<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Ports say they stand to lose about $1 billion in funding for maintenance work because the US Army Corps of Engineers’ budget is not treating so-called donor ports equally. </div>

Ports say they stand to lose about $1 billion in funding for maintenance work because the US Army Corps of Engineers’ budget is not treating so-called donor ports equally.

Feature image

<div>US port officials say they could be shortchanged about $1 billion for dredging and maintenance projects because the current budget for the US Army Corps of Engineers does not follow through on a 2020 law aimed at more equal distribution of the fees importers pay for maintaining US harbors.In a letter sent Thursday to a joint Congressional committee on energy and water, the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), along with the directors of 22 ports, said the Corps fiscal year 2025 budget allocation for dredging and other maintenance does not adhere to a provision of the Water Resources Development...

US port officials say they could be shortchanged about $1 billion for dredging and maintenance projects because the current budget for the US Army Corps of Engineers does not follow through on a 2020 law aimed at more equal distribution of the fees importers pay for maintaining US harbors. In a letter sent Thursday to a joint Congressional committee on energy and water, the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), along with the directors of 22 ports, said the Corps fiscal year 2025 budget allocation for dredging and other maintenance does not adhere to a provision of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (WRDA 2020). That provision allocated 10% of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) to “donor ports.” Due to their size, donor ports have contributed over 50% of the monies to the HMTF, funded through a 0.125% fee on goods movements, but receive less than 2% of that back for maintenance projects, the AAPA said. “Ports need consistent and predictable funding to plan and execute the billions in additional expanded use projects in their pipelines,” the group said. The AAPA said the specified allocation to donor ports resulted in $332 million of extra funding for dredging and maintenance during fiscal year 2024. Donor ports expected to receive a similar amount in the Army Corps’ fiscal year 2025 work plan, which totals $5.5 billion, but it was not included. The AAPA said that maintenance projects begun in 2024 may stall due to the lack of funding in the 2025 budget. Ports share the cost of dredging and maintenance with the Army Corps, so they will have to make up any difference. With the fiscal year 2026 appropriations for the Army Corps now being drawn up, the concern is that it will also not include the required funding for donor ports. The AAPA said it wants Congress to expressly set aside about $480 million in the next appropriations process for the Army Corps to ensure donor ports get their fair share. How the HMTF us disbursed has been a long-standing issue among donor ports. West Coast ports, which were the first to benefit from containerization, were concerned about East Coast ports receiving an outsize share of the HMTF relative to their size. In 1982, then-American Association of Port Authorities President J. Ron Brinson built an expensive headquarters building in Alexandria, Va., in a pre-emptive move to keep the group from being torn apart by the new HMTF . Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port infrastructure

North American ports

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Big US ports ask Congress to follow law for equal funding of dredging work

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">In the wake of several successful appeals that crimped Donald Trump’s executive order banning new projects, wind developers are racing against the clock to complete work as quickly as possible.</div>

In the wake of several successful appeals that crimped Donald Trump’s executive order banning new projects, wind developers are racing against the clock to complete work as quickly as possible.

<div class="phx-topic">The Trump administration has begun taking steps to reverse a sweep of recent court victories for US offshore wind projects as developers rush to complete work on the five projects the courts have allowed to resume. The offshore wind industry is a key driver of project cargo such as turbine blades and other oversize components with complex transport requirements. These projects also call for significant amounts of port space and specialized heavy-lift vessels for installation. But US offshore wind projects have come under attack by President Donald Trump, who issued an executive order banning new wind power projects upon taking office in January 2025. Then on Dec. 22, the administration’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued stop-work orders on five East Coast offshore wind projects that are fully permitted and over halfway complete. Those are Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) by Dominion Energy, Empire Wind 1 by Equinor, Revolution Wind by Ørsted and Global Infrastructure Partners’ Skyborn Renewables, Sunrise Wind by Ørsted, and Vineyard Wind 1 by Iberdrola subsidiary Avangrid Inc. and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners. In a series of rulings issued in January and early February, federal district courts granted preliminary injunctions allowing all five projects to restart construction. However, on Feb. 11, US Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told Bloomberg Television the federal government would “absolutely” appeal the courts’ decisions allowing construction to resume on the five existing projects, adding, “There will be further discussion on this.” The administration contends offshore wind turbines pose a national security risk because of radar interference. In a separate move on Feb. 17, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson filed a notice to appeal a Dec. 8 ruling by a Massachusetts federal district court striking down the administration’s federal permitting ban on new wind energy projects. Projects are racing against the clock to complete work as quickly as possible before any future court rulings come down against them. “This constant political jockeying undoubtedly injects new levels of uncertainty into the industry as a whole and the industries that support it,” Abby Watson, president of Groundwire Group, a US consulting firm, told the Journal of Commerce. <h3>No ‘wiggle room’ for project schedules </h3>Absent any federal pushback, US offshore wind projects still face significant challenges stemming from the scarcity of resources needed for project construction. Watson cited the limited number of highly specialized installation vessels available for building these projects globally. “Fierce competition has these vessels booked up years in advance, and with utilization rates this high, projects can’t afford to build a lot of wiggle room into their schedules,” she said. Transporting and storing massive offshore wind components presents additional concerns, as space at East Coast ports comes at a premium, Watson said. “Unexpected delays in clearing out huge storage and laydown areas are bound to cause a major headache for logistics managers and port operators,” she said. In a statement to the Journal of Commerce, the Oceantic Network, a nonprofit trade group, called for bipartisan permitting reform, saying it was crucial to offshore wind project development. “It can unlock billions of dollars of investment and port/vessel activity to advance shared national priorities like shipyard revitalization, steel and port investments, and domestic energy dominance,” the group said. US offshore wind projects have resulted in $5 billion in port redevelopment and $2 billion in vessel builds and retrofits, according to the Oceantic Network. “There are hundreds of vessels operating on each of the five projects under construction today, and billions of dollars of equipment and components that can resume transit either from the factory to a staging port, or from port to construction site,” it said. Multiple offshore wind project cargo shippers declined requests from the Journal of Commerce to comment for this story, citing the ongoing litigation. <h3>Delays, tariffs pile on costs </h3>US offshore wind projects are grappling with mounting costs from the double whammy of federal stop-work orders and import tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. According to court filings, individual project costs from work shutdowns range from $1 million to $5 million per day. According to Dominion Energy’s latest CVOW update, the project’s budget has risen to $11.5 billion because of an additional $365 million in costs related to tariffs and the federal government’s order to halt work. In recent remarks on the 810-megawatt (MW) Empire Wind project off the coast of Long Island, New York, developer Equinor also cited the one-two punch of tariffs and work shutdowns in driving up the project’s cost by $500 million to $7.5 billion. Equinor CEO Anders Opedal called the federal stop-work orders “unlawful” during the company’s Feb. 4 fourth-quarter earnings call. “We are moving forward with a strong belief that we will have a good case in the court,” Opedal said. With work stoppages lifted, project developers are reporting various stages of progress. Dominion spokesperson Jeremy Slayton told the Journal of Commerce that the 2.6-gigawatt (GW) project is over 70% complete and should begin generating power by the end of March. The project is set for completion by February 2027. In Ørsted’s Feb. 6 earnings call, company executives said the 704-MW Revolution Wind project off the coast of Rhode Island and Connecticut is set to begin producing power “within weeks” and should be fully operational in the second half of 2026. Ørsted’s other project, the 924-MW Sunrise Wind farm, is on track to begin generating power by October, executives said. On the 806 MW Vineyard Wind 1 farm, court filings show the $4.5 billion project is 95% complete and has been generating power for over a year. Empire Wind is over 60% complete, but future work stoppages could put the wind farm in jeopardy. According to a Jan. 6 court filing by Empire Wind, “if allowed to stand, the suspension order substantially threatens cancellation of a project that is fully and duly permitted under the law and has been in active construction for over a year and a half at a cost of billions of dollars.” Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="mailto:autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com.</a></div>

