U.S. Weighs Product-Specific Tariffs on Smartphones and Other Devices
Electronics Temporarily Exempt from Reciprocal Tariffs
Major Corporations Expected to Continue ‘China Exit’ Strategy

The U.S. government has abruptly reversed its earlier stance that smartphones, computers, and other electronics would be exempt from tariffs. While electronic devices remain excluded from the recently imposed reciprocal tariffs, Washington has now made clear that product-specific duties—including those on semiconductors—could still be imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. Analysts say that even if electronics avoid the brunt of reciprocal tariffs, the broader uncertainty is likely to accelerate the ongoing “China exit” trend among tech companies.

U.S. to Impose Tariffs on Electronics—No Exemptions, Says Trump

On April 13 (Korean time), President Donald Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social, clarifying that “no tariff exemptions were announced last Friday (April 11)”. He stated that products like smartphones and computers are still subject to the existing 20% “fentanyl tariff”, and the only change is that they are being reassigned under a different tariff category.

Trump added that an upcoming Section 232 national security investigation will examine the entire electronics supply chain, including semiconductors. “What this tells us is simple,” he wrote. “Products must be made in America. We cannot remain hostages to hostile trading nations like China.”

Previously, on April 2, Trump had announced broad new tariffs on nearly all trading partners while stating that semiconductors would be exempt. On April 11, through a presidential memorandum, the administration specified 19 types of semiconductors as exempt and even included finished products containing semiconductors, such as smartphones. This had fueled market speculation that Trump might be easing tariffs on electronics altogether.

Apple’s China Exit Strategy Gains Momentum

Senior U.S. officials further clarified the policy in media appearances that day:

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told ABC News that although some items appear on the customs exemption list, they will be included in the forthcoming semiconductor tariff—noting, “This is not negotiable, and not something the President can bargain away.”

USTR representative Jamieson Greer emphasized, “Even calling it an exemption is misleading. It’s not that these products aren’t being taxed; they’re simply governed under a different framework.”

Despite the formal classification of electronics within a separate tariff scheme, the trend of de-risking from China continues across the tech sector. A growing number of global companies are reducing dependence on China to minimize exposure to U.S.–China trade war risks. Apple, which manufactures 90% of iPhones in China, is a prime example. In recent years, it has expanded production in India to adapt to U.S. trade pressures. According to Bloomberg, from April 2023 to March 2024, Apple produced $22 billion worth of iPhones in India—a 60% year-over-year increase, now accounting for approximately 20% of global iPhone production.

Most of this output is for export markets, not domestic Indian sales. India’s Ministry of Technology reports that in the 12 months ending March 2025, iPhones worth ₹1.5 trillion (≈$17.6 billion) were exported. Forecasts by JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America estimate that India could produce 25% of all iPhones globally by 2027. The Financial Times even noted that mobile phones have overtaken diamonds as India’s top export product.

More Firms Embrace ‘ABC’ Strategy: Anywhere But China

Apple is not alone. Many companies are embracing not just “China Plus One” strategies, but the more drastic "ABC—Anything But China"—approach. According to a February survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in China, 30% of 368 respondents were actively diversifying manufacturing and sourcing operations outside China.

This shift is particularly noticeable in semiconductors, the battleground of U.S.–China tech rivalry. Since the U.S. restricted exports of AI chips to China in October 2022, semiconductor firms have been relocating assembly facilities to Mexico and Malaysia.

Applied Materials and Lam Research, major semiconductor equipment firms, have cut off Chinese clients under U.S. pressure.

Advanced Energy Industries, a power systems manufacturer, plans to shut its last plant in China by July 2025.

As companies accelerate their “de-China” strategies, Southeast Asia is emerging as a key beneficiary:

Vietnam has become a vital manufacturing hub for Apple and Samsung.

Malaysia has attracted large investments from Intel, GlobalFoundries, and Infineon.

Singapore, leveraging regulatory trust and financial infrastructure, has welcomed numerous regional headquarters.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) into Southeast Asia surged from $155 billion in 2018 to $230 billion in 2023, reflecting the region's growing role as a new manufacturing and supply chain hub.

