<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The wide-ranging plan includes proposals to tax foreign-built ships calling US ports, rebuild domestic shipbuilding capacity, and eliminate “burdensome regulations” through a series of deregulatory measures. </div>

The wide-ranging plan includes proposals to tax foreign-built ships calling US ports, rebuild domestic shipbuilding capacity, and eliminate “burdensome regulations” through a series of deregulatory measures.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The Trump administration Friday unveiled a wide-ranging blueprint for revitalizing the US maritime sector, the financial cornerstone of which would be a Maritime Security Trust Fund (MSTF) that would be fed in large part by taxing foreign-owned vessels calling US ports. “America’s Maritime Action Plan” includes a “universal infrastructure or security fee” that would be imposed on all foreign-built commercial vessels. The fee would be assessed based on the weight of the imported tonnage carried on the vessel. The action plan also includes a separate fee on imports arriving via land. While no specific figures were proposed, the plan to tax cargo tonnage imported by foreign-built ships did offer two scenarios: A fee of 1 cent per kilogram would generate about $66 billion over 10 years, while a fee of 25 cents per kg would yield close to $1.5 trillion. It’s unclear how the estimates were calculated. “As foreign-built vessels benefit from US market access, this policy ensures they contribute to the long-term revitalization of America’s maritime capabilities,” the plan said. The proposal echoes the tit-for-tat tariffs the US and China intended to impose on each other’s tonnage <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/year-long-pause-on-us-port-fees-targeting-china-vessels-to-start-nov-10-6108431">until a one-year suspension was enacted last November</a> as part of a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trade-deal-could-boost-short-term-china-imports-but-uncertainty-lingers-6106809">broader trade deal between Washington and Beijing</a>. The action plan also includes proposals to rebuild domestic shipbuilding capacity, strengthen the maritime industrial base, increase the fleet of US-built and -flagged commercial vessels working international trades, and eliminate “burdensome regulations” through a series of deregulatory measures. “For decades, the nation’s strategic position and shipbuilding industrial capacity have weakened due to a lack of strategic focus, cumbersome government procurement processes and a lack of strategic support for construction of commercial vessels in domestic shipyards,” the plan’s introduction stated. The action plan is an extension of an executive order issued by President Donald Trump last April calling for the restoration of American maritime dominance. The 40-page plan offers several concrete proposals, including the creation of the MSTF that would be fed by new revenue streams. “By securing stable, long-term funding, the MSTF would ensure consistent support for investments in shipbuilding, fleet expansion, industrial base resilience, and maritime workforce development,” the plan said. “Authorized expenditures would include programs identified as helpful for the promotion, growth and strengthening of the domestic maritime sector.” The MSTF would help fund the revitalization of US shipbuilding capacity, which is “the cornerstone of the administration’s strategy to restore America’s maritime strength and self-sufficiency,” according to the plan, which noted only eight shipyards exist in the country that can build vessels greater than 400 feet in length. The plan calls for investment that would fund upgrades to commercial shipyards in order to add and modernize drydocks, heavy-lift and gantry cranes, panel lines, and automated handling systems “to support higher‑rate production and large hull handling.” <h3>Land port tax </h3>A separate proposed funding mechanism, the Land Port Maintenance Tax, would be an equivalent to the existing Harbor Maintenance Tax for marine ports. The plan proposes a “modest tax” on merchandise entering the US via land of 0.125% of the value of the goods. “Funds collected under this tax will be deposited into the newly established Land Port Maintenance Trust Fund (LPMTF), which will support the planning, design, construction, maintenance and improvement of land port infrastructure,” according to the plan. The action plan also proposes the creation of a Strategic Commercial Fleet (SCF) that would consist of US-built vessels working international trades. The SCF would “provide the depth and redundancy required to sustain military logistics around the globe and ensure the continuous flow of goods to the US economy,” the plan said. “Vessels in the SCF would receive financial support for both construction and operation, leveling the playing field between the US and subsidized foreign competition.” Many of the proposals included in the maritime action plan require Congressional approval, so the Trump administration said it is compiling a legislative package that will be sent to Congress after the publication of Trump’s fiscal year 2027 budget request. Presidents typically send annual budget requests to Congress in February, although the timeline can be delayed. “The Trump administration urges Congress to enact this package in tandem with existing legislative vehicles, ensuring the US maritime industry is equipped to meet the demands of global competition, national defense and economic growth,” the plan said. Contact Kevin Saville at <a href="mailto:kevin.saville2@spglobal.com">kevin.saville2@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The Trump administration Friday unveiled a wide-ranging blueprint for revitalizing the US maritime sector, the financial cornerstone of which would be a Maritime Security Trust Fund (MSTF) that would be fed in large part by taxing foreign-owned vessels calling US ports. “America’s Maritime Action Plan” includes a “universal infrastructure or security fee” that would be imposed on all foreign-built commercial vessels. The fee would be assessed based on the weight of the imported tonnage carried on the vessel. The action plan also includes a separate fee on imports arriving via land. While no specific figures were proposed, the plan to tax cargo tonnage imported by foreign-built ships did offer two scenarios: A fee of 1 cent per kilogram would generate about $66 billion over 10 years, while a fee of 25 cents per kg would yield close to $1.5 trillion. It’s unclear how the estimates were calculated.  “As foreign-built vessels benefit from US market access, this policy ensures they contribute to the long-term revitalization of America’s maritime capabilities,” the plan said. The proposal echoes the tit-for-tat tariffs the US and China intended to impose on each other’s tonnage until a one-year suspension was enacted last November as part of a broader trade deal between Washington and Beijing . The action plan also includes proposals to rebuild domestic shipbuilding capacity, strengthen the maritime industrial base, increase the fleet of US-built and -flagged commercial vessels working international trades, and eliminate “burdensome regulations” through a series of deregulatory measures. “For decades, the nation’s strategic position and shipbuilding industrial capacity have weakened due to a lack of strategic focus, cumbersome government procurement processes and a lack of strategic support for construction of commercial vessels in domestic shipyards,” the plan’s introduction stated. The action plan is an extension of an executive order issued by President Donald Trump last April calling for the restoration of American maritime dominance. The 40-page plan offers several concrete proposals, including the creation of the MSTF that would be fed by new revenue streams. “By securing stable, long-term funding, the MSTF would ensure consistent support for investments in shipbuilding, fleet expansion, industrial base resilience, and maritime workforce development,” the plan said. “Authorized expenditures would include programs identified as helpful for the promotion, growth and strengthening of the domestic maritime sector.” The MSTF would help fund the revitalization of US shipbuilding capacity, which is “the cornerstone of the administration’s strategy to restore America’s maritime strength and self-sufficiency,” according to the plan, which noted only eight shipyards exist in the country that can build vessels greater than 400 feet in length. The plan calls for investment that would fund upgrades to commercial shipyards in order to add and modernize drydocks, heavy-lift and gantry cranes, panel lines, and automated handling systems “to support higher‑rate production and large hull handling.” Land port tax A separate proposed funding mechanism, the Land Port Maintenance Tax, would be an equivalent to the existing Harbor Maintenance Tax for marine ports. The plan proposes a “modest tax” on merchandise entering the US via land of 0.125% of the value of the goods. “Funds collected under this tax will be deposited into the newly established Land Port Maintenance Trust Fund (LPMTF), which will support the planning, design, construction, maintenance and improvement of land port infrastructure,” according to the plan. The action plan also proposes the creation of a Strategic Commercial Fleet (SCF) that would consist of US-built vessels working international trades. The SCF would “provide the depth and redundancy required to sustain military logistics around the globe and ensure the continuous flow of goods to the US economy,” the plan said. “Vessels in the SCF would receive financial support for both construction and operation, leveling the playing field between the US and subsidized foreign competition.” Many of the proposals included in the maritime action plan require Congressional approval, so the Trump administration said it is compiling a legislative package that will be sent to Congress after the publication of Trump’s fiscal year 2027 budget request. Presidents typically send annual budget requests to Congress in February, although the timeline can be delayed. “The Trump administration urges Congress to enact this package in tandem with existing legislative vehicles, ensuring the US maritime industry is equipped to meet the demands of global competition, national defense and economic growth,” the plan said. Contact Kevin Saville at kevin.saville2@spglobal.com .