The Trump administration has begun taking steps to reverse a sweep of recent court victories for US offshore wind projects as developers rush to complete work on the five projects the courts have allowed to resume. The offshore wind industry is a key driver of project cargo such as turbine blades and other oversize components with complex transport requirements. These projects also call for significant amounts of port space and specialized heavy-lift vessels for installation. But US offshore wind projects have come under attack by President Donald Trump, who issued an executive order banning new wind power projects upon taking office in January 2025. Then on Dec. 22, the administration’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued stop-work orders on five East Coast offshore wind projects that are fully permitted and over halfway complete. Those are Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) by Dominion Energy, Empire Wind 1 by Equinor, Revolution Wind by Ørsted and Global Infrastructure Partners’ Skyborn Renewables, Sunrise Wind by Ørsted, and Vineyard Wind 1 by Iberdrola subsidiary Avangrid Inc. and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners. In a series of rulings issued in January and early February, federal district courts granted preliminary injunctions allowing all five projects to restart construction. However, on Feb. 11, US Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told Bloomberg Television the federal government would “absolutely” appeal the courts’ decisions allowing construction to resume on the five existing projects, adding, “There will be further discussion on this.” The administration contends offshore wind turbines pose a national security risk because of radar interference. In a separate move on Feb. 17, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson filed a notice to appeal a Dec. 8 ruling by a Massachusetts federal district court striking down the administration’s federal permitting ban on new wind energy projects. Projects are racing against the clock to complete work as quickly as possible before any future court rulings come down against them. “This constant political jockeying undoubtedly injects new levels of uncertainty into the industry as a whole and the industries that support it,” Abby Watson, president of Groundwire Group, a US consulting firm, told the Journal of Commerce. No ‘wiggle room’ for project schedules Absent any federal pushback, US offshore wind projects still face significant challenges stemming from the scarcity of resources needed for project construction. Watson cited the limited number of highly specialized installation vessels available for building these projects globally. “Fierce competition has these vessels booked up years in advance, and with utilization rates this high, projects can’t afford to build a lot of wiggle room into their schedules,” she said. Transporting and storing massive offshore wind components presents additional concerns, as space at East Coast ports comes at a premium, Watson said. “Unexpected delays in clearing out huge storage and laydown areas are bound to cause a major headache for logistics managers and port operators,” she said. In a statement to the Journal of Commerce, the Oceantic Network, a nonprofit trade group, called for bipartisan permitting reform, saying it was crucial to offshore wind project development. “It can unlock billions of dollars of investment and port/vessel activity to advance shared national priorities like shipyard revitalization, steel and port investments, and domestic energy dominance,” the group said. US offshore wind projects have resulted in $5 billion in port redevelopment and $2 billion in vessel builds and retrofits, according to the Oceantic Network. “There are hundreds of vessels operating on each of the five projects under construction today, and billions of dollars of equipment and components that can resume transit either from the factory to a staging port, or from port to construction site,” it said. Multiple offshore wind project cargo shippers declined requests from the Journal of Commerce to comment for this story, citing the ongoing litigation. Delays, tariffs pile on costs US offshore wind projects are grappling with mounting costs from the double whammy of federal stop-work orders and import tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. According to court filings, individual project costs from work shutdowns range from $1 million to $5 million per day. According to Dominion Energy’s latest CVOW update, the project’s budget has risen to $11.5 billion because of an additional $365 million in costs related to tariffs and the federal government’s order to halt work. In recent remarks on the 810-megawatt (MW) Empire Wind project off the coast of Long Island, New York, developer Equinor also cited the one-two punch of tariffs and work shutdowns in driving up the project’s cost by $500 million to $7.5 billion. Equinor CEO Anders Opedal called the federal stop-work orders “unlawful” during the company’s Feb. 4 fourth-quarter earnings call. “We are moving forward with a strong belief that we will have a good case in the court,” Opedal said. With work stoppages lifted, project developers are reporting various stages of progress. Dominion spokesperson Jeremy Slayton told the Journal of Commerce that the 2.6-gigawatt (GW) project is over 70% complete and should begin generating power by the end of March. The project is set for completion by February 2027. In Ørsted’s Feb. 6 earnings call, company executives said the 704-MW Revolution Wind project off the coast of Rhode Island and Connecticut is set to begin producing power “within weeks” and should be fully operational in the second half of 2026. Ørsted’s other project, the 924-MW Sunrise Wind farm, is on track to begin generating power by October, executives said. On the 806 MW Vineyard Wind 1 farm, court filings show the $4.5 billion project is 95% complete and has been generating power for over a year. Empire Wind is over 60% complete, but future work stoppages could put the wind farm in jeopardy. According to a Jan. 6 court filing by Empire Wind, “if allowed to stand, the suspension order substantially threatens cancellation of a project that is fully and duly permitted under the law and has been in active construction for over a year and a half at a cost of billions of dollars.” Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com.