An Overloaded Agenda and a Compressed Timeline
Linking Tariffs, Troops, and Trade in a "One-Stop" Deal
Global Counterstrategies and Shifting Leverage

U.S. President Donald Trump has announced a 90-day delay in implementing reciprocal tariffs, stating his intent to negotiate bilateral trade deals with individual countries. While the move aims to avoid immediate trade clashes, it has sparked widespread skepticism among diplomats, economists, and trade experts. With Washington facing internal staffing shortages and external time constraints, many observers doubt the feasibility of securing complex agreements in such a narrow window—especially when the negotiations involve not just tariffs, but also defense burden-sharing and energy partnerships.

An Overloaded Agenda and a Compressed Timeline

According to diplomatic sources on April 14, the international community is increasingly questioning whether the Trump administration's “90-day tariff negotiation” plan is realistic. Bilateral trade talks typically take months or even years to conclude, and the idea of launching such talks simultaneously with dozens of countries is widely seen as impractical. Experts also point out that this round of negotiations extends well beyond tariffs. Issues like military cost-sharing and strategic energy cooperation are entangled in discussions, raising both the stakes and complexity of any potential deal.

Wendy Cutler, former Deputy U.S. Trade Representative and now Vice President at the Asia Society Policy Institute, emphasized the importance of seriousness in trade negotiations. “There is no way to reach a comprehensive agreement with countries around the world within the proposed time frame,” she said, citing the U.S.–Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) revisions during Trump’s first term, which took over eight months just to amend provisions on automobiles and steel.

News reports have underscored the growing gap between the administration’s ambitions and its operational capacity. Reuters reported that Trump’s trade team aims to open negotiations with at least 90 countries in 90 days, a target experts have dismissed as implausible. As a symbolic example of logistical strain, the outlet noted that while EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič was planning a trip to Washington, Treasury Secretary Scott Besent, the key U.S. counterpart, would be abroad in Argentina at the same time.

Linking Tariffs, Troops, and Trade in a "One-Stop" Deal

In parallel with the tariff delay, President Trump has unveiled a broader strategy to bundle trade issues with defense and energy policy, particularly in negotiations with key allies. During an April 10 meeting at the White House, Trump remarked, “We spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year for allies like South Korea and Japan, but they pay us nothing,” adding that “defense costs are unrelated to trade, but we will make them part of the negotiations.” He described this approach as “one-stop shopping,” signaling his intent to conduct comprehensive, transactional negotiations.

In a phone call with Acting President Han Duck-soo of South Korea, Trump reportedly proposed tying U.S. troop deployment costs to tariff discussions. U.S. officials have floated the idea of offering limited trade benefits in exchange for increased defense contributions from Seoul. However, the South Korean government has pushed back, asserting that defense and trade must remain separate. South Korea is instead seeking to strengthen its position through cooperation in strategic industries such as steel and semiconductors.

Japan, which began talks earlier, is already engaged in a broader dialogue that includes defense burden-sharing. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi acknowledged Trump’s remarks, affirming that the U.S.–Japan alliance remains the cornerstone of Japan’s foreign and security policy. Previously, Trump had proposed reciprocal tariffs of 24% for Japan, close to the 25% rate proposed for South Korea.

According to sources, both the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and the Treasury Department are working to develop country-specific negotiation plans. However, the process faces obstacles due to staffing shortages, including the temporary vacancy in the Treasury’s international affairs leadership—a key position currently being managed in an acting capacity.

Global Counterstrategies and Shifting Leverage

Analysts believe several countries are pursuing a strategy of delayed negotiations to pressure the U.S. into making greater concessions. Inflation triggered by tariff threats has already begun to take hold in the United States, putting Washington on a tighter timeline. Rising U.S. Treasury yields following the initial tariff announcements have been interpreted as a loss of investor confidence—one of the factors behind the Trump administration’s decision to pause implementation.

Japan is taking full advantage of the moment, framing its negotiations as part of a comprehensive partnership. In a phone call with Trump, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba called for “a broad-based partnership that benefits both sides, including increased investment.”

The European Union is preparing its own strategy by focusing on trade imbalances and industrial protections. While it formally welcomed the U.S. tariff delay, it underscored that protecting European industry would be its foremost objective in any future negotiations.

