Xeneta: SHIPS for America Act Adds New Layer of Complexity to US Maritime Trade

The recently reintroduced SHIPS for America Act is creating additional challenges for ocean container shippers in 2025, adding a new layer of complexity to an already intricate US maritime regulatory landscape, according to Xeneta.

The Act, which comes as a separate initiative from the USTR port fees, introduces significant new charges for vessels with connections to Chinese shipyards. This development marks a departure from its initial version tabled in December 2024, now including fees based on carriers’ orderbook percentages from Chinese yards.

According to Xeneta, under the new provisions, ships owned or operated by Chinese carriers or registered in China will face a USD 5 per ton fee. The same fee applies to non-Chinese carriers if more than 50% of their new vessel orders are from designated ‘foreign shipyards of concern,’ primarily those owned by China State Shipbuilding Corporation.

Emily Stausboll, Senior Analyst at Xeneta, stresses the challenge this presents: “If the rules of the game are changing so dramatically from one week to the next, procuring and operating freight requires an understanding of the dynamics and nuances at play across service providers.”

The impact of these regulations becomes evident when examining specific cases. For example, the COSCO Shipping containership Denali, a 14,500 TEU vessel, faces combined fees of USD 4.6 million per US port rotation – USD 4.2 million from USTR fees and an additional USD 0.4 million under the SHIPS for America Act, according to Xeneta’s calculation.

Shipping alliances face particular challenges, as shown by the Ocean Alliance (COSCO, CMA CGM, Evergreen, and OOCL). Even if they redirect Chinese-owned vessels away from US routes, CMA CGM’s 35%+ Chinese shipyard orderbook means their ships will still face significant fees, according to Stausboll.

Looking ahead, Section 415 of the Act mandates that 1% of goods from China must be transported on US-built ships, starting five years post-enactment, with annual 1% increases up to 10%. Non-compliance penalties will exceed the cost difference between using US-built ships versus flag of convenience vessels.

For shippers, these developments necessitate a more comprehensive approach to freight procurement. Stausboll advises focusing on benchmarking carriers across multiple metrics, including capacity, transit times, and schedule reliability, rather than solely pursuing the lowest rates.

“If carriers are being hit by additional fees, they are sure to pass this on to shippers – and it could be wrapped up in surcharges of different labels and definitions,” states Stausboll. She suggests index-linked contracts could be one way for shippers to relieve some of the pressure on procurement teams by allowing them to focus on operational delivery rather than constantly renegotiating rates in the wake of market disruptions.

“There is no sugar-coating how difficult the landscape is, but there are actions shippers can take to allow them to make informed decisions at the appropriate time,” she concludes.

Subscribe for Daily Maritime Insights

Sign up for gCaptain’s newsletter and never miss an update

— trusted by our 109,119 members