Energy projects

Heavy-haul transport

Project cargo

Breakbulk News

Maritime

Trump administration seeks to undo court rulings favoring offshore wind projects

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Gold Star has a network of 20 China-centric liner services operated by 40 owned and chartered ships totaling 100,000 TEUs serving Asia, India and South Africa.</div>

Gold Star has a network of 20 China-centric liner services operated by 40 owned and chartered ships totaling 100,000 TEUs serving Asia, India and South Africa.

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd will likely use its <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/zim-deal-to-strengthen-hapag-lloyds-market-share-across-key-trade-lanes-6171044">$4.2 billion takeover of Zim Integrated Shipping Services</a> as the springboard for a significant expansion of its intra-Asia business through Zim’s Hong Kong-headquartered affiliate Gold Star Line. Hapag’s existing intra-Asia coverage is limited to a series of slot charters with other shipping lines. It also utilizes intra-Asia services established by its Gemini Cooperation partner Maersk, which had several regional carriers including MCC and Sealand Asia before being consolidated within Maersk. By comparison, Gold Star has a network of 20 liner services operated by 40 owned and chartered ships totaling 100,000 TEUs serving Asia, India and South Africa. But they are also China-centric, linking ports such as Shanghai and Ningbo to specific Southeast Asia countries including Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand while also connecting China with India, Africa and the Middle East. There is no or very little coverage to markets such as Japan, Taiwan or within the Southeast Asia region. “I definitely see huge advantages for Hapag-Lloyd from Gold Star Line,” Capt. Igal Dafni told the Journal of Commerce. Dafni was managing director of Gold Star Line in the early 2000s before joining CNC Line and helping to drive CMA CGM’s purchase of the Taiwan-based intra-Asia carrier in 2007. Dafni is now president and CEO of IRIS Shipping Line, a domestic carrier in the Philippines. The gaps in Gold Star’s extended Asia and regional coverage give Hapag-Lloyd tremendous scope to expand its Asia network to those countries either through new services or adding ports on existing Gold Star services, Dafni said Friday. He said Gold Star’s network growth was restricted partly due to parent company Zim’s trade priorities and Israeli ownership. “There is very little activity in Japan or South Korea, for example, because those countries have never been a big market for Zim,” Dafni said. “There are also countries Gold Star definitely can’t call at such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Bangladesh.” Those restrictions will end under Hapag-Lloyd ownership. Alphaliner, in its newsletter this week, said Hapag-Lloyd’s takeover of Gold Star Line will help the German carrier to “enlarge its Asian footprint.” <h3>Improved connectivity, faster transits expected </h3>Aside from new services, Dafni said growth would probably also come from significant cost savings through the elimination of costly feeders and slot charters. Drawing a comparison with CMA CGM’s takeover of CNC Line, he pointed out that the French carrier’s intra-Asia network was similarly as insubstantial as Hapag-Lloyd’s is now. CNC’s total liftings were 400,000 TEUs a year at the time of the CMA CGM takeover, but that doubled to at least 1 million TEUs within a few years after CMA CGM expanded coverage and services. Dafni expected a similar level of growth for Hapag’s intra-Asia and wider regional volumes once Gold Star Line was under the carrier’s control. Gold Star’s extensive intra-Asia services will feed cargo into Hapag’s mainline hub-and-spoke Gemini Cooperation network with Maersk, offering Southeast Asia and regional exporters improved connectivity with more destinations and faster transit times. Similarly, import volumes via the Gemini network will increase volumes from the main Asia hubs to neighboring countries. “Feedering will shift from being a cost for Hapag-Lloyd to becoming a profit and revenue generator as third-party cargo shifts to its Asia services,” Dafni said. Hapag-Lloyd and Gold Star Line said it was premature to comment on what would happen to Gold Star under new ownership. The Zim deal “includes Gold Star Line, but no decision has yet been made about what will happen to the brand. It is simply too early to talk about it,” a Hapag-Lloyd spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. A senior source close to Gold Star Line said it was “too early to evaluate the impact.” “We are still learning about the deal and waiting for the relevant approvals,” the source said. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com.</a></div>