Port News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Container lines

Port infrastructure

North American ports

Container Shipping News

Maritime

Trump administration unveils US maritime revitalization ‘action plan’

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">North and South Atlantic loops from Northern European to the US will consolidate to one East Coast-wide service, with a Baltimore call dropped and fewer overall vessels used.</div>

North and South Atlantic loops from Northern European to the US will consolidate to one East Coast-wide service, with a Baltimore call dropped and fewer overall vessels used.

<div class="phx-topic">The Ocean Alliance and Ocean Network Express (ONE) will remove some ships and consolidate US port calls in their jointly-operated trans-Atlantic network. The move follows an uneven year in the trade, with US exports to Europe up strongly but Europe’s exports to the US slowing.Ocean Alliance partner CMA CGM said Friday its trans-Atlantic network will change effective in April. The new network, CMA CGM said, will provide the US East Coast with “stronger coverage [and] reinforced frequency” and better leverage CMA CGM’s US and European terminals. The biggest change will be the end of the “Unity Bridge” service between major Northern European ports and the ports of Charleston and Savannah. Unity Bridge, which operates with four ONE ships and one Evergreen Marine vessel, will make its last westbound departure from Le Havre on March 16. The south Atlantic US ports will instead be included on the rotation for the higher-capacity Liberty Bridge service, which currently calls the ports of New York-New Jersey, Norfolk and Baltimore. The new Liberty Bridge service will drop Baltimore as of the first westbound sailing from Southampton on March 27. Charleston and Savannah will be added after the Norfolk call. The new trans-Atlantic network comes after the Ocean Alliance and ONE revised their one-year-old vessel sharing agreement filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) on Feb. 6 to consolidate their north and south Atlantic networks into a broader North American trans-Atlantic service. The new agreement will see seven ships deployed in the revised trans-Atlantic network, compared with the 11 ships the carriers deployed under the separate north and south Atlantic networks. ONE will go from providing four ships to the soon- expiring south Atlantic network to two ships under the revised trans-Atlantic network. Cosco and OOCL will also remove a ship, providing two to the new network. Evergreen will also remove a ship, providing one to the new network. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="ce24ca8a-5149-4e8e-a00a-5743e4d2abba"></dynamic-object></div><h3>Trade volatility behind capacity swings</h3>Peter Sand, chief analyst for rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce the consolidation of trans-Atlantic services and removal of ships represent a 37% drop in weekly nominal capacity for the carriers, going from 16,400 TEUs to 10,386 TEUs. The fourth quarter of 2025 saw overall vessel utilization on the trans-Atlantic slip to just over 80%, down from 87% in the third quarter, according to Xeneta. Sand said weekly vessel capacity in the trans-Atlantic had been volatile during 2025, swinging between 30,700 TEUs and 58,800 TEUs. The unbalanced trans-Atlantic volumes last year also came amid volatile US trade policy. According to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, westbound shipments from North Europe to the US East Coast grew just 2.1% in 2025 to 1.79 million TEUs, while eastbound shipments from the US rose almost 11% to 916,467 TEUs.“Shippers won’t be particularly pleased knowing that services will be cut, giving them arguably less options,” Sand said. “The move is set to tighten the market. But the market has mainly seen stronger growth on the backhaul.”Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The Ocean Alliance and Ocean Network Express (ONE) will remove some ships and consolidate US port calls in their jointly-operated trans-Atlantic network. The move follows an uneven year in the trade, with US exports to Europe up strongly but Europe’s exports to the US slowing. Ocean Alliance partner CMA CGM said Friday its trans-Atlantic network will change effective in April. The new network, CMA CGM said, will provide the US East Coast with “stronger coverage [and] reinforced frequency” and better leverage CMA CGM’s US and European terminals. The biggest change will be the end of the “Unity Bridge” service between major Northern European ports and the ports of Charleston and Savannah. Unity Bridge, which operates with four ONE ships and one Evergreen Marine vessel, will make its last westbound departure from Le Havre on March 16. The south Atlantic US ports will instead be included on the rotation for the higher-capacity Liberty Bridge service, which currently calls the ports of New York-New Jersey, Norfolk and Baltimore. The new Liberty Bridge service will drop Baltimore as of the first westbound sailing from Southampton on March 27. Charleston and Savannah will be added after the Norfolk call. The new trans-Atlantic network comes after the Ocean Alliance and ONE revised their one-year-old vessel sharing agreement filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) on Feb. 6 to consolidate their north and south Atlantic networks into a broader North American trans-Atlantic service. The new agreement will see seven ships deployed in the revised trans-Atlantic network, compared with the 11 ships the carriers deployed under the separate north and south Atlantic networks. ONE will go from providing four ships