US to impose fees of up to $1.5M per port call for ships made in China starting April 17th

Dayum. Trump isn't messing around. He i sbasically telling CHina you can bring it, but we will win.

This sounds like the Navigation Acts that free trader Adam Smith supported.

I’ve posted about this multiple times. There’s a 38 page analysis of the impacts. It isn’t an enjoyable read. shite gets really bad. There are 30 some odd trade organizations that signed off on it.

Tradepartnership.com

This is so fricking awesome

Grok: summarize this in three paragraphs:

In March 2024, five U.S. unions filed a petition with the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), alleging that China’s policies in maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding hinder U.S. commercial shipbuilding competitiveness. They proposed a fee on Chinese-built ships docking at U.S. ports to fund subsidies for U.S. shipbuilders. Following a Section 301 investigation, USTR released a report in January 2025 confirming China’s practices burden U.S. commerce and proposed remedies in February 2025, including port fees up to $1.5 million per entry and export restrictions requiring a percentage of U.S. goods to be shipped on U.S.-built vessels. This study, conducted by Trade Partnership Worldwide, LLC, evaluates the economic impacts of these proposed remedies.
The analysis finds that all examined remedy options would have a net negative impact on the U.S. economy, reducing GDP and increasing the trade deficit. While U.S. shipbuilding would see significant output and employment gains (up to 51% in some scenarios), other sectors, particularly agriculture, energy, and manufacturing, would face substantial losses. For instance, agricultural exports like wheat, rice, and soybeans could drop by double digits, with wheat exports potentially falling 64% under the combined remedy scenario. U.S. ports, transportation, and retail sectors would also experience declines in output and jobs due to higher shipping costs and reduced trade competitiveness.
The study highlights the ripple effects across supply chains, noting that increased transportation costs would harm U.S. exporters’ ability to compete globally, benefiting competitors in countries like Brazil and Canada. Imports would also decline, with goods like coal and fertilizers seeing reductions up to 85% and 34%, respectively. Employment impacts vary by sector and worker type, with shipbuilding gaining significantly, but losses in agriculture, manufacturing, and services outweighing these gains. The report concludes that policymakers must weigh these broad economic costs against the benefits to shipbuilding to make informed decisions.

Grok: what are the pros to this?

The proposed remedies in the Section 301 investigation offer several advantages, primarily for the U.S. commercial shipbuilding industry. They would significantly boost output and employment in the sector, with potential increases of up to 51% in production and similar gains in jobs for professionals, technicians, and equipment operators, as detailed in the study. The fees collected from Chinese-built ships docking at U.S. ports could provide substantial subsidies to U.S. shipbuilders, enhancing their competitiveness against foreign rivals. Additionally, requiring a portion of U.S. exports to be transported on U.S.-built and operated vessels could strengthen domestic maritime infrastructure and create a more self-reliant shipping ecosystem, potentially supporting long-term national security and economic resilience in the shipbuilding supply chain.