President Donald Trump's plan appears to be problematic, which restores U.S. shipbuilding by imposing substantial fees on Chinese-linked vessels that bring cargo to U.S. ports.
Trump's plan to charge Chinese ships The fee of about $1.5 million seems uncertain as exporters are working to find ships we built or use Us-Fag to send goods abroad.
This has led to the swelling and shocking uncertainty in the embattled agricultural market of U.S. coal stocks.
See also: April 2, set the date of Trump's reciprocity tariff unveiling
Trump is drafting an executive order that will rely on funds proposed by the U.S. Trade Representative to collect up to $1.5 million of Chinese-made ships or ships in fleets, including Chinese-made ships.
These potential port fees limit the availability of ships needed to transfer agricultural, energy, mining, construction and manufacturing goods to international buyers and commented ahead of the USTR hearing next week, according to major U.S. exporters and transportation providers.
Shipowner refuses to ship our coal
Xcoal Energy & Resources CEO Ernie Thrasher said in a letter to U.S. Commerce Director Howard Lutnick said owners have refused to offer a quote for future U.S. shipments due to the proposed USTR fees.
Thrasher said that developing and implementing these costs could halte coal exports within 60 days, putting $130 billion worth of goods at risk. He said the fee structure could increase U.S. coal costs by 35%, leaving it without competition in the global market.
“Losing direct and indirect work would be disastrous,” Thrasher said, confirming that the letter was sent and saying he had not received a response.
Letters from Pennsylvania-based coal marketer Xcoal and comments from agricultural representatives with obvious impacts on proposed fees have not been reported.
West Virginia coal mines are also preparing to lay off employees as unsold coal stocks accumulate, West Virginia Coal Association CEO Chris Hamilton told Reuters. He did not provide specific details.
There are also no LNG operators made or marked in the United States
The proposed fees may also make it harder for the U.S. to export other energy products such as oil, liquefied natural gas and refined fuels, the American Petroleum Institute, a powerful oil industry lobbying group, said in a comment submitted on March 10.
The USTR proposal also seeks to transfer domestic exports to ships marked and built in the United States. The current number of U.S. cargo ships is less than 200 and are not built in the United States.
In a USTR commentary on Monday (March 17) BIMCO said few offshore operators were able to record that their annual export volume would meet 20% of what U.S.-built, ships required for U.S.-built.
This could mean reducing U.S. energy exports, Bimco said — “Without building U.S. liquid natural gas (LNG), U.S. labeled LNG carriers are operating or in order.”
Retaliatory tariff threats hit farm exports
The U.S. Farm Bureau Federation said U.S. farmers have been plagued by retaliatory tariffs from China, Mexico and Canada, and have also been plagued by the firefighting of China's ship fares.
Three U.S. cereal exporters traders told Reuters that it is not possible to ensure marine freight transportation is available from May and beyond, limiting their sale of bulk U.S. agricultural products such as corn, soybeans and wheat, as exporters are unsure of what the final cost will be.
According to U.S. Census Bureau trade data, the U.S. exported more than $64 billion in bulk crops, bulk animal feed and vegetable oil in 2024. The North American Export Cereals Association, which represents exporters of crop commodities, will attend next week's hearing.
The Farm Bureau said a large number of agricultural exporters could face an additional $372 million to $930 million in annual transportation costs from the expenses. This would represent a substantial loss in the global market where competitiveness is usually determined by just pennies per bushel.
Alexa Combelic, executive director of soybean government affairs, said U.S. agricultural exporters stand out from global competitors by leveraging a cost-effective, efficient domestic transportation system to move products to the market.
“When you add costs to this efficient system, it is no longer effective. We no longer have a competitive advantage,” Combelic said.
- Jim Pollard's additional editor Reuters
See also:
Chinese ships may face substantial fees to enter U.S. ports
US investigation shows that China is unfairly dominant: Source
China says Hong Kong ship accidentally destroyed Baltic air ducts
China's Cosco Transport, Fortescue watches ammonia fuel ship
Transport chaos will be “new normal” in the case of war, climate change
Marine freight charges explode after new Red Sea vessel attack
Japanese, German transport companies still avoid Suez Canal
Transportation companies' charts return to the Red Sea, driven by U.S. military
Chinese companies order dozens of electric vehicles, exports surge
Taiwan's evergreen helps Chinese navy cut costs, U.S. Group says
