Posted on: 24 February 2026
The White House’s Maritime Action Plan (MAP), published on 13 February 2026 pursuant to Executive Order 14269, “Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance”, signals a potential shift in U.S. port fee policy. Although the MAP is a policy framework rather than binding legislation, it proposes a universal port fee based on the weight of imported cargo carried by foreign-built vessels, marking a departure from the existing United States Trade Representative’s Section 301 regime (USTR fees), which primarily targets Chinese-owned, operated or built vessels. This proposal may generate uncertainty for the future of trade to the U.S.
The MAP confirms that port and border‑related fees have been prioritised within a broader legislative programme aimed at strengthening U.S. maritime competitiveness. These measures are expected to be advanced through Congress following publication of the President’s FY 2027 Budget Request.
Uncertainty around the future of USTR fees
The inclusion of a separate proposal for a universal port fee in the MAP suggests that the U.S. may be reassessing its approach to vessel charges more generally, moving away from the China-specific enforcement under USTR to a broader regime, targeting all foreign-built vessels (potentially even those owned or operated by U.S. companies).
Theoretically, the MAP leaves open how any universal port fee would interact with the existing USTR regime, or whether the USTR fees may ultimately be replaced once the current one‑year suspension expires in November 2026. Absent express clarification, stakeholders could face cumulative exposure, at least during any transitional period (although the fee comparison analysis at the end of this briefing suggests that cumulative exposure may be financially prohibitive to U.S. trade).
This uncertainty is reinforced by the structure of the MAP itself. The universal port fee proposal and the USTR measures sit under different policy pillars and are presented as distinct initiatives, rather than an integrated or replacement regime.
A shift away from the current USTR framework
The existing USTR regime is highly complex, relying on distinctions between Chinese ownership, operational control and shipbuilding. USTR Annex I in particular has caused significant confusion, with the market struggling to precisely determine its application to classic multi-jurisdictional layered vessel ownership, chartering and management structures. As a result, many in the market have been looking to change ownership and finance structures (particularly moving away from Chinese lease finance) to avoid triggering Annex I fees. Others have been considering shifting their new-build programmes away from China.
The MAP proposal for a universal port fee on all foreign-built vessels may lead to reconsideration of those changes, given that Chinese-owned, operated and built vessels are not singled out.
The build location‑based and cargo‑linked test under the MAP proposals may simplify enforcement and calculation, but it significantly widens the scope of vessels affected.
Comparison example: scale still matters
The table below illustrates, at a high level, how fees might apply to a 5,000 TEU fully laden container vessel under the existing USTR regime and the MAP proposal. The figures are indicative only and assume a fully laden vessel making one U.S. port call (and that no USTR Annex II exceptions apply). The MAP proposal has not determined the applicable fee per kg of cargo, but has suggested a figure in the range of U.S.$0.01/kg to U.S.$0.25/kg.
Continue to the full article here.
