Why Have U.S. Ports Suddenly Gone Quiet? The Global Game Behind It
Views: 0 Author: Site Editor Publish Time: 2025-09-11 Origin: Site
Trump imposed additional port fees on Chinese ships, aiming to pressure China—yet this move backfired, leaving U.S. ports in a slump. Chinese enterprises quickly adjusted global shipping routes, forcing a restructuring of supply chains.
Meanwhile, China imposed tariffs of up to 78.2% on U.S. optical fiber companies, a precise countermeasure in response to U.S. policies. This game has not only accelerated the "de-Americanization" trend but also reaffirmed a truth: openness and cooperation are the right path, while closed-door protectionism only harms oneself.
According to previous plans, Trump intended to charge extra fees on Chinese ships docking at U.S. ports. Starting October 14 this year, a fee of $50 per net ton would be levied, with annual increases thereafter, eventually rising to $140 per net ton. By this calculation, a single docking of a large container ship could cost over $1 million.
Trump thought this measure would be effective, assuming Chinese ships would "pay up obediently" due to the fees. Instead, Chinese enterprises withdrew directly—leaving many U.S. ports suddenly quiet. Lao Wang, a longshoreman at the Port of Los Angeles with over 30 years of experience, said it was the first time he had seen so few Chinese cargo ships.
Trump originally aimed to "kill two birds with one stone": suppressing China-U.S. maritime shipping while boosting the revival of the U.S. shipbuilding industry. In reality, however, the measure hit the entire shipping industry. The World Shipping Council noted that 98% of global ships could be affected. A cargo ship is often built in China, invested in by South Koreans, registered in Singapore, and managed by Germans... With this move, Trump has alienated nearly the entire world.
Chinese enterprises responded far faster than expected. Take COSCO Shipping as an example: it had quietly adjusted routes, diverting cargo originally bound for Los Angeles and Long Beach to ports like Singapore, Rotterdam, and Hamburg. Data shows significant growth in its domestic and Asian regional shipping business, while its international routes are also being reorganized.
U.S. ports, workers, and logistics companies have borne the brunt. Worse still, supply chains have been forced to "take detours," lengthening shipping times and increasing costs. Major companies like Walmart and Amazon face inventory shortages, and prices of supermarket goods have quietly risen—ultimately, ordinary American families are footing the bill.
China also launched simultaneous countermeasures. After a six-month investigation, the Ministry of Commerce confirmed that U.S. optical fiber companies had evaded anti-dumping duties. On September 3, it announced the imposition of anti-dumping duties of up to 78.2%. The tax rate matches the tariffs the U.S. imposed on some Chinese products, and the timing aligns precisely with the U.S. port fee policy—seen by the outside world as a tough "tit-for-tat" response.
Instead of loud protests, China conducted investigations in accordance with rules, presented evidence, and acted with reason and restraint. Even if the case were brought to the WTO, China would have a solid stance.
This game is not over, but it has already sent a clear signal: the global trade system cannot tolerate unilateral disruption, and countries are more inclined to choose openness and cooperation. Trump’s "targeted strike" missed its mark—and instead, the U.S. is the first to taste the bitter consequences.