South Korea, for its part, is leveraging strategic industry support and foreign direct investment, including high-profile commitments from firms like Hyundai Motor Group, as key negotiation assets. As global players calibrate their positions, Washington’s 90-day clock continues to tick—and with it, the growing pressure to secure results under tightening constraints.

Heavy Equipment Orders Fuel a Capacity Surge
From Underdog to Contender in HBM and DRAM
A Global Production Footprint for Long-Term Growth

In the rapidly evolving high-bandwidth memory (HBM) market, Micron Technology is emerging as a formidable contender. Historically overshadowed by SK Hynix and Samsung Electronics, Micron is now charting a bold course—investing heavily in equipment, accelerating its production roadmap, and expanding globally. With the AI revolution driving explosive demand for high-performance memory, the stakes have never been higher, and Micron appears determined to claim a much larger share of this booming market.

Heavy Equipment Orders Fuel a Capacity Surge

At the core of Micron’s strategic push is a wave of bulk equipment orders. On April 14, industry insiders revealed that the company is procuring large quantities of TC bonders, the critical machinery required to stack DRAM layers for HBM production. The bulk of these orders have gone to Hanmi Semiconductor in South Korea and Shinkawa in Japan.

Hanmi, which already supplies SK Hynix, reportedly sold over 30 TC bonders to Micron in 2024. This year’s order volume has already surpassed that, signaling a major scale-up. Crucially, Hanmi’s equipment is the only one capable of manufacturing the in-demand 12-layer HBM3E, favored by leading customers like NVIDIA. In contrast, Shinkawa’s bonders are limited to 8-layer configurations, making Hanmi’s tools a strategic asset in Micron’s expansion.

This ramp-up aligns with the growing market appetite for HBM3E, especially as AI workloads push memory performance requirements higher. As Micron increases its dependence on Hanmi’s equipment, it's clear that the company is positioning itself not just for growth, but for leadership in next-generation memory technologies.

From Underdog to Contender in HBM and DRAM

Micron's ambition doesn’t stop at the current generation. The company is preparing for mass production of 16-layer HBM3E, a major step forward in memory performance and density. Industry sources say Micron is in the final stages of equipment evaluation and is investing heavily in the infrastructure needed to support high-volume manufacturing. SK Hynix is on a similar timeline, having unveiled its own 16-layer HBM3E plans last November. Meanwhile, Samsung Electronics has only pledged to complete development by the end of this year.

Micron’s technological leap is already translating into broader market gains. The company’s 12-layer HBM3E boasts 20% better power efficiency and 50% higher capacity than its 8-layer predecessor. It's also 30% more power-efficient than competitor offerings, according to industry assessments. These performance metrics are critical as AI accelerators like NVIDIA’s Grace Blackwell GB200 and GB300 become increasingly memory-hungry.

But perhaps the biggest surprise comes from the smartphone sector. Micron is expected to supply the majority of memory chips for Samsung’s Galaxy S25, launching April 22. This marks the first time Samsung has not led memory supply for its flagship smartphone. Analysts point to Micron’s LPDDR5X chips—offering superior speed and power efficiency—as the reason. It's a symbolic victory, showing that Micron is now a serious contender not just in AI and servers, but in consumer electronics as well.

Meanwhile, Micron’s overall DRAM market share continues to climb. According to TrendForce, the company’s share rose from 19.6% in Q2 2024 to 22.2% in Q3, while Samsung and SK Hynix both saw slight declines.

A Global Production Footprint for Long-Term Growth

To support its rising ambitions, Micron is laying the foundation for a global production network. Its primary HBM base in Taiwan is undergoing major expansion, targeting the fourth quarter of this year. In 2024, the company acquired two fabs from AUO, a Taiwanese display manufacturer, and it is investing heavily in new facilities.

By 2026, Micron plans to initiate HBM production at new plants in Singapore, Idaho, and Hiroshima. The following year, its state-of-the-art New York fab is expected to come online as well. These facilities will be crucial in meeting future demand, which the company anticipates will remain strong through 2026 and beyond.

During its Q2 FY2025 earnings call, Micron announced that all of its HBM output for the year had already sold out. It projected that by the fourth quarter, its HBM market share would reach parity with its DRAM share, which stood at 22.4% in Q4 2024. This is no small feat for a company that just a year ago held a single-digit position in the HBM segment.