to the soon- expiring south Atlantic network to two ships under the revised trans-Atlantic network. Cosco and OOCL will also remove a ship, providing two to the new network. Evergreen will also remove a ship, providing one to the new network. Trade volatility behind capacity swings Peter Sand, chief analyst for rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce the consolidation of trans-Atlantic services and removal of ships represent a 37% drop in weekly nominal capacity for the carriers, going from 16,400 TEUs to 10,386 TEUs. The fourth quarter of 2025 saw overall vessel utilization on the trans-Atlantic slip to just over 80%, down from 87% in the third quarter, according to Xeneta. Sand said weekly vessel capacity in the trans-Atlantic had been volatile during 2025, swinging between 30,700 TEUs and 58,800 TEUs. The unbalanced trans-Atlantic volumes last year also came amid volatile US trade policy. According to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, westbound shipments from North Europe to the US East Coast grew just 2.1% in 2025 to 1.79 million TEUs, while eastbound shipments from the US rose almost 11% to 916,467 TEUs. “Shippers won’t be particularly pleased knowing that services will be cut, giving them arguably less options,” Sand said. “The move is set to tighten the market. But the market has mainly seen stronger growth on the backhaul.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trans-Atlantic

Ocean Alliance, ONE rework trans-Atlantic services, remove ships

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Quebec-based investment manager La Caisse earlier this week said it would put its future investments with DP World on hold until the company addressed Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.</div>

Quebec-based investment manager La Caisse earlier this week said it would put its future investments with DP World on hold until the company addressed Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

<div class="phx-topic">The Canadian pension fund that partners with DP World on port projects around the globe said Friday it welcomed the company’s move to sever ties with Chairman and Chief Executive Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem following revelations about his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Quebec-based investment manager La Caisse <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dp-worlds-financial-partner-hits-pause-over-ceos-ties-to-epstein-6168005">earlier this week</a> announced it would put its future investments with DP World on hold until the company addressed Sulayem’s relationship with Epstein, which came to light when US Congressional representatives released millions of additional pages of the so-called Epstein files. La Caisse, which manages C$496 billion in assets, said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce it supported DP World’s action against Sulayem and hopes to finance other DP World projects. Although La Caisse has not made a firm commitment to it, DP World is slated to develop Quebec’s Contrecoeur terminal. “The company took the appropriate measures,” La Caisse said. “We will move quickly to work with DP World’s new leadership to continue our partnership on port projects around the world.” Dubai-based DP World said Friday that effective immediately, its CFO Yuvraj Narayan will also take over as CEO, while Essa Kazim, governor of the country’s International Financial Center and chairman of its stock exchange, will take over the chairman’s role. Officially, DP World said Sulayem “resigned” from the company. He had served as chairman and CEO since 2016. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The Canadian pension fund that partners with DP World on port projects around the globe said Friday it welcomed the company’s move to sever ties with Chairman and Chief Executive Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem following revelations about his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Quebec-based investment manager La Caisse earlier this week announced it would put its future investments with DP World on hold until the company addressed Sulayem’s relationship with Epstein, which came to light when US Congressional representatives released millions of additional pages of the so-called Epstein files. La Caisse, which manages C$496 billion in assets, said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce it supported DP World’s action against Sulayem and hopes to finance other DP World projects. Although La Caisse has not made a firm commitment to it, DP World is slated to develop Quebec’s Contrecoeur terminal. “The company took the appropriate measures,” La Caisse said. “We will move quickly to work with DP World’s new leadership to continue our partnership on port projects around the world.” Dubai-based DP World said Friday that effective immediately, its CFO Yuvraj Narayan will also take over as CEO, while Essa Kazim, governor of the country’s International Financial Center and chairman of its stock exchange, will take over the chairman’s role. Officially, DP World said Sulayem “resigned” from the company. He had served as chairman and CEO since 2016. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Marine terminals

Departure of DP World CEO welcomed by Canadian ports partner

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The investment will strengthen the Gemini hub’s position and increase capacity at the joint venture terminal by more than 30% to 4 million TEUs. </div>

The investment will strengthen the Gemini hub’s position and increase capacity at the joint venture terminal by more than 30% to 4 million TEUs.