Hapag-Lloyd will likely use its $4.2 billion takeover of Zim Integrated Shipping Services as the springboard for a significant expansion of its intra-Asia business through Zim’s Hong Kong-headquartered affiliate Gold Star Line. Hapag’s existing intra-Asia coverage is limited to a series of slot charters with other shipping lines. It also utilizes intra-Asia services established by its Gemini Cooperation partner Maersk, which had several regional carriers including MCC and Sealand Asia before being consolidated within Maersk. By comparison, Gold Star has a network of 20 liner services operated by 40 owned and chartered ships totaling 100,000 TEUs serving Asia, India and South Africa. But they are also China-centric, linking ports such as Shanghai and Ningbo to specific Southeast Asia countries including Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand while also connecting China with India, Africa and the Middle East. There is no or very little coverage to markets such as Japan, Taiwan or within the Southeast Asia region. “I definitely see huge advantages for Hapag-Lloyd from Gold Star Line,” Capt. Igal Dafni told the Journal of Commerce. Dafni was managing director of Gold Star Line in the early 2000s before joining CNC Line and helping to drive CMA CGM’s purchase of the Taiwan-based intra-Asia carrier in 2007. Dafni is now president and CEO of IRIS Shipping Line, a domestic carrier in the Philippines. The gaps in Gold Star’s extended Asia and regional coverage give Hapag-Lloyd tremendous scope to expand its Asia network to those countries either through new services or adding ports on existing Gold Star services, Dafni said Friday. He said Gold Star’s network growth was restricted partly due to parent company Zim’s trade priorities and Israeli ownership. “There is very little activity in Japan or South Korea, for example, because those countries have never been a big market for Zim,” Dafni said. “There are also countries Gold Star definitely can’t call at such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Bangladesh.” Those restrictions will end under Hapag-Lloyd ownership. Alphaliner, in its newsletter this week, said Hapag-Lloyd’s takeover of Gold Star Line will help the German carrier to “enlarge its Asian footprint.” Improved connectivity, faster transits expected Aside from new services, Dafni said growth would probably also come from significant cost savings through the elimination of costly feeders and slot charters. Drawing a comparison with CMA CGM’s takeover of CNC Line, he pointed out that the French carrier’s intra-Asia network was similarly as insubstantial as Hapag-Lloyd’s is now. CNC’s total liftings were 400,000 TEUs a year at the time of the CMA CGM takeover, but that doubled to at least 1 million TEUs within a few years after CMA CGM expanded coverage and services. Dafni expected a similar level of growth for Hapag’s intra-Asia and wider regional volumes once Gold Star Line was under the carrier’s control. Gold Star’s extensive intra-Asia services will feed cargo into Hapag’s mainline hub-and-spoke Gemini Cooperation network with Maersk, offering Southeast Asia and regional exporters improved connectivity with more destinations and faster transit times. Similarly, import volumes via the Gemini network will increase volumes from the main Asia hubs to neighboring countries. “Feedering will shift from being a cost for Hapag-Lloyd to becoming a profit and revenue generator as third-party cargo shifts to its Asia services,” Dafni said. Hapag-Lloyd and Gold Star Line said it was premature to comment on what would happen to Gold Star under new ownership. The Zim deal “includes Gold Star Line, but no decision has yet been made about what will happen to the brand. It is simply too early to talk about it,” a Hapag-Lloyd spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. A senior source close to Gold Star Line said it was “too early to evaluate the impact.” “We are still learning about the deal and waiting for the relevant approvals,” the source said. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com.

Port News

Container lines

International ports

Container Shipping News

Hapag-Lloyd set to grow its intra-Asia network through Zim's Gold Star Line

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Retailers are holding back on signing their 2026–27 service contracts because they anticipate spot rates may sink further in the next few weeks, while carriers hold out hope market fundamentals will emerge to reverse the softening trend. </div>

Retailers are holding back on signing their 2026–27 service contracts because they anticipate spot rates may sink further in the next few weeks, while carriers hold out hope market fundamentals will emerge to reverse the softening trend.

