All foreign-built vessels at risk? New U.S. port fee proposals
The White House’s Maritime Action Plan (MAP), published on 13 February 2026 pursuant to Executive Order 14269, “Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance”, signals a potential shift in U.S. port fee policy.
Although the MAP is a policy framework rather than binding legislation, it proposes a universal port fee based on the weight of imported cargo carried by foreign-built vessels, marking a departure from the existing United States Trade Representative’s Section 301 regime (USTR fees), which primarily targets Chinese-owned, operated or built vessels. This proposal may generate uncertainty for the future of trade to the U.S.
The MAP confirms that port and border‑related fees have been prioritised within a broader legislative programme aimed at strengthening U.S. maritime competitiveness. These measures are expected to be advanced through Congress following publication of the President’s FY 2027 Budget Request.
Uncertainty around the future of USTR fees
The inclusion of a separate proposal for a universal port fee in the MAP suggests that the U.S. may be reassessing its approach to vessel charges more generally, moving away from the China-specific enforcement under USTR to a broader regime, targeting all foreign-built vessels (potentially even those owned or operated by U.S. companies).
Theoretically, the MAP leaves open how any universal port fee would interact with the existing USTR regime, or whether the USTR fees may ultimately be replaced once the current one‑year suspension expires in November 2026. Absent express clarification, stakeholders could face cumulative exposure, at least during any transitional period (although the fee comparison analysis at the end of this briefing suggests that cumulative exposure may be financially prohibitive to U.S. trade).
This uncertainty is reinforced by the structure of the MAP itself. The universal port fee proposal and the USTR measures sit under different policy pillars and are presented as distinct initiatives, rather than an integrated or replacement regime.1
A shift away from the current USTR framework
The existing USTR regime is highly complex, relying on distinctions between Chinese ownership, operational control and shipbuilding. USTR Annex I in particular has caused significant confusion, with the market struggling to precisely determine its application to classic multi-jurisdictional layered vessel ownership, chartering and management structures. As a result, many in the market have been looking to change ownership and finance structures (particularly moving away from Chinese lease finance) to avoid triggering Annex I fees. Others have been considering shifting their new-build programmes away from China.
The MAP proposal for a universal port fee on all foreign-built vessels may lead to reconsideration of those changes, given that Chinese-owned, operated and built vessels are not singled out.
The build location‑based and cargo‑linked test under the MAP proposals may simplify enforcement and calculation, but it significantly widens the scope of vessels affected.
Comparison example: scale still matters
The table below illustrates, at a high level, how fees might apply to a 5,000 TEU fully laden container vessel under the existing USTR regime and the MAP proposal. The figures are indicative only and assume a fully laden vessel making one U.S. port call (and that no USTR Annex II exceptions apply). The MAP proposal has not determined the applicable fee per kg of cargo, but has suggested a figure in the range of U.S.$0.01/kg to U.S.$0.25/kg.2
| Regime | Fee basis | Rate used (April 2026) | Illustrative fee for one port call |
|---|---|---|---|
| USTR Annex I (Chinese owner/operator) | Net tonnage | U.S.$80 / NT | U.S.$4.4m* |
| USTR Annex II (Chinese‑built vessel) | Higher of NT or containers | U.S.$23 / NT | U.S.$1.27m* |
| U.S.$153 / container | U.S.$765k | ||
| Proposed universal port fee | Cargo weight | U.S.$0.01 / kg** | U.S.$500k*** |
| Proposed universal port fee | Cargo weight | U.S.$0.25 / kg** | U.S.$12.5m*** |
** Figures reflect the illustrative fee rates used in the MAP.
*** The table assumes an average cargo weight of 10 tonnes per TEU, reflecting a scaled‑down average from the technical maximum cargo capacity of a standard ISO 668 Series 1 20‑foot container (designations 1C / 1CC).
Evidently, a rate of U.S.$0.01/kg may make the fees more palatable compared to USTR. However, in this illustrative example, if the rate were increased to U.S.$0.25/kg, the resulting fee would be close to three times the USTR Annex I equivalent.
In principle, a universal, cargo‑weight‑based fee on all foreign-built vessels would be simpler to calculate, removing the need for complex and often inconclusive analysis of ownership and operational control. However, there are still issues to iron out. For example, what would be used to determine weight – the bills of lading? VGM certificates for containerships? In the tanker trade there are frequent quantity disputes between shore and vessel draft figures. Accordingly, who bears the risk of declaring the wrong cargo weight?
Not all cargo onboard may be discharged in the U.S. (particularly for containerships on circular services). This may lead to routing changes so that vessels arrive in the U.S. in their lightest cargo condition.
Land borders and avoidance risk
The MAP also proposes a Land Port Maintenance Tax for cargo entering the United States via land borders, intended to mirror the existing Harbour Maintenance Tax applicable to maritime imports. The land‑based charge is framed as a value‑based tax (0.125% of cargo value), rather than a cargo‑weight‑based fee.
While this appears designed to address concerns around cargo diversion through Canada or Mexico, questions remain as to whether it would fully neutralise avoidance incentives if a universal port fee were implemented at anything above a minimal level.
What this means for owners, charterers and financiers
At present, strategic or investment decisions in relation to the construction and financing of vessels and their trading to the U.S. cannot be taken with confidence. Over the past year, U.S. maritime policy has moved from the original USTR fees, through multiple rounds of modification and clarification, to a one‑year suspension, and now to the MAP proposal, which could apply a radical new regime to the entire foreign‑built fleet. Whether the MAP proposal ultimately becomes binding law, and in what form, remains unclear.
To some extent, the market may prefer the new MAP proposals whilst U.S. shipbuilding capabilities trail those of the leading nations of China, Korea and Japan. The MAP proposal may avoid a split freight market between vessels built in China and those built in other major shipbuilding nations (i.e. a flat freight rate for U.S. trade for all vessels of a similar kind). Ultimately, until U.S. shipbuilding becomes a viable option, it may simply be U.S. consumers who absorb these fees via increased freight rates.
Since the introduction of the USTR fees, HFW has reviewed numerous charterparties in connection with these measures, and has observed that many remain ill-equipped to address the challenges posed by unforeseen future tariffs and so-called “port fees”. Owners and Charterers alike should carefully review their contracts and determine where liability would fall for such fees, particularly before entering into long-term commitments.
Contact us
HFW are one of the few global law firms with offices spanning the U.S., PRC and other key maritime trading hubs and are therefore in a unique position to advise on the implications of the ongoing trade wars.
For further insights, visit our website to read:
- How USTR measures affect the global shipping market, April 2025
- Tariffs 101, April 2025
- Sea freight – weathering the storm of uncertainty, June 2025
- US tariffs, sanctions and Commodities, July 2025
- US tariffs, sanctions and sale contracts, September 2025
- China reacts to USTR Section 301 port fees with “special” port fees on U.S. ships, October 2025
- USTR Port Fees: Updates, Clarifications and Proposed Modifications | HFW, October 2025
Footnotes:
- The universal port fee proposal is set out under Pillar I (Incentivize Investment in U.S. Shipyards), while the USTR measures arise under Pillar III (Actions in the Investigation of the People’s Republic of China’s Targeting of Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors), reflecting distinct policy initiatives.
- The White House, America’s Maritime Action Plan (Feb 2026) page 6 (illustrative fee rates of U.S.$ 0.01/kg and U.S.$ 0.25/kg based on cargo weight)
Thiseas Efthymiou, Trainee Solicitor, co-authored this briefing.
Related insights
