US Maritime Action Plan – proposal for a new "universal fee" on all foreign built vessels

Last year, the Trump Administration announced plans to impose port fees on vessels with a China-nexus under the so-called USTR 301 (U.S. Trade Representative section 301) action. China retaliated by introducing fees on vessels with a US nexus. The plans sparked dismay in the global shipping community and were subsequently put on hold for 12 months until November 2026. However, on 13 February 2026 the White House released its Maritime Action Plan ("MAP") which includes a proposal for a new fee to be imposed on all foreign-built vessels. 

The Maritime Action Plan and the "universal fee"

The 42-page MAP is intended to support President Trump's vision for the US to enter into a "new maritime golden age" by, among others, rebuilding and expanding the US shipbuilding industry. It calls for a range of measures to be introduced, including new funding and financing mechanisms for US shipyards, cooperation with South Korea and Japan, as well as consultation with China, and the establishment of a strategic US commercial fleet. However, the proposed measure which will be of concern to the wide shipping community is the proposal for a new "universal infrastructure or security fee"  on all foreign-built commercial vessels calling at US ports. Importantly, the proposed fee is to be assessed on the weight of imported cargo of each relevant vessel.

The MAP is silent on the level of the fee, but illustrative figures included in the MAP give an indication of the revenue that can be generated by the US from the fee:

• USD 0.01 per kilogram of imported cargo would raise c. USD 66 billion over a ten-year period
• USD 0.25 per kilogram of imported cargo would raise c. USD 1.5 trillion over a ten-year period

The main justification for the proposed fee is, according to the MAP, that foreign built vessels benefit from US market access, and they should therefore be subject to a fee which ensures that they indirectly contribute to "the long-term revitalisation of America's maritime capabilities". 

The MAP further provides that the revenues generated by the fee can be used for a proposed "Maritime Security Trust Fund" which will be used to fund investments US shipbuilding, maritime workforce development and fleet expansion.

Importantly, the MAP does not set out the scope for "foreign built vessels". However, as the MAP does highlight the importance of bilateral and multilateral agreements for the development of the U.S. maritime industry, exceptions for US allies and close trade partners are expected if the proposed fee is implemented.

Initial reactions from the shipping community

The MAP has received both praise and criticism from domestic US policy experts and industry players, with certain US commentators reacting to the lack of proposals for short-term measures to bolster the US maritime industry. The international shipping community has reacted strongly to the plan. Among others, the International Chamber of Shipping has stated that although it supports the objective of revitalising the US shipbuilding industry, it is opposed to the new fee which they describe as a "substantial cost burden on maritime transport". It pointed out that the fee could distort trade, increase costs for consumers and that it could encourage retaliatory measures. Market analysts have also pointed out that the proposed fee structure would have a particular negative impact on the container shipping sector.

Industry-wide ramifications 

A more detailed framework needs to be put forward before the detailed ramifications under shipping contracts can be considered in full. Required clarifications include the scope of "foreign built vessels" and the fee levels. However, to the extent that proposed fee is implemented on a wide ranging basis for vessels which are constructed in the world's leading shipbuilding nations, it could result in market-altering ramifications for international trade which could impact not only international trade, but also shipbuilding, vessel leasing structures and the market for second hand vessels. 

Under the current proposal, the fee would be charged on the vessel but assessed based on the quantity of imported cargo. If the proposal is implemented, the final classification of the fee will be key to determining how charterparty clauses allocate responsibility for the fee, including if it will be classified as a fee on the cargo itself (as opposed to a vessel fee) and if it will be an infrastructure or security fee.

A fee for the use of infrastructure is at least in form similar to other customary port expenses such as light dues. Subject to specifically negotiated terms, one would ordinarily expect such fees be for the charterers' account under a time charter, but for the owners' account under a voyage charter. By way of example, ASBTANKVOY expressly provides that "the Owner shall pay all dues and other charges on the Vessel (whether or not such dues or charges are assessed on the basis of quantity of cargo)". 

If the fee is classified as a security fee, there will often be other provisions than the usual expenses clauses that might apply, such as the BIMCO ISPS/MTSA Clause for both time charter and voyage charters.

Many market participants will also recently have negotiated new terms to address the USTR 301 fees. Importantly, for those using the 2025 BIMCO USTR Clause for Time Charter Parties, it is unlikely that the clause will allocate responsibility for the new fee. However, we have seen several examples of bespoke USTR 301 related clauses that likely would determine liability for the fee. Hence, the cost allocation position must be considered in the context of each set of charter terms. 

Finally, it is important to note that courts and tribunals have consistently looked beyond the formal classification of taxes and fees to consider their substance when determining which party bears responsibility. Given the somewhat artificial justification for characterising the fee as payment for infrastructure or security, there is clear scope for disputes to arise unless the parties have expressly agreed on allocation of liability.

In summary, owners, charterers, carriers and other involved parties are well advised to monitor legislative movement on the implementation of the measures proposed in the MAP, as well as to continue monitoring and preparations for the revival USTR 301 measures, in order to prepare for the implementation or re-introduction of fees for vessels calling at US ports.

Implementation – medium to long term

It is important to note that the MAP implies that the proposed measures, including the "universal fee", is likely to be subject to medium to long term implementation through Congress, as opposed the shorter-term USTR 301 tariff-style implementation. According to the plan, which does not provide a proposed timeline for implementation, the Trump Administration intends to provide a legislative package addressing the proposals after the financial year 2027 budget request has been submitted to Congress.

Our shipping team is closely tracking these developments in vessel and port fees and is well-equipped to advise industry participants on compliance, contractual risk allocation, and dispute resolution as the situation evolves.