Maritime Affairs Program (MAP) Handbill Spotlight

These new dynamics come amid an increasingly stark gap between the U.S. and China in shipbuilding industrial capacity. According to Visual Capitalist, China delivered 32.86 million gross tons (GT) of ships in 2023, while the United States produced just 60,000 GT. Clarkson Research also reported that in 2024, Chinese shipyards secured 46.45 million compensated gross tons (CGT) in new orders—71% of the global total. South Korea followed with 10.98 million CGT, while the U.S. failed to register.

In fact, U.S. concerns over its own shipbuilding industry have been repeatedly reflected in planning documents and legislative initiatives in recent years. As early as 2019, the U.S. Navy’s 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan proposed expanding the naval fleet to 355 combat ships by mid-century, backed by an annual investment of $40 billion. In 2024, the Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans report from the Congressional Research Service outlined dozens of policy recommendations to enhance domestic shipbuilding capacity, including accelerated hiring and training, increased automation, and the construction of new shipyard facilities. In December 2024, Mike Waltz and Senator Mark Kelly introduced the SHIPS for America Act, a bipartisan bill aimed at restoring U.S. shipbuilding leadership through targeted investments and procurement reforms.

Recent Events

On April 17, 2025, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced that, following a year-long Section 301 investigation, the U.S. would impose new port fees and tariffs on China-related vessels and port equipment. The measures represent a scaled-back version of the February 2025 proposal, which had called for fees of up to $1.5 million per port call for China-built ships.

The finalized plan will roll out in two phases, beginning with a 180-day exemption period. After that, Chinese vessel owners and operators will be charged based on a ship’s net tonnage per U.S. voyage, starting at $50 per ton and increasing by $30 annually, reaching $140 by 2028. The fee will apply at the first port of entry per rotation and be capped at five charges per year. The plan also introduces a service fee targeting foreign-built vehicle carriers, calculated by Car Equivalent Unit (CEU) and set at $150 per CEU after the grace period.

Image produced by Zichong Ye. Information obtained from the United States Trade Representative website.

Keep In Mind

First, while the U.S. government aims to counter China’s dominance in shipbuilding through its new port fee regime, the strong backlash it has triggered underscores the challenges of translating strategic ambition into effective industrial policy. Specifically, the U.S. government is attempting to use protectionist tools in a globalized industry where few affordable alternatives exist. Tariffs and port fees alone are unlikely to reverse decades of decline without a systematic industrial policy that supports investment in infrastructure and workforce training. Moreover, it remains unclear what strategic objective these protectionist policies aim to achieve. Without clear benchmarks for success, these measures risk becoming symbolic gestures rather than a coherent industrial strategy.

Second, the new measures targeting the global shipbuilding industry are redistributive in nature and may create new winners and losers. For China, these measures could raise operating costs and intensify competitive pressure on its shipbuilding firms in the short term, potentially weakening their global competitiveness. At the same time, the restrictions may prompt shipping companies to favor South Korean and Japanese vessels, diverting orders away from Chinese yards. However, given limited capacity, labor shortages, and rising costs in both Japan and South Korea, it remains uncertain whether their industries can fully absorb the overflow. Combined with the absence of a coherent U.S. industrial strategy, it remains difficult to predict who will ultimately emerge as the beneficiaries—or bear the costs—of this global restructuring.