<div class="phx-topic">Neither ocean carriers nor US importers are in a rush to sign contracts for the 2026–27 service year in a trans-Pacific market where spot rates to the West Coast have fallen more than 20% since early January and, many believe, have room to slide further. Multiple sources who spoke to the Journal of Commerce this week said carriers are in no hurry to ink deals with their customers, holding out hope market fundamentals will emerge to reverse the softening trend on the trans-Pacific. And shippers are biding their time, happy to watch rates continue to fall before they’ll put pen to paper on service contracts, most of which begin May 1. The levels and direction of spot rates impact service contracting, as it’s a barometer of the degree to which carriers can effectively match supply to demand. Long-term contract rates generally allow shippers to lock in lower prices than they could find in the spot market, leading shippers to watch the latter closely ahead of and during service contract negotiations. The Journal of Commerce spoke with three ocean carriers, three retailers, three forwarders, two consultants, and an industry analyst for this story. “No one will sign now,” one carrier executive said. “Most shippers will wait until [TPM26] to see if rates have dropped further.” In past years leading up to the Journal of Commerce’s Trans-Pacific Maritime Conference in Long Beach in the first week of March, at least one or two of the half-dozen largest retailers had already signed their service contracts. Those initial contracts then set the floor for contract rates, with the remaining large, midsize and smaller importers signing for somewhat higher rates in March and through April. TPM26 will be held March 1–4. “No major big-box retailers have signed as of yet,” a source with a top 20 US retailer said. “We’re running two to three weeks late.” A second carrier executive said while a couple of carriers could be “close” to signing a big-box account, most customers are holding out to see how much further the market falls. <h3>Shippers’ market </h3>The signals, at least now, favor the importers. In addition to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/soft-demand-in-eastbound-trans-pacific-overwhelms-carriers-gri-attempt-6109240">softer demand</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/pre-lunar-new-year-demand-to-give-trans-pac-market-first-test-of-2026-6149869">falling spot rates</a>, no significant surge in imports is projected in March, when the factories in Asia that closed for the Lunar New Year holiday that began Feb. 17 return to full production. Indeed, retailers and direct importers are holding back on signing their 2026–27 service contracts because they anticipate spot rates may sink further in the next few weeks, forcing carriers to reduce their contract tenders, said Bob Fredman, principal at the consulting firm SF Global Logistics who formerly negotiated service contracts for big-box retailers. “That’s what smart shippers should do,” Fredman said. “It doesn’t make much sense to get too far in front of the [big retailers].” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="56cdc0fc-22a5-4ef9-9e3e-11f96f369c70"></dynamic-object></div>A national furniture importer said he circulated his “boilerplate” tender to his core carrier partners but is not pressuring them to finalize a contract because he anticipates rates will move lower in March. “As a mid-size importer, why not wait? I want to get more clarity as to where the market is,” the source said. As of Feb. 19, the market from Asia to the West Coast was at $1,600 per FEU, down 23% since early January and 42% lower year over year, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. The East Coast spot rate of $2,400 was down 21% so far this year and 39% lower year over year. According to online rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, Asia-West Coast rates were at $1.356 per FEU as of Feb. 19, down from $2,289 per FEU on Jan. 4 and almost 60% lower year over year. A second top 20 retailer said carriers and their customers are holding back from signing service contracts to see what the negotiating environment looks like after TPM26 in terms of spot rates and forecasts for demand in the second quarter. “We are pretty much completed with our tenders. I suspect we will be completed within the next couple of weeks,” the source said. “Demand right now leading up to Q2 is soft. Carriers are holding back to see if demand picks up after Chinese New Year.” <h3>Carriers ‘failed’ to balance supply and demand </h3>But the slower-than-usual finalizing of contracts by the largest big-box retailers does not mean that medium to smaller retailers will sign later than usual, said Jason Cook, CEO of forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. “After TPM there will be a rapid succession of completions for the big-box retailers,” Cook said. “Then the midsize and smaller importers will get serious in round two...” Unlike in past years when importers were anxious to lock in volume allotments, known as minimum quantity commitments (MQCs), because vessel space was tight, capacity is readily available this year, and it is the carriers who are edgy. The second top 20 retailer source said her preliminary discussions with carriers have been “colorful.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e5c8a2a0-9aa5-4787-bbed-bf4b7a9f9677"></dynamic-object></div>A major reason why there was no capacity shortage in the trans-Pacific leading into the Lunar New Year was that carriers did not respond quickly enough to the market conditions by managing vessel space, said Destine Ozuygur, senior analyst for liner network performance at Xeneta. According to data from Xeneta’s eeSea, carriers had 1.19 million TEUs of actual capacity on the Asia-West Coast trade lane in January, with that expected to rise to 1.26 million TEUs in February and 1.4 million TEUs in March. “Given the current slump in rates on the trans-Pacific and the absence of a strong Lunar New Year surge, it appears the carriers failed to balance supply against demand,” Ozuygur said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Neither ocean carriers nor US importers are in a rush to sign contracts for the 2026–27 service year in a trans-Pacific market where spot rates to the West Coast have fallen more than 20% since early January and, many believe, have room to slide further. Multiple sources who spoke to the Journal of Commerce this week said carriers are in no hurry to ink deals with their customers, holding out hope market fundamentals will emerge to reverse the softening trend on the trans-Pacific. And shippers are biding their time, happy to watch rates continue to fall before they’ll put pen to paper on service contracts, most of which begin May 1. The levels and direction of spot rates impact service contracting, as it’s a barometer of the degree to which carriers can effectively match supply to demand. Long-term contract rates generally allow shippers to lock in lower prices than they could find in the spot market, leading shippers to watch the latter closely ahead of and during service contract negotiations. The Journal of Commerce spoke with three ocean carriers, three retailers, three forwarders, two consultants, and an industry analyst for this story. “No one will sign now,” one carrier executive said. “Most shippers will wait until [TPM26] to see if rates have dropped further.” In past years leading up to the Journal of Commerce’s Trans-Pacific Maritime Conference in Long Beach in the first week of March, at least one or two of the half-dozen largest retailers had already signed their service contracts. Those initial contracts then set the floor for contract rates, with the remaining large, midsize and smaller importers signing for somewhat higher rates in March and through April. TPM26 will be held March 1–4. “No major big-box retailers have signed as of yet,” a source with a top 20 US retailer said. “We’re running two to three weeks late.” A second carrier executive said while a couple of carriers could be “close” to signing a big-box account, most customers are holding out to see how much further the market falls. Shippers’ market The signals, at least now, favor the importers. In addition to softer demand and falling spot rates , no significant surge in imports is projected in March, when the factories in Asia that closed for the Lunar New Year holiday that began Feb. 17 return to full production. Indeed, retailers and direct importers are holding back on signing their 2026–27 service contracts because they anticipate spot rates may sink further in the next few weeks, forcing carriers to reduce their contract tenders, said Bob Fredman, principal at the consulting firm SF Global Logistics who formerly negotiated service contracts for big-box retailers. “That’s what smart shippers should do,” Fredman said. “It doesn’t make much sense to get too far in front of the [big retailers].” A national furniture importer said he circulated his “boilerplate” tender to his core carrier partners but is not pressuring them to finalize a contract because he anticipates rates will move lower in March. “As a mid-size importer, why not wait? I want to get more clarity as to where the market is,” the source said. As of Feb. 19, the market from Asia to the West Coast was at $1,600 per FEU, down 23% since early January and 42% lower year over year, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. The East Coast spot rate of $2,400 was down 21% so far this year and 39% lower year over year. According to online rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, Asia-West Coast rates were at $1.356 per FEU as of Feb. 19, down from $2,289 per FEU on Jan. 4 and almost 60% lower year over year. A second top 20 retailer said carriers and their customers are holding back from signing service contracts to see what the negotiating environment looks like after TPM26 in terms of spot rates and forecasts for demand in the second quarter. “We are pretty much completed with our tenders. I suspect we will be completed within the next couple of weeks,” the source said. “Demand right now leading up to Q2 is soft. Carriers are holding back to see if demand picks up after Chinese New Year.” Carriers ‘failed’ to balance supply and demand But the slower-than-usual finalizing of contracts by the largest big-box retailers does not mean that medium to smaller retailers will sign later than usual, said Jason Cook, CEO of forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. “After TPM there will be a rapid succession of completions for the big-box retailers,” Cook said. “Then the midsize and smaller importers will get serious in round two...” Unlike in past years when importers were anxious to lock in volume allotments, known as minimum quantity commitments (MQCs), because vessel space was tight, capacity is readily available this year, and it is the carriers who are edgy. The second top 20 retailer source said her preliminary discussions with carriers have been “colorful.” A major reason why there was no capacity shortage in the trans-Pacific leading into the Lunar New Year was that carriers did not respond quickly enough to the market conditions by managing vessel space, said Destine Ozuygur, senior analyst for liner network performance at Xeneta. According to data from Xeneta’s eeSea, carriers had 1.19 million TEUs of actual capacity on the Asia-West Coast trade lane in January, with that expected to rise to 1.26 million TEUs in February and 1.4 million TEUs in March. “Given the current slump in rates on the trans-Pacific and the absence of a strong Lunar New Year surge, it appears the carriers failed to balance supply against demand,” Ozuygur said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

Trans-Pacific carriers, importers slow-walking service contract negotiations

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While Gemini Cooperation continues to top the industry’s schedule reliability, even its resilient network was not immune to deteriorating operational factors last month, notably severe weather in the North Atlantic.</div>

While Gemini Cooperation continues to top the industry’s schedule reliability, even its resilient network was not immune to deteriorating operational factors last month, notably severe weather in the North Atlantic.