<div class="phx-topic">APM Terminals and Eurogate said Friday they will invest €1 billion ($1.2 billion) in the modernization of the jointly-controlled North Sea Terminal Bremerhaven in Germany, a strategic hub of partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd in the Gemini Cooperation network. The investment will increase the capacity of the terminal, a 50/50 joint venture between APMT and Eurogate, from its current 3 million TEUs to 4 million TEUs. The upgrade will also transform Bremerhaven into an automated, zero-emission terminal, APMT owner Maersk said in a statement. “Bremerhaven has unique potential to grow as a strategic hub in the region and to support cargo flows into Germany as well as our ocean network,” Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc said. “Our investments are intended to realize the full potential of the terminal, making [North Sea Terminal Bremerhaven] one of the most competitive terminals in Europe’s North Range,” he added. “We aim to future-proof the terminal over the long term, while strengthening the reliability and resilience of supply chains for the German economy.” No timeline was given for the completion of the modernization project. With the electrification of equipment and use of renewable electricity, the terminal is intended to operate with zero greenhouse gas emissions, the first of its kind in Germany. The planned upgrades remain subject to approval from German regulators. <h3>Long-term strategic importance of Bremerhaven </h3>Michael Blach, chairman of the management board at Eurogate, said the huge investment illustrated the conviction of both partners that Bremerhaven would hold a long-term position in global maritime trade. “With Maersk’s announced investments in the port’s superstructure, and the state and federal government’s investments in the port infrastructure, Bremerhaven will be well-positioned for the future and its importance in the North Range will be strengthened,” Blach said in the statement. “Now it is up to the federal government to press ahead with the deepening of the Outer Weser and implement it quickly,” he added. The planning process for the deepening of the Outer Weser River is currently underway within the local government. The project is viewed as essential and will increase the depth of the Outer Weser to 13.5 meters, allowing larger and fully laden ships to reach Bremerhaven without tidal restrictions. Bremerhaven is one of the Northern Europe hubs in Gemini’s hub-and-spoke network that calls at ports where Maersk and partner Hapag-Lloyd have operational control of terminals. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

APM Terminals and Eurogate said Friday they will invest €1 billion ($1.2 billion) in the modernization of the jointly-controlled North Sea Terminal Bremerhaven in Germany, a strategic hub of partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd in the Gemini Cooperation network. The investment will increase the capacity of the terminal, a 50/50 joint venture between APMT and Eurogate, from its current 3 million TEUs to 4 million TEUs. The upgrade will also transform Bremerhaven into an automated, zero-emission terminal, APMT owner Maersk said in a statement. “Bremerhaven has unique potential to grow as a strategic hub in the region and to support cargo flows into Germany as well as our ocean network,” Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc said. “Our investments are intended to realize the full potential of the terminal, making [North Sea Terminal Bremerhaven] one of the most competitive terminals in Europe’s North Range,” he added. “We aim to future-proof the terminal over the long term, while strengthening the reliability and resilience of supply chains for the German economy.” No timeline was given for the completion of the modernization project. With the electrification of equipment and use of renewable electricity, the terminal is intended to operate with zero greenhouse gas emissions, the first of its kind in Germany. The planned upgrades remain subject to approval from German regulators. Long-term strategic importance of Bremerhaven Michael Blach, chairman of the management board at Eurogate, said the huge investment illustrated the conviction of both partners that Bremerhaven would hold a long-term position in global maritime trade. “With Maersk’s announced investments in the port’s superstructure, and the state and federal government’s investments in the port infrastructure, Bremerhaven will be well-positioned for the future and its importance in the North Range will be strengthened,” Blach said in the statement. “Now it is up to the federal government to press ahead with the deepening of the Outer Weser and implement it quickly,” he added. The planning process for the deepening of the Outer Weser River is currently underway within the local government. The project is viewed as essential and will increase the depth of the Outer Weser to 13.5 meters, allowing larger and fully laden ships to reach Bremerhaven without tidal restrictions. Bremerhaven is one of the Northern Europe hubs in Gemini’s hub-and-spoke network that calls at ports where Maersk and partner Hapag-Lloyd have operational control of terminals. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

International ports

Maersk, Eurogate plan $1.2 billion terminal upgrade at Bremerhaven

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Canceled renewable energy projects in the US totaled $35 billion in 2025 as more project funds left the country than came in amid the federal government’s shifting policies to prioritize fossil fuels. </div>

Canceled renewable energy projects in the US totaled $35 billion in 2025 as more project funds left the country than came in amid the federal government’s shifting policies to prioritize fossil fuels.