Micron’s transformation is well underway. From a trailing competitor to a rising force, the company is capitalizing on performance, power efficiency, and strategic global investments to stake its claim in the next era of memory innovation. As AI reshapes the digital landscape, Micron is making it clear: it intends to lead, not follow.

Global Investment Banks Lower China’s Growth Forecasts
Beijing Plans to Expand Large-Scale Stimulus Measures
Tariff Damage Seen as Too Severe to Fully Offset with Policy Support

Following U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to raise tariffs on Chinese goods to 125%, major investment bank Goldman Sachs has lowered its forecast for China’s economic growth. The firm cited increased downside risks to China’s outlook, warning that even with additional stimulus measures from Beijing, it will be difficult to fully offset the negative impact of the steep tariff hike. As a result, Goldman now sees mounting pressure on China’s growth trajectory in the face of sustained trade tensions.

Goldman Sachs Slashes Forecast from 4.5% to 4.0%

On April 10 (Korean Standard Time), Reuters and Bloomberg reported that Goldman Sachs revised its 2024 economic growth forecast for China down to 4%, from its earlier projection of 4.5%. The 2025 forecast was also lowered, from 4.0% to 3.5%. This marks a notable divergence from Beijing’s official target of around 5% growth this year.

The downgrade came shortly after former President Donald Trump announced an increase in tariffs on Chinese imports from 104% to 125%, effective April 9. Goldman Sachs warned that this sharp tariff escalation poses a significant burden on China’s economy and labor market, even if the marginal impact of further tariff hikes may be diminishing. The investment bank added that the shock to China may lessen over time, but the ripple effects remain potent.

Goldman Sachs also expects China to respond with more accommodative monetary policies. It revised its forecast for a rate cut by the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) from 40 basis points (bp) to 60bp, though it noted that even aggressive monetary easing may not fully offset the negative impact of the new tariffs.

Ground-Level Sentiment: “Gap Between Official Data and Reality”

Other institutions echoed Goldman’s concerns, forecasting a slowdown in China’s Q1 GDP growth compared to Q4 2023’s 5.4%. Standard Chartered projected 5.2%, while an economist survey by Nikkei suggested only 5.0% growth. Nikkei cited the added pressure from Trump’s tariff escalation as a key factor behind the deceleration.

On the ground, Chinese citizens and business owners are reporting far worse economic conditions. According to the Financial Times, the owner of a printing and advertising company in Beijing said, “I don’t know where the government’s growth figures are coming from—2024 has been the worst year in my 20 years in business.” A Peking University economist added that the gap between official GDP and real economic activity appears to be widening, with CPI below 1% for months and PPI in negative territory for over two years, supporting anecdotal evidence of stagnation.

Signs of recession are increasingly visible. A credit officer at a bank in Anhui Province reported a 20% decline in outstanding loan portfolio value since the beginning of the year. A manufacturing company in Hangzhou cut its workforce from 1,700 to 1,100. Meanwhile, a state-owned enterprise employee in Fujian noted that despite being promoted in early 2024, their salary is 1,000 yuan ($140) lower than in 2023, and wages are now over 20% lower than three years ago, even after government-prompted investment acceleration.

According to the National Bureau of Statistics, China experienced annual growth rates well above 7–8% from the early 2000s to 2012, peaking at nearly 14% in 2007. However, FT Research data shows a steady decline in both growth targets and actual results since 2014, with the government now settling around 5% targets. In 2020, growth fell to just 2% due to the pandemic, and no official growth goal was set that year.

Beijing Signals More Stimulus: Rate Cuts, RRR Easing, Fiscal Expansion

In response to the latest U.S. tariff offensive, Chinese authorities are preparing countermeasures. The People’s Daily, the official mouthpiece of the Communist Party, stated that Beijing had anticipated U.S. economic pressure and developed a flexible response plan. It emphasized that rate and reserve requirement ratio (RRR) cuts could be enacted at any time, and affirmed that China's economy is resilient enough to withstand U.S. pressure.

