

Finally, a sixth front has opened in US ports where cranes and chassis are now subject to 100 % duties, and port handling equipment now faces a proposed 150 % duty level.

All of this has emerged during 2025 alone and has pushed container shipping into the center of the US trade dispute.

email: lars. jensen @ vespucci-maritime. com

52 Journal of Commerce | November 3, 2025 www. joc. com