<div class="phx-topic">Demand for renewable energy project cargo in the US — including components linked to electric vehicle (EV), battery/storage, hydrogen and wind developments — could be setting up for a fall as project losses have begun to far outpace gains. Companies canceled nearly $35 billion in US renewable energy projects in 2025, and for the first time in three years, there were more project investments leaving the US than coming in, according to a report published earlier this month by Washington, DC-based environmental policy research group E2. That comes as the Trump administration has initiated sweeping changes to the US energy landscape, shifting policies and funding to prioritize fossil fuels while downgrading support and resources for renewable energy projects. “Companies abandoned, closed or downsized nearly three dollars in clean energy investment for every one dollar announced, reversing the net flow of capital that had defined the post-2022 clean energy expansion,” the E2 report read, referencing $12.3 billion in new project announcements in 2025. Manufacturing facilities accounted for nearly all of the year’s losses, with $30.2 billion in abandoned projects. The bulk of the year’s cancellations came from EV and battery/storage projects, with over $21 billion lost in each segment. Figures in the analysis do not match the overall totals, as some projects are categorized into multiple sectors. Felix Schoeller, chief commercial officer for multipurpose vessel (MPV) operator AAL Shipping, told the Journal of Commerce that there’s been a noticeable shift in renewable energy project cargo activity for the US. AAL is a global transporter of components for wind energy projects, which have experienced widespread downsizing across offshore and onshore developments in the US and accounted for $1.3 billion in project losses in 2025, according to the E2 analysis. “The US government is placing greater emphasis on carbon-based power generation investments and broader oil and gas project developments rather than wind energy,” Scholler said, citing the delay and cancellation of a number of offshore wind projects, including some that were previously approved. “As a result, AAL has observed a significant reduction in wind cargo volumes in North America and an elevated demand for components for large-scale infrastructure and oil and gas projects.” Scholler cited AAL’s recent transport of over 2,500 battery energy storage system (BESS) units to the US from China in response to a surge in demand for high-capacity BESS components. BESS configurations are widely used as onsite power sources for oil and gas facilities. The Trump administration last year cut nearly $8 billion in funding for clean energy projects, issued directives aimed at deregulation and expanded leasing access for fossil fuels, and permanently reinstated a 100% tax write-off for qualifying oil and gas assets. <h3>Projects could shift overseas </h3>Some of the US renewable energy sector’s most consequential cancellations — and one of the largest withdrawal periods on record — came in December, when eight projects totaling $5.1 billion were put on the chopping block, according to the E2 analysis. South Korean manufacturer SK On scrapped a $2.8 billion EV/battery storage project in Tennessee, while Ford called off a $1.5 billion EV manufacturing plant in Ohio as the automaker continues to scale back and restructure its EV facilities. December’s project losses were over 20 times as much as the month’s gains, which totaled $238 million for six new manufacturing projects. Announcements included a $170 million battery project for Desert Mountain Energy in New Mexico, a $26.7 million Toyo Solar facility in Texas and a Ford/Contemporary Amperex Technology (CATL) battery project for an unspecified dollar amount in Kentucky. US project reversals could usher in an eventual reallocation of clean energy projects and their subsequent cargo demands to other parts of the world. “Investment that does not move forward in the United States does not disappear — it is increasingly redirected to foreign markets and US competitors offering more predictable environments, clearer incentives and greater long-term certainty,” the E2 report stated. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="mailto:autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com</a>. </div>

Demand for renewable energy project cargo in the US — including components linked to electric vehicle (EV), battery/storage, hydrogen and wind developments — could be setting up for a fall as project losses have begun to far outpace gains. Companies canceled nearly $35 billion in US renewable energy projects in 2025, and for the first time in three years, there were more project investments leaving the US than coming in, according to a report published earlier this month by Washington, DC-based environmental policy research group E2. That comes as the Trump administration has initiated sweeping changes to the US energy landscape, shifting policies and funding to prioritize fossil fuels while downgrading support and resources for renewable energy projects. “Companies abandoned, closed or downsized nearly three dollars in clean energy investment for every one dollar announced, reversing the net flow of capital that had defined the post-2022 clean energy expansion,” the E2 report read, referencing $12.3 billion in new project announcements in 2025. Manufacturing facilities accounted for nearly all of the year’s losses, with $30.2 billion in abandoned projects. The bulk of the year’s cancellations came from EV and battery/storage projects, with over $21 billion lost in each segment. Figures in the analysis do not match the overall totals, as some projects are categorized into multiple sectors. Felix Schoeller, chief commercial officer for multipurpose vessel (MPV) operator AAL Shipping, told the Journal of Commerce that there’s been a noticeable shift in renewable energy project cargo activity for the US. AAL is a global transporter of components for wind energy projects, which have experienced widespread downsizing across offshore and onshore developments in the US and accounted for $1.3 billion in project losses in 2025, according to the E2 analysis. “The US government is placing greater emphasis on carbon-based power generation investments and broader oil and gas project developments rather than wind energy,” Scholler said, citing the delay and cancellation of a number of offshore wind projects, including some that were previously approved. “As a result, AAL has observed a significant reduction in wind cargo volumes in North America and an elevated demand for components for large-scale infrastructure and oil and gas projects.” Scholler cited AAL’s recent transport of over 2,500 battery energy storage system (BESS) units to the US from China in response to a surge in demand for high-capacity BESS components. BESS configurations are widely used as onsite power sources for oil and gas facilities. The Trump administration last year cut nearly $8 billion in funding for clean energy projects, issued directives aimed at deregulation and expanded leasing access for fossil fuels, and permanently reinstated a 100% tax write-off for qualifying oil and gas assets. Projects could shift overseas Some of the US renewable energy sector’s most consequential cancellations — and one of the largest withdrawal periods on record — came in December, when eight projects totaling $5.1 billion were put on the chopping block, according to the E2 analysis. South Korean manufacturer SK On scrapped a $2.8 billion EV/battery storage project in Tennessee, while Ford called off a $1.5 billion EV manufacturing plant in Ohio as the automaker continues to scale back and restructure its EV facilities. December’s project losses were over 20 times as much as the month’s gains, which totaled $238 million for six new manufacturing projects. Announcements included a $170 million battery project for Desert Mountain Energy in New Mexico, a $26.7 million Toyo Solar facility in Texas and a Ford/Contemporary Amperex Technology (CATL) battery project for an unspecified dollar amount in Kentucky. US project reversals could usher in an eventual reallocation of clean energy projects and their subsequent cargo demands to other parts of the world. “Investment that does not move forward in the United States does not disappear — it is increasingly redirected to foreign markets and US competitors offering more predictable environments, clearer incentives and greater long-term certainty,” the E2 report stated. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com .