Additional measures are expected to support hard-hit industries, consumption, and stock markets. The paper also stressed the need to expand domestic demand, calling consumption the "engine and stabilizer" of growth and urging maximum utilization of China's vast internal market to mitigate external shocks.

Global investment banks predict imminent stimulus measures. Robin Xing, a Chief China Economist at Morgan Stanley, said the tariff hike may be more damaging than the 2018–2019 round, urging China to accelerate planned stimulus and introduce new easing tools. Similarly, UBS forecasted that within the next two months, the PBoC could cut the RRR and lower the benchmark rate by 30–40bp.

UBS also estimated that the latest tariff measures could shave 1.5 percentage points off GDP growth for both China and the U.S., suggesting China would need fiscal spending worth 1.0–1.5% of GDP to compensate for the shortfall.

Samsung going all-in on 2nm process advancement
TSMC already achieves 60% yield, maintaining dominant edge
Without reaching 70% yield, Samsung may struggle to win major orders

Samsung Electronics has reportedly improved its 2nm (nanometer) process yield, marking a modest step forward in its previously stagnant next-generation semiconductor competitiveness. While the advancement reflects incremental progress in Samsung’s 2nm development, industry analysts remain skeptical. With Taiwan’s TSMC already securing a dominant yield rate in 2nm production, many in the market believe it will be extremely difficult for Samsung to gain a competitive edge in the 2nm race.

Samsung Surpasses 40% Yield on 2nm Node

On April 10 (local time), tech outlet Wccftech reported that Samsung Foundry has made remarkable progress with its next-generation 2nm process technology, closing in on industry leader TSMC. Previously, Samsung had struggled with poor yield rates—hovering between 20–30%—for its 3nm GAA (Gate-All-Around) process. However, under new executive leadership, Samsung has accelerated development of its 2nm process, recently achieving a yield rate above 40% during wafer testing by a backend partner.

The industry’s expectations for Samsung’s 2nm technology are growing. With TSMC’s production lines nearing full capacity, customers are increasingly open to deals with Samsung, especially as it offers more competitive pricing. Major chip designers such as Apple, AMD, and Nvidia are reportedly exploring dual sourcing strategies, considering Samsung’s 2nm process as a viable alternative. If adopted, this could significantly boost Samsung’s foundry market share.

TSMC Maintains a Commanding Lead

Despite Samsung’s gains, some industry insiders remain skeptical that it can compete with TSMC on equal footing. TSMC has already achieved a stable yield rate exceeding 60% for its 2nm process. According to one expert, “A yield rate above 60% generally signals readiness for volume production. With several months left before mass production begins later this year, TSMC’s yield could rise even further.”

Production capacity is also ramping up smoothly. Taiwanese financial media such as Commercial Times report that TSMC plans to increase monthly 2nm wafer output to 50,000 units by year-end. Once full operations begin at its Baoshan and Kaohsiung fabs, output could reach 80,000 wafers per month. The Baoshan fab began taking orders on April 1 and is expected to begin mass production later this year. Kaohsiung held its expansion ceremony on March 31.

Chip manufacturing costs are rising as well. Commercial Times estimates that 2nm chips will cost around $30,000 per wafer, about 50% more than the initial cost of 3nm chips. TSMC’s expanded investments in U.S. fabs, in response to pressure from the U.S. government, could drive costs even higher. Nonetheless, strong early demand suggests TSMC won’t face challenges securing orders.

Without 70% Yield, Orders Will Be Hard to Come By

To overcome TSMC’s lead, Samsung must significantly improve its yields. Wccftech’s senior reporter Omar Sohail recently noted that Samsung’s 2nm GAA trial production of the Exynos 2600 still yields around 30%, adding, “Whether Samsung can enter mass production depends on achieving a 'tolerable level' of yield.” He further emphasized, “At least 70% yield is required to secure customer orders for the 2nm GAA node.”

Moreover, Wccftech predicted that unless GAA node design is finalized by Q3 2025, the Exynos 2600 might miss the launch window for the Galaxy S26 series. The outlet also recalled that while Samsung initially took the lead in first-generation 3nm GAA technology in 2022, it eventually fell behind TSMC—a pattern that may repeat with 2nm if Samsung cannot sustain momentum.