<div class="phx-topic">Schedule reliability among ocean carriers fell sharply in the first month of the year as long wait times and congestion at Asian hubs combined with widespread weather disruptions in the North Atlantic to place intense strain on liner networks. The latest schedule reliability data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta shows the Gemini Cooperation alliance of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd continues to lead the industry’s on-time performance, and by some measure, but even its resilient network was not immune to deteriorating operational factors. “All networks with the exception of non-alliance services declined at the outset of 2026, highlighting the operational headwinds we can expect to face in Q1 and Q2,” Destine Ozuygur, senior market analyst at Xeneta, wrote in an update accompanying the data. “Ocean Alliance, Mediterranean Shipping Co. and even Gemini all took considerable hits to their performance this past month, from five to seven percentage points of decline,” she added. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="34e4b5a5-cecc-482c-a37d-4885fe5a1a41"></dynamic-object></div>Gemini reported a 68% on-time performance in January, down from 75% in December. Ocean Alliance fell from 28% in December to 23% in January, MSC’s reliability dropped from 26% to 19%, and Premier Alliance only managed a 12% on-time performance, down from 21% in December. Non-alliance carriers reported a four-percentage-point drop to 28% schedule reliability. Ozuygur said while volatile reliability patterns were “fairly expected” for MSC, seeing Gemini lose some foothold lent a different weight to the severity of the localized issues. “The dual pressure of prolonged wait times and congestion at Asian hubs throughout January, as well as widespread weather disruptions in the North Atlantic Ocean, created operational strain for the most resilient network,” she wrote. Ozuygur said while <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/lofty-reliability-goals-for-gemini-alliance-hang-on-key-service-assumptions-5214653">Gemini’s promise of a 90% on-time arrival rate</a> across all corridors “has proven idealistic in this environment,” the hub-and-spoke strategy employed by partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd has been resilient. She pointed to Gemini’s blanking of an absolute minimum of sailings. Just 18 blank sailings were announced by Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd in 2025, including only two on Asia-North America and nine on Asia-Europe that were exclusive to Chinese Golden Week. For comparison, Premier Alliance announced 84 blanks on Asia-North America and 181 globally. Xeneta’s global schedule reliability data showed a continuing decline through January, with only 29% of arrivals ticking the on-time box, down from 32% in December and a departure from the 34% to 37% monthly on-time arrivals seen in the second and third quarters of 2025. Compounding the decline in arrivals was the magnitude of delays at berth, which rose from 3.7 days in December to 4.2 days in January. <h3>Winter storms, congestion hammer schedules </h3>On a trade level, the trans-Atlantic westbound corridor from Europe to North America showed on-time arrivals down 10 percentage points in January at 32%, with Asia-North America down eight percentage points to 29%. Many of the latest troubles on the trans-Atlantic can be attributed to severe weather. A series of extreme winter storms have hammered Europe this year, bringing huge swells and gale force winds to the Western Mediterranean and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/severe-winter-storm-disrupts-north-europe-port-inland-operations-6148334">freezing temperatures that hampered terminal and yard operations</a> in North Europe ports. The disruption to services as ships were forced to wait out the storms created week-long delays on multiple vessels across 16 services calling at ports along the East Coast of North America. The trans-Pacific trade is currently seeing its worst reliability since January last year, equaling the 29% on-time performance reported a year ago. Ozuygur said although the drivers this year were less dependent on dramatic network overhauls, they were comparable in operational impact. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="c0cf790c-877b-46ec-8a01-15b3418a614a"></dynamic-object></div>“Paired with the seasonal spike in cancellation rates in February and March totaling 687,000 TEUs and 93 cancelled sailings, these delays indicate a rough start to 2026 for US shippers,” she said, adding that it was something shippers would be watching carefully over the next month. “With tender season practically upon us, this is a crucial window for shippers and forwarders to reexamine performance at a carrier level,” Ozuygur said. “Careful consideration of carrier-level performance balanced across transit times, on-time arrivals and cancellation rates should be incorporated before firming contracts.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-inks-order-for-six-dual-fuel-lng-ships-with-india-yard-6172333">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Schedule reliability among ocean carriers fell sharply in the first month of the year as long wait times and congestion at Asian hubs combined with widespread weather disruptions in the North Atlantic to place intense strain on liner networks. The latest schedule reliability data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta shows the Gemini Cooperation alliance of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd continues to lead the industry’s on-time performance, and by some measure, but even its resilient network was not immune to deteriorating operational factors. “All networks with the exception of non-alliance services declined at the outset of 2026, highlighting the operational headwinds we can expect to face in Q1 and Q2,” Destine Ozuygur, senior market analyst at Xeneta, wrote in an update accompanying the data. “Ocean Alliance, Mediterranean Shipping Co. and even Gemini all took considerable hits to their performance this past month, from five to seven percentage points of decline,” she added. Gemini reported a 68% on-time performance in January, down from 75% in December. Ocean Alliance fell from 28% in December to 23% in January, MSC’s reliability dropped from 26% to 19%, and Premier Alliance only managed a 12% on-time performance, down from 21% in December. Non-alliance carriers reported a four-percentage-point drop to 28% schedule reliability. Ozuygur said while volatile reliability patterns were “fairly expected” for MSC, seeing Gemini lose some foothold lent a different weight to the severity of the localized issues. “The dual pressure of prolonged wait times and congestion at Asian hubs throughout January, as well as widespread weather disruptions in the North Atlantic Ocean, created operational strain for the most resilient network,” she wrote. Ozuygur said while Gemini’s promise of a 90% on-time arrival rate across all corridors “has proven idealistic in this environment,” the hub-and-spoke strategy employed by partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd has been resilient. She pointed to Gemini’s blanking of an absolute minimum of sailings. Just 18 blank sailings were announced by Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd in 2025, including only two on Asia-North America and nine on Asia-Europe that were exclusive to Chinese Golden Week. For comparison, Premier Alliance announced 84 blanks on Asia-North America and 181 globally. Xeneta’s global schedule reliability data showed a continuing decline through January, with only 29% of arrivals ticking the on-time box, down from 32% in December and a departure from the 34% to 37% monthly on-time arrivals seen in the second and third quarters of 2025. Compounding the decline in arrivals was the magnitude of delays at berth, which rose from 3.7 days in December to 4.2 days in January. Winter storms, congestion hammer schedules On a trade level, the trans-Atlantic westbound corridor from Europe to North America showed on-time arrivals down 10 percentage points in January at 32%, with Asia-North America down eight percentage points to 29%. Many of the latest troubles on the trans-Atlantic can be attributed to severe weather. A series of extreme winter storms have hammered Europe this year, bringing huge swells and gale force winds to the Western Mediterranean and freezing temperatures that hampered terminal and yard operations in North Europe ports. The disruption to services as ships were forced to wait out the storms created week-long delays on multiple vessels across 16 services calling at ports along the East Coast of North America. The trans-Pacific trade is currently seeing its worst reliability since January last year, equaling the 29% on-time performance reported a year ago. Ozuygur said although the drivers this year were less dependent on dramatic network overhauls, they were comparable in operational impact. “Paired with the seasonal spike in cancellation rates in February and March totaling 687,000 TEUs and 93 cancelled sailings, these delays indicate a rough start to 2026 for US shippers,” she said, adding that it was something shippers would be watching carefully over the next month. “With tender season practically upon us, this is a crucial window for shippers and forwarders to reexamine performance at a carrier level,” Ozuygur said. “Careful consideration of carrier-level performance balanced across transit times, on-time arrivals and cancellation rates should be incorporated before firming contracts.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Trans-Atlantic