Breakbulk carriers

Energy projects

Heavy-haul transport

Project cargo

Breakbulk News

Reversal in US clean energy investment signals shift in project cargo momentum

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Shippers would be wise to offload the pain of building AI proficiency to their logistics providers until the benefits become clearer.</div>

Shippers would be wise to offload the pain of building AI proficiency to their logistics providers until the benefits become clearer.

<div class="phx-topic">While the world braces itself for the true impacts of artificial intelligence (AI), shippers and logistics services providers (LSPs) face a decision on whether to jump in with both feet or wait watchfully from the sidelines. Key to that decision, though, is the reality that it takes less time than ever to build software, which shrinks the disadvantage that a company has playing catching up. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6169078_0.1.jpg"></img></div>“Time is compressing,” a software vendor to the freight brokerage industry told the Journal of Commerce at the Manifest supply chain technology conference in Las Vegas this week. “The development cycles are shortening.” A shipper at the conference wondered whether it needed to be on the bleeding edge of adopting AI in its organization, or whether it could hang back. Practically speaking, the speed of development in the technology world means that shippers, in particular, won’t necessarily face a penalty for feeling overwhelmed when it comes to how and where to adopt AI. They can also, in the meantime, shift some of that AI burden onto their service providers. That’s because LSPs face a different mandate than shippers. The main priorities of LSPs are to work with capacity providers and serve shippers. Any technology investment must touch one of those areas. So there is a clearer imperative for intermediaries to invest in AI because there are fewer priorities to juggle. Shippers, meanwhile, juggle an array of needs inside and outside of logistics and transportation. Other needs in the company may trump the need to build or buy AI capability tied to freight transportation or global trade. Additionally, the pace of change within AI technology circles disincentivizes the ultimate user of the technology from diving headlong into commitments that might be obsolete in months. Take for instance recent developments around coding developments from OpenAI and Anthropic that seem to be rapidly advancing how quickly products can be built. What advantage would a shipper have to be on the bleeding edge right now, when the location of that bleeding edge changes almost weekly? <h3>Playing catch-up faster </h3>The pace of being able to catch up also matters. With software and product development speeding up, the time it takes to adopt and incorporate products will shrink as well. So if a two-year head start in using a traditional software-as-a-service tool historically represented a major edge over a peer, a shipper that waited now can theoretically leapfrog in a way it couldn’t in previous software adoption cycles. This shouldn’t serve as an excuse for shippers, and especially LSPs, to wait things out. Rather, they should be researching and testing in a minimally disruptive way so they understand how things such as AI agents are affecting transportation and trade processes that matter to their businesses. Being informationally proactive but financially conservative is probably the best course to take in a technology environment this fast-moving. It would be hard to understate just how much AI dominated conversations at Manifest. The industry is wrestling with how AI will change the shape of current headcounts and future workforces, how it will be priced, and whether it will do the work of existing software. None of these issues are clear, especially as the large AI developers put the ability to build applications in the hands of non-technical people. That could change how and when software is bought, maintained, updated, and customized. It’s certainly an exciting and daunting future, but one where shippers may want to hang back, with eyes open, and let their LSPs suffer the heavy bruising. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

While the world braces itself for the true impacts of artificial intelligence (AI), shippers and logistics services providers (LSPs) face a decision on whether to jump in with both feet or wait watchfully from the sidelines. Key to that decision, though, is the reality that it takes less time than ever to build software, which shrinks the disadvantage that a company has playing catching up. “Time is compressing,” a software vendor to the freight brokerage industry told the Journal of Commerce at the Manifest supply chain technology conference in Las Vegas this week. “The development cycles are shortening.” A shipper at the conference wondered whether it needed to be on the bleeding edge of adopting AI in its organization, or whether it could hang back. Practically speaking, the speed of development in the technology world means that shippers, in particular, won’t necessarily face a penalty for feeling overwhelmed when it comes to how and where to adopt AI. They can also, in the meantime, shift some of that AI burden onto their service providers. That’s because LSPs face a different mandate than shippers. The main priorities of LSPs are to work with capacity providers and serve shippers. Any technology investment must touch one of those areas. So there is a clearer imperative for intermediaries to invest in AI because there are fewer priorities to juggle. Shippers, meanwhile, juggle an array of needs inside and outside of logistics and transportation. Other needs in the company may trump the need to build or buy AI capability tied to freight transportation or global trade. Additionally, the pace of change within AI technology circles disincentivizes the ultimate user of the technology from diving headlong into commitments that might be obsolete in months. Take for instance recent developments around coding developments from OpenAI and Anthropic that seem to be rapidly advancing how quickly products can be built. What advantage would a shipper have to be on the bleeding edge right now, when the location of that bleeding edge changes almost weekly? Playing catch-up faster The pace of being able to catch up also matters. With software and product development speeding up, the time it takes to adopt and incorporate products will shrink as well. So if a two-year head start in using a traditional software-as-a-service tool historically represented a major edge over a peer, a shipper that waited now can theoretically leapfrog in a way it couldn’t in previous software adoption cycles. This shouldn’t serve as an excuse for shippers, and especially LSPs, to wait things out. Rather, they should be researching and testing in a minimally disruptive way so they understand how things such as AI agents are affecting transportation and trade processes that matter to their businesses. Being informationally proactive but financially conservative is probably the best course to take in a technology environment this fast-moving. It would be hard to understate just how much AI dominated conversations at Manifest. The industry is wrestling with how AI will change the shape of current headcounts and future workforces, how it will be priced, and whether it will do the work of existing software. None of these issues are clear, especially as the large AI developers put the ability to build applications in the hands of non-technical people. That could change how and when software is bought, maintained, updated, and customized. It’s certainly an exciting and daunting future, but one where shippers may want to hang back, with eyes open, and let their LSPs suffer the heavy bruising. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Logistics Technology News

Supply chain

Rapid pace of AI development suggests shippers should be patient

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The current market situation is favorable for BCOs, and the temptation will be great to drive down base rates because of internal cost pressures, writes John McCauley.</div>

The current market situation is favorable for BCOs, and the temptation will be great to drive down base rates because of internal cost pressures, writes John McCauley.

