Wall Street Journal: US Ports Unite Against New Tariffs on Chinese Cranes, Warning of $6.7 Billion Losses

Wall Street Journal reported on July 9 that US port operators collectively opposed the Trump administration's proposal to impose a 100% tariff on Chinese cranes, warning that this move would cause a sharp increase in the cost of upgrading key equipment, with cumulative losses for US ports potentially reaching $6.7 billion.

The Port Authority Association (representing 81 ports across the US) emphasized during a hearing at the Office of the United States Trade Representative that the new tariff, when combined with the current 25% rate under the Biden administration, would result in a cumulative 270% tariff on eight Chinese cranes already purchased by Houston Port, adding an extra cost of $302.4 million, severely undermining the port's investment capacity. The association's CEO, Gary Davis, pointed out that US ports have already ordered 55 Chinese cranes, and will need to add another 151 over the next decade. If the tax is implemented, the tariff cost on existing orders alone would reach $18 billion, with total losses estimated to approach $6.7 billion.

Several key state ports, including those in California, Florida, and Texas, jointly wrote to the US Trade Representative, urging the cancellation or postponement of the tariffs. The core conflict lies in the fact that apart from China, only three companies (Japan's Mitsui, Finland's Kone, and Germany's Liebherr) can supply ship-to-shore cranes, but their production capacities are unable to meet demand. Meanwhile, American manufacturers have long since disappeared since the 1980s. Tampa Bay Port even stated that European cranes also rely on parts from China and Russia, making it impossible for tariffs to achieve the goal of shifting the supply chain.

Port operators warned that the surge in costs would force US ports to be at a disadvantage compared to Canada and Mexico, and could lead to supply chain disruptions and worsened inflation. Davis emphasized, "Taxing will only bring negative outcomes, including stifling infrastructure upgrades and increasing employment risks."

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/1837169136821258/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author(s) alone.