U.S. ports are bracing for a sharp rise in equipment costs as the Trump administration considers tariffs of up to 100% on Chinese-manufactured cranes, on top of existing 25% duties introduced under President Biden. The move, part of a broader strategy to reduce U.S. reliance on Chinese maritime infrastructure, targets ship-to-shore cranes and related cargo-handling equipment at the core of port operations.
Tariff Shock Meets Supply Reality
With Chinese-made cranes dominating U.S. terminals, proposed tariffs of up to 100% threaten to stall critical infrastructure upgrades, inflating costs and exposing a domestic supply gap with no short-term fix.
Terminal operators say the reality on the ground complicates the policy push further. China’s Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries (ZPMC) supplies nearly 80% of the cranes at U.S. ports, with few viable alternatives. Finland’s Konecranes and Germany’s Liebherr are the next-largest suppliers but lack the capacity to absorb sudden U.S. demand. Domestic production, meanwhile, is virtually nonexistent. For ports that placed orders before tariff discussions began, the added costs, up to $100 million in the case of the Port of Houston, are seen as retroactive penalties.
Officials like Carl Bentzel of the National Association of Waterfront Employers have been lobbying the White House for transition time. “We’re not defending the status quo,” he said in an official statement, “but you can’t just snap your fingers and replace a global supply chain.”
Infrastructure at Risk Amid Strategic Realignment
The administration’s concern extends beyond economics. U.S. officials allege that Chinese cranes could pose cybersecurity risks, citing reports of embedded communications equipment that may be used for surveillance, an assertion echoed in recent federal investigations. The argument mirrors growing scrutiny of foreign control over critical infrastructure, from semiconductors to grid components.
Yet for ports trying to modernize aging terminals, the timing is fraught. Cranes are ordered years in advance, often with 18–24 month lead times. They are also capital-intensive, with Chinese models priced around $15 million, several million dollars below competitors. With no domestic manufacturing pipeline in place and allied nations’ output already constrained, operators are urging the USTR to offer carve-outs for cranes ordered before 2025 and to delay new tariffs for three years to avoid derailing upgrade plans.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has already approved fees on Chinese-built ships calling at U.S. ports starting in October and is reviewing similar levies on foreign-made car carriers, measures trade groups argue could disrupt both port operations and downstream markets. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for instance, warns that proposed tariffs on foreign car carriers could add $300 to vehicle prices.
The Capacity Gap No One’s Solving Fast
While the national security rationale has merit, a tariff-first strategy without parallel investment in domestic crane manufacturing risks creating a different kind of exposure, one rooted in operational delay rather than geopolitical overreach. In the short term, the U.S. remains structurally dependent on foreign equipment, with no credible plan yet in place to change that trajectory at industrial scale. Until public-private initiatives accelerate crane production capacity either at home or through allied partnerships, the ports that anchor U.S. trade may find themselves caught between political imperatives and physical limits.