<div class="phx-topic">At this time of year, many have reflected on 2025 and made resolutions for 2026. I have adjusted this to make no resolutions, but a few predictions that, in most cases, I hope will not materialize. In addition, I want to give some advice to beneficial cargo owners (BCOs), many of whom are in various stages of negotiations for 2026–27 service contracts. Starting with the predictions, let’s consider some supply, capacity, and demand issues. <h3>Capacity </h3>I expect Red Sea transits will resume, but very slowly and primarily for East Med cargo and for the India sub-continent to the East Coast of the US. Asia-Europe transits will only resume if insurance premiums disappear. The Houthis are still present and will be volatile and unreliable, so they remain the wild card for this prediction. At best, Asia-Europe, if Suez passage resumes, would take six months to stabilize. The US port fees for Chinese-built and -owned vessels will be a non-event. However, for carriers, the sword of Damocles is hanging over this one, so don’t expect any major service reshuffles. Sadly, service reliability levels will stay stable at a horrible 60%, notwithstanding the herculean efforts of Gemini to drag the industry up. Most carriers won’t care enough to do something about it. Expect significant trucking and drayage disruption in the US. Bankruptcies will rise as seasonality gets more unpredictable. Driver shortages will get worse. The consequences will be price volatility, both up and down, with significant backlogs adding to detention and demurrage bills. Berthing and landside restrictions will continue to hinder moving larger vessels to north-south trades as few terminals are deep-sea; they are river or bay, at best, and are often hemmed in by towns and cities and tidal-constrained. <h3>Demand </h3>Many BCOs are under high internal pressure to contribute to reductions in overall supply chain costs as margins become thinner through higher input costs (somewhat largely driven by tariffs), downstream price squeezing, and weaker demand. Container freight downward trends will be an obvious target. Keep an eye on US credit card debt and defaults, which will rise significantly by the third quarter at the latest, thus further softening demand. Macro level indicators will prey on demand. US inflation will remain stubbornly near at least 2.5% to 3% while unemployment will remain at about 4.5% as immigration net deficits offset layoffs. Job creation will stagnate. Depending on the GDP trend, expect a high likelihood of stagflation toward the end of the fourth quarter (subject to the reliability of US government data). China will continue manufacturing export expansion and increase its proportion of global trade. <h3>Recommendation </h3>What does this mean for upcoming service contract negotiations? With the expectation of vessel oversupply continuing through the year, BCOs will push to the limit to reduce base rates. They will face several dilemmas, including how to get rid of unmerited and unjustifiable surcharges and which carriers to choose from in alliances and vessel-sharing agreements. Overall, the market situation is favorable for BCOs. The temptation to drive down base rates will be great because of internal cost pressures and/or wanting to make up for some years of carrier supply strength. This should be tempered with a caveat that many BCOs have been burnt in the past for being too empathetic to carriers’ financial difficulties. If I were in the shoes of a medium-size BCO of 30,000 TEUs and above, I would select a mix that would aim for base rates around the Xeneta/NYSHEX forecast average index levels, even if offered lower rates than those levels. It is important to keep in with Mediterranean Shipping Co. even if you don’t use them today. I would use index-linked contracts today and continue to do so with a maximum of 50% to leave yourself some volume for fixed rates and some spot prices. Of that remaining volume, I would leave about 25% for spot as the downside risk is still relatively low. Finally, the market situation should allow for BCOs to get into their contracts the exclusion of any non-explainable (by the carrier) and justifiable (judged and accepted by the BCO) surcharges. John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at <a href="mailto:john-mccauley1@outlook.com">john-mccauley1@outlook.com</a>.</div>

