Ag groups are apprehensive of Trump’s plan to charge port fees on Chinese-built ships

President Trump is considering imposing port fees on Chinese-built ships. It is a move being floated right now to strengthen his America First agenda further.

Several groups, like the World Shipping Council, support the move to build up the U.S. maritime sector, but they warn that adding fees to Chinese-built ships would hurt American farmers, particularly when it comes to buying inputs like fertilizer and seed.

Growth Energy submitted its comments to the U.S. Trade Representative, urging them to change course.

“The noted fees and costs of compliance with the proposed requirements to use U.S.-flagged and operated vessels will be significant and result in higher, less-competitive prices and decreased demand for U.S. exports while also increasing the price of imported inputs for ethanol’s production. This will upend domestic supply chains while increasing port consolidation, port congestion, costs, other compliance requirements, and clearance time by customs that will add to the burden and cost of producing and exporting U.S. ethanol...These new requirements would cause a significant upheaval that American producers can ill afford,” said Growth Energy Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Chris Bliley.

Mike Steenhoek with the Soy Transportation Coalition says the proposals on the table would diminish the ability of U.S. farmers to compete in the international marketplace.

Related Stories
API said it stands ready to work with Congress to develop a balanced approach to E15 legislation that promotes fuel choice, supports investment certainty, and contributes to a stable and fair marketplace for American consumers.
Lawmakers are pressing for answers on how Washington’s “managed trade” approach — keeping leverage through long-term tariffs — will affect farmers, global markets, and future export opportunities.
In the meantime, Senate Majority Leader John Thune is asking that farmers be allowed to use marketing assistance loans to help stay afloat.
Beef industry groups seem to agree — market-based pricing, not federal intervention, best supports rancher livelihoods and long-term beef supply stability.
Cattle groups say additional imports would offer little relief for consumers but could erode rancher confidence as the industry begins to rebuild herds.

LATEST STORIES BY THIS AUTHOR:

Concerns over Chronic Wasting Disease are fueling a long-standing legal battle between Minnesota regulators and deer farmers. The case could soon reach the state’s Supreme Court with broader implications for agriculture.
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and Public Lands Council (PLC) are praising the passage of a bill to delist gray wolves as an endangered species by the U.S. House last week.
Recent USDA export sales data show China has been active in the U.S. market, but analysts tell RFD-TV News that the timing is a key clue.
USDA Undersecretary Luke Lindberg told RFD-TV News that we can only guess what Congress will do down the road. Still, the USDA recognizes its responsibility to spend resources efficiently and effectively.
Tight feeder supplies and lower placements indicate continued support for the cattle market, with regional impacts heightened in Texas by reduced feeder imports.