Although Samsung’s recent progress in 2nm development is noteworthy, the company still faces significant hurdles in yield optimization and client acquisition. TSMC’s head start in process stability, production scaling, and customer trust remains a formidable challenge. To truly threaten TSMC’s dominance, Samsung will need to break past its current ceiling and deliver on promises—before history repeats itself.

$1.8 Trillion in U.S. Big Tech Market Cap Wiped Out
Tariff Fallout Forces Wave of Postponed IPOs
Silicon Valley Executives Head to Mar-a-Lago for Emergency Talks

President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff blitz is hammering Silicon Valley. Following the announcement of reciprocal tariffs, the Nasdaq plunged 10% on a weekly basis—its worst performance since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. In just two days, nearly $2 trillion in market capitalization was wiped out from seven of the United States’ leading tech giants. Although the industry saw a slight rebound after an emergency tariff pause, the broader damage from the high-tariff policy remains, with long-term risks continuing to cast a shadow over the U.S. tech sector.

Tech Titans Take a Hit, White House Scrambles for Relief

On April 10 (local time), the Financial Times reported, “Silicon Valley will lose the trade war,” emphasizing that the interests of Big Tech stand in stark contrast to the movement that helped elect President Trump. According to the FT, leading American tech companies such as Apple, Nvidia, and Tesla have suffered major setbacks due to Trump's attacks on the global trade system, which have severely disrupted their complex electronics supply chains.

In particular, the imposition of “potentially devastating tariffs” on AI-capable computer systems—equipped with GPUs—has raised concerns that the training of cutting-edge AI models may shift abroad. In response, the so-called “Magnificent 7 (M7)” tech giants saw $1.8 trillion in market capitalization wiped out just two days after Trump's announcement of reciprocal tariffs. As Silicon Valley tilts increasingly right ahead of Trump’s possible return to the White House, panic has reportedly set in.

During this time, the personal fortunes of Big Tech CEOs also plummeted:

Elon Musk (Tesla): down $30.9 billion

Mark Zuckerberg (Meta): down $27.3 billion

Jeff Bezos (Amazon): down $23.5 billion

Although a temporary 90-day suspension of the new tariffs helped recover around $1 trillion in market value, renewed pressure on tech stocks has highlighted the unresolved tensions behind the ongoing trade turbulence.

Tariff Uncertainty Freezes IPO Pipeline

There are growing fears that the new tariff policy will derail investment plans by major U.S. tech firms in AI infrastructure. Trump has imposed steep tariffs on equipment imports from key tech-exporting nations. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, electronics—including smartphones, PCs, and data center equipment—were the second-largest U.S. import category in 2024, worth $486 billion.

Roughly $200 billion of these electronics—especially data processing devices—were sourced from Mexico, Taiwan, China, and Vietnam. Abhishek Singh, partner at Everest Group, commented, “Major firms in AI infrastructure and consumer tech are likely to shift spending from expansion to supply hedging and sourcing diversification.”

The danger extends beyond hardware supply chains. The U.S. posted a $30 billion trade surplus in ICT services in 2023 and $267 billion in net profits from digital services globally—including earnings from Apple iPhone sales in China and Google ads in Europe, which often go unrecorded in official trade statistics. FT noted, “The trade crisis has made these a clear target for retaliation, and such risks will inevitably return with future tensions.”

Tariffs have already chilled the IPO market:

Klarna and StubHub have delayed listings shortly after filing.

Chime, a fintech firm, is reportedly also postponing its IPO.

CoreWeave, an AI infrastructure firm that debuted last month on the NYSE, had to cut its IPO price and has seen high trading volatility.

Mark Klein of Suro Capital remarked, “IPO momentum seems to have paused as firms assess the impact of the tariffs.” Phil Haslett of EquityZen added, “This is about as bad as the macro environment gets—there’s too much uncertainty.”

Tech Leaders Mobilize: Mar-a-Lago or Bust

The aftermath of Trump’s tariff war recalls similar turmoil during his first term in 2018. At the time, a 10% tariff was applied to $200 billion worth of Chinese imports, including critical IT components like modems and routers.

According to Panjiva, part of S&P Global, nearly half of the $23 billion in network gear the U.S. imported that year came from China. Silicon Valley firms were forced to either absorb higher costs or shift to alternative suppliers outside China.