Ocean carrier on-time arrivals tumbled in January: Xeneta

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The 6-3 decision by the nation’s highest court to declare as illegal the global tariffs implemented by the US since last April’s so-called “Liberation Day” is likely to throw the Trump administration’s tariff policy into disarray.</div>

The 6-3 decision by the nation’s highest court to declare as illegal the global tariffs implemented by the US since last April’s so-called “Liberation Day” is likely to throw the Trump administration’s tariff policy into disarray.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf">did not have the authority</a> under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement his wide-ranging global tariffs against US trading partners, upending the cornerstone of his administration’s economic policy. The 6-3 decision by the nation’s highest court to essentially declare as illegal the tariffs implemented by the US since last April’s so-called “Liberation Day” is likely to throw the Trump administration’s tariff policy into disarray. Trump, during a press briefing at the White House after the ruling, said he was “ashamed” of the justices who voted to kill the tariffs, but vowed he would pursue new options to put them in place. “Other alternatives will be used to replace the ones the Court incorrectly suspended,” he said. That includes the immediate implementation of a 10% “global” tariff under so-called Section 122 action, presumably levied against all US trading partners. “We’ll go in a different direction, which is even stronger than our original choice,” Trump said. The ruling could potentially unlock US-bound ocean freight volumes that have been bogged down since the end of the 2025 peak season due to economic uncertainty and worries that tariff costs couldn’t be effectively passed on to consumers. IEEPA-based tariffs vary between 10% and 50%, depending on the country, although most were 15% or lower. Numerous importers have decried the cost of paying tariffs as a material drag on their businesses over the past year, either due to the impact of price increases or profit margin pressure. Companies have also had to undertake nearly constant scenario planning to account for rapid changes to tariff exposure and subsequent sourcing location changes. A paper <a href="https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2026/02/who-is-paying-for-the-2025-u-s-tariffs/">published earlier this month by the New York Federal Reserve</a> found that 90% of the added costs of Trump’s tariffs were being passed on to consumers and businesses. <h3>What’s next? </h3>The Supreme Court ruling is likely to lead to a chain reaction of legislation and administrative actions involving the Trump administration, US Customs and Border Protection, US importers, and trade consultants and attorneys representing those importers. CBP will have to refund importers hundreds of billions of dollars of tariffs paid over the course of the last nine months, though the Supreme Court’s decision Friday did not specify how that process should take place. Pete Mento, director of global trade advisory services at accounting firm Baker Tilly, told the Journal of Commerce that the Court of International Trade will decide how the refund process will unfold, a decision he said will likely come quickly. In early January, CBP shared a new electronic refund process that trade experts saw as a foreshadowing of Friday’s decision. “The court said tariffs are taxes, taxes belong to Congress, and ‘regulating importation’ in a sanctions statue does not secretly mean ‘rewrite the HTS [Harmonized Tariff Schedule] because the trade deficit hurt your feelings,’” Mento wrote in a LinkedIn post Friday. The calls for refunds are coming fast. The National Retail Federation praised the Supreme Court’s decision and urged lower courts to “ensure a seamless process to refund the tariffs to US importers.” “[The Court’s decision] provides much-needed certainty for US businesses and manufacturers, enabling global supply chains to operate without ambiguity,” David French, the NRF’s executive vice president of government relations, said in a statement. Analysts at Global Trade Alert estimate that the trade-weighted average tariff will fall from 15.4% to 8.3% on US imports, notwithstanding the imminent imposition of 10% tariffs under the Section 122 provision. <h3>Other tariff mechanisms available </h3>In the meantime, the administration has previously signaled its intent to implement tariffs through other legislative mechanisms if the Court struck down its IEEPA tariffs. Levers that are available to the Trump administration include the aforementioned Section 122, a provision that allows the executive branch to assess tariffs on countries to address a “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficit through import surcharges of up to 15%, import quotas, or a combination of the two, according to a December blog from the American Enterprise Institute. The catch with actions under Section 122 is that while they don’t require Congressional approval, they expire after 150 days. The president could, theoretically, extend them for another 150 days, but that action would be seen to contravene the spirit of the section. Also notable is that Section 122 has never been used before specifically to impose trade restrictions. Another option is use of Section 338, a largely defunct provision that allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that discriminate against US commerce compared with other nations, the AEI blog explained. Section 338 is largely thought to have been supplanted by Section 301, the unfair trading practices provision under which Trump instituted tariffs against China in his first term. Under 301, the US Trade Representative must conduct an investigation before deciding that tariffs are necessary. The administration could expand its use of Section 232 tariffs, also deployed widely in Trump’s first term, to target national security risks. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump did not have the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement his wide-ranging global tariffs against US trading partners, upending the cornerstone of his administration’s economic policy. The 6-3 decision by the nation’s highest court to essentially declare as illegal the tariffs implemented by the US since last April’s so-called “Liberation Day” is likely to throw the Trump administration’s tariff policy into disarray. Trump, during a press briefing at the White House after the ruling, said he was “ashamed” of the justices who voted to kill the tariffs, but vowed he would pursue new options to put them in place. “Other alternatives will be used to replace the ones the Court incorrectly suspended,” he said. That includes the immediate implementation of a 10% “global” tariff under so-called Section 122 action, presumably levied against all US trading partners. “We’ll go in a different direction, which is even stronger than our original choice,” Trump said. The ruling could potentially unlock US-bound ocean freight volumes that have been bogged down since the end of the 2025 peak season due to economic uncertainty and worries that tariff costs couldn’t be effectively passed on to consumers. IEEPA-based tariffs vary between 10% and 50%, depending on the country, although most were 15% or lower. Numerous importers have decried the cost of paying tariffs as a material drag on their businesses over the past year, either due to the impact of price increases or profit margin pressure. Companies have also had to undertake nearly constant scenario planning to account for rapid changes to tariff exposure and subsequent sourcing location changes. A paper published earlier this month by the New York Federal Reserve found that 90% of the added costs of Trump’s tariffs were being passed on to consumers and businesses. What’s next? The Supreme Court ruling is likely to lead to a chain reaction of legislation and administrative actions involving the Trump administration, US Customs and Border Protection, US importers, and trade consultants and attorneys representing those importers. CBP will have to refund importers hundreds of billions of dollars of tariffs paid over the course of the last nine months, though the Supreme Court’s decision Friday did not specify how that process should take place. Pete Mento, director of global trade advisory services at accounting firm Baker Tilly, told the Journal of Commerce that the Court of International Trade will decide how the refund process will unfold, a decision he said will likely come quickly. In early January, CBP shared a new electronic refund process that trade experts saw as a foreshadowing of Friday’s decision. “The court said tariffs are taxes, taxes belong to Congress, and ‘regulating importation’ in a sanctions statue does not secretly mean ‘rewrite the HTS [Harmonized Tariff Schedule] because the trade deficit hurt your feelings,’” Mento wrote in a LinkedIn post Friday. The calls for refunds are coming fast. The National Retail Federation praised the Supreme Court’s decision and urged lower courts to “ensure a seamless process to refund the tariffs to US importers.” “[The Court’s decision] provides much-needed certainty for US businesses and manufacturers, enabling global supply chains to operate without ambiguity,” David French, the NRF’s executive vice president of government relations, said in a statement. Analysts at Global Trade Alert estimate that the trade-weighted average tariff will fall from 15.4% to 8.3% on US imports, notwithstanding the imminent imposition of 10% tariffs under the Section 122 provision. Other tariff mechanisms available In the meantime, the administration has previously signaled its intent to implement tariffs through other legislative mechanisms if the Court struck down its IEEPA tariffs. Levers that are available to the Trump administration include the aforementioned Section 122, a provision that allows the executive branch to assess tariffs on countries to address a “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficit through import surcharges of up to 15%, import quotas, or a combination of the two, according to a December blog from the American Enterprise Institute. The catch with actions under Section 122 is that while they don’t require Congressional approval, they expire after 150 days. The president could, theoretically, extend them for another 150 days, but that action would be seen to contravene the spirit of the section. Also notable is that Section 122 has never been used before specifically to impose trade restrictions. Another option is use of Section 338, a largely defunct provision that allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that discriminate against US commerce compared with other nations, the AEI blog explained. Section 338 is largely thought to have been supplanted by Section 301, the unfair trading practices provision under which Trump instituted tariffs against China in his first term. Under 301, the US Trade Representative must conduct an investigation before deciding that tariffs are necessary. The administration could expand its use of Section 232 tariffs, also deployed widely in Trump’s first term, to target national security risks. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Supply chain

US Supreme Court rules against Trump in critical IEEPA tariff case

Use code GTW595 at checkout and save $900 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Arm your team with the most trusted information portal for the international container shipping industry.

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code FTW25 at checkout to save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%

Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL: Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%: Use code FTW25 to save 25% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

GET INTO A GROUP SUBSCRIPTION: Arm your team with unlimited Journal of Commerce content

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SUBSCRIBE TODAY: Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW595 at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW995 and save $500 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

Monthly publication providing an editorial deep dive into global supply chain news

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

A premium access index of savings using domestic intermodal vs. OTR 

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

An in-depth analysis of transport trends in the multipurpose and heavy-lift fleet segment

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

An extensive dashboard of charts organized by trade lane, mode, and topic

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

The only editorially independent conference for the breakbulk & project cargo industry

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

Discover the news and analysis of supply chain strategies, sourcing and trends covered by the Journal of Commerce. Comprehensive coverage includes customs, trade news, transport news and the latest information about trade regulations.

Stay informed with the latest regulation news and trade updates. Explore comprehensive transportation news and trade regulations today.

Transport, Trade and Regulation News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce’s supply chain news and analysis impacting the management of end-to-end supply chains reports on supply chain strategies, cargo visibility, inventory trends, sourcing, customs certification and contract logistics. Supply chain news coverage also delves into refrigerated shipping advancements and management of inventory status, regulatory updates and government funding projects.

Our logistics technology news include logistics technology startups, solutions, and the impact of technology on logistics and supply chain management.

Logistics Technology News | Journal of Commerce

Logistics Technology News

A thorough cool cargoes news by Journal of Commerce. Learn about the latest trends in refrigerated cargo transportation, weight capacity, technology, and more.

Cool Cargo News | Journal of Commerce

Cool Cargo News

Journal of Commerce keeps you informed on the latest last mile news with comprehensive coverage of carriers, logistics, and last mile transportation solutions.

Last Mile News | Journal of Commerce

Last Mile News

Discover the latest industrial real estate news and trends. Covering projects, real estate supply chain, logistics, pricing, cross dock facilities, and more.

Industrial Real Estate News | Journal of Commerce

Industrial Real Estate News

Stay updated on supply chain strategies, cargo visibility, inventory trends and more with our comprehensive supply chain news and analysis.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Trump administration seeks to undo court rulings favoring offshore wind projects

Hapag-Lloyd set to grow its intra-Asia network through Zim's Gold Star Line

Trans-Pacific carriers, importers slow-walking service contract negotiations