Now, the outlook appears similarly grim. Some warn the tariff policy may drive the U.S. economy into recession-level risk. As a result, Silicon Valley and Wall Street leaders are reportedly traveling directly to Mar-a-Lago to meet Trump and voice their concerns.

Journalist Kara Swisher noted, “These leaders are heading to Trump with common-sense advice—after all, the millions they donated to his campaign have turned into trillions in market losses.”

Box CEO Aaron Levie emphasized, “Tech executives are reluctant to speak out publicly for fear of global supply chain backlash, but there’s a shared sense that these tariffs could set back U.S. tech by a decade.”

Dan Ives, tech analyst at Wedbush Securities, echoed the warning: “This tariff policy makes China the winner—and it risks stalling U.S. innovation in its tracks.”

Trump Signs Executive Order to Impose Port Entry Fees on Chinese Vessels
Concerns Grow Over Impact on U.S. Shipping and Export Sectors
Industry Voices: “This Will Be More Disruptive Than the Tariff War”

The United States is solidifying its “port entry fee” policy aimed at curbing China’s dominance in global maritime trade. With President Donald Trump signing an executive order to authorize the measure, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) now has a formal mandate to begin implementation. However, mounting concern is emerging from within the American shipping and trade industries. Stakeholders warn that instead of weakening China, the policy may unleash unintended consequences—delivering a backlash that harms U.S. shipbuilding, maritime logistics, and broader trade markets.

U.S. Port Fee Policy: A New Front in the Trade War

The Biden-era U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), under a revived Trump initiative, is formalizing a port fee policy aimed at weakening China’s dominance in global shipping and shipbuilding. Following President Trump’s signing of an executive order on April 9, the USTR is now empowered to craft a pricing framework targeting Chinese vessels and operators, as part of a broader national strategy to revitalize America’s shipbuilding sector and reduce reliance on Chinese maritime power.

The proposed plan introduces steep port entry fees on Chinese-owned or Chinese-built ships docking at U.S. ports—up to $1 million per entry or $1,000 per ton of vessel capacity. Additional penalties apply based on the share of Chinese-built ships in a fleet, with fees rising significantly if the fleet contains over 50% China-origin vessels.

Jitters in U.S. Industry: “A Blow to Our Own Economy”

U.S. industry leaders warn that this policy could backfire, harming American trade more than it pressures China. Jonathan Gold, VP of the National Retail Federation, stated, “Port fees pose a bigger threat than tariffs due to their far-reaching supply chain implications,” highlighting potential pullouts from Chinese shippers and devastating effects on smaller ports like Oakland, Charleston, and Philadelphia.

The World Shipping Council (WSC) estimates that if implemented, 90–98% of global ships—most of which are Chinese-built or owned—would incur the fees, sharply raising costs across the logistics ecosystem. The American Apparel & Footwear Association warned of a 12% drop in U.S. exports and a 0.25% hit to GDP.

Peter Friedmann of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition emphasized that such a policy would severely limit U.S. agricultural exports, stating, “This will crush our ability to sell food abroad.”

WSC President Joe Kramek added that it could double export shipping costs, with added fees of $600–$800 per container, disproportionately hurting American farmers. “This is not a lever to change China’s policies—it’s a blunt instrument that increases costs for U.S. producers and consumers alike,” he said.

China’s Maritime and Shipbuilding Might Grows Unchecked

China currently dominates global shipbuilding, commanding 71% of global new ship orders in 2024, according to Clarksons Research. It also controls or operates terminals in ports across 96 countries, with 25 of the world’s top 100 ports located in mainland China. Approximately 61% of global container traffic passes through ports affiliated with China.

This dominance has raised alarms in U.S. strategic circles, leading to the current initiative as an effort to curb China’s long-term maritime influence and protect American trade infrastructure.

While the port fee policy is rooted in a desire to counter China’s growing economic and strategic influence at sea, critics argue it risks becoming another own-goal in the tariff war playbook. With no clear evidence that such fees will compel China to alter course, U.S. exporters, particularly in agriculture and manufacturing, may end up absorbing the brunt of the economic fallout.