At this time of year, many have reflected on 2025 and made resolutions for 2026. I have adjusted this to make no resolutions, but a few predictions that, in most cases, I hope will not materialize. In addition, I want to give some advice to beneficial cargo owners (BCOs), many of whom are in various stages of negotiations for 2026–27 service contracts. Starting with the predictions, let’s consider some supply, capacity, and demand issues. Capacity I expect Red Sea transits will resume, but very slowly and primarily for East Med cargo and for the India sub-continent to the East Coast of the US. Asia-Europe transits will only resume if insurance premiums disappear. The Houthis are still present and will be volatile and unreliable, so they remain the wild card for this prediction. At best, Asia-Europe, if Suez passage resumes, would take six months to stabilize. The US port fees for Chinese-built and -owned vessels will be a non-event. However, for carriers, the sword of Damocles is hanging over this one, so don’t expect any major service reshuffles. Sadly, service reliability levels will stay stable at a horrible 60%, notwithstanding the herculean efforts of Gemini to drag the industry up. Most carriers won’t care enough to do something about it. Expect significant trucking and drayage disruption in the US. Bankruptcies will rise as seasonality gets more unpredictable. Driver shortages will get worse. The consequences will be price volatility, both up and down, with significant backlogs adding to detention and demurrage bills. Berthing and landside restrictions will continue to hinder moving larger vessels to north-south trades as few terminals are deep-sea; they are river or bay, at best, and are often hemmed in by towns and cities and tidal-constrained. Demand Many BCOs are under high internal pressure to contribute to reductions in overall supply chain costs as margins become thinner through higher input costs (somewhat largely driven by tariffs), downstream price squeezing, and weaker demand. Container freight downward trends will be an obvious target. Keep an eye on US credit card debt and defaults, which will rise significantly by the third quarter at the latest, thus further softening demand. Macro level indicators will prey on demand. US inflation will remain stubbornly near at least 2.5% to 3% while unemployment will remain at about 4.5% as immigration net deficits offset layoffs. Job creation will stagnate. Depending on the GDP trend, expect a high likelihood of stagflation toward the end of the fourth quarter (subject to the reliability of US government data). China will continue manufacturing export expansion and increase its proportion of global trade. Recommendation What does this mean for upcoming service contract negotiations? With the expectation of vessel oversupply continuing through the year, BCOs will push to the limit to reduce base rates. They will face several dilemmas, including how to get rid of unmerited and unjustifiable surcharges and which carriers to choose from in alliances and vessel-sharing agreements. Overall, the market situation is favorable for BCOs. The temptation to drive down base rates will be great because of internal cost pressures and/or wanting to make up for some years of carrier supply strength. This should be tempered with a caveat that many BCOs have been burnt in the past for being too empathetic to carriers’ financial difficulties. If I were in the shoes of a medium-size BCO of 30,000 TEUs and above, I would select a mix that would aim for base rates around the Xeneta/NYSHEX forecast average index levels, even if offered lower rates than those levels. It is important to keep in with Mediterranean Shipping Co. even if you don’t use them today. I would use index-linked contracts today and continue to do so with a maximum of 50% to leave yourself some volume for fixed rates and some spot prices. Of that remaining volume, I would leave about 25% for spot as the downside risk is still relatively low. Finally, the market situation should allow for BCOs to get into their contracts the exclusion of any non-explainable (by the carrier) and justifiable (judged and accepted by the BCO) surcharges. John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at john-mccauley1@outlook.com .

Trans-Pacific

A few market predictions and some advice for BCOs as contract season heats up

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">There are a lot of theories explaining the current freight recession, but there is no disputing that decreased demand, cutthroat competition, and plummeting rates have occurred simultaneously with inflationary cost components, writes Ted Prince.</div>

There are a lot of theories explaining the current freight recession, but there is no disputing that decreased demand, cutthroat competition, and plummeting rates have occurred simultaneously with inflationary cost components, writes Ted Prince.

<div class="phx-topic">In 1948, Gerald Hern, sports editor of the Boston Post, composed a brief poem describing the Boston Braves’ pitching en route to the 1948 National League pennant: First we’ll use Spahn then we’ll use Sain Then an off day, followed by rain Back will come Spahn, followed by Sain And followed, we hope, by two days of rain Warren Spahn and Johnny Sain were responsible for 39 of the Braves’ 91 victories that year. However, it was common to have a one-two punch at the top of a team’s pitching rotation. Intermodal has a similar duality: international and domestic — primarily dry 40- and 53-foot containers, respectively. While intermodal has a plethora of markets and equipment, the two segments have been carrying the industry for decades to constant new heights. They are also closely correlated in that a great deal of the domestic market is import cargo that was transloaded on the West Coast for movement inland. Hern’s work comes to mind when thinking about intermodal’s performance in 2025 and its prospects for 2026. Unlike the hoped-for two days of good rain, the industry has endured four years of painful rain since the halcyon volumes of 2021, the “good old days” of the COVID-19 pandemic. There are a lot of theories explaining the current freight “recession,” but there is no disputing that decreased demand, cutthroat competition, and plummeting rates have occurred simultaneously with inflationary cost components. As a result, intermodal has frequently found itself as a surface freight alternative that is slower and more expensive than trucking. And while there were some green shoots in 2024, the industry has been hoping for a second-half recovery — that has failed to materialize — in each of the past three years. The same seems true for 2026. <h3>Supply and demand drivers </h3>As we look forward, we need to consider supply and demand drivers. “Affordability” has taken the place of prominence in our political lexicon. As the costs of food and housing rise, discretionary income for other consumer products has shriveled and reduced demand. The same goes for increasing credit card, car, and student loan debt. Regardless of mortgage rates, there are long-term limitations on housing starts. This can further reduce consumer demand because so many purchases — e.g., furniture, home, electronics, etc. — are often associated with new homes. And although seven-year car loans have become more common, I don’t believe 50-year home mortgages will have the same penetration. With demand problematic, intermodal success will probably rely on supply changes. Many contend that the demand during the early days of COVID-19 created excess capacity that the truck market is still trying to absorb. However, it is unclear whether there was really an increase in overall capacity, or just realignment as many truckers decided to go out on their own. Regardless, there were a number of carriers that acquired capacity at historically high prices and must keep operating to just make their payments. The normal culling of unprofitable capacity was precluded by this inability to exit the market, ensuring a never-ending supply of zombie truckers. This capacity is getting older and more expensive to operate. Nevertheless, there is a feeling (or hope?) that 2026 will finally see marginal carriers leave the market and rate stability restored. <h3>Enhanced regulatory oversight </h3>The environmental green benefits of intermodal are not a priority for the current administration, so economic green will be paramount. Most likely that would come from increased regulatory oversight. Enhanced enforcement on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses is reducing driver supply. And there is still the unknown of hacked electronic logging devices allowing for illegal hours of service. What is unclear is whether these initiatives will impact truckload and drayage carriers equally, or whether one segment will suffer disproportionate opprobrium. If it is the former, intermodal will be advantaged; however, if it is the latter, maybe not. The former would be a rising tide that would raise all intermodal ships, whereas the latter could see the further ascendance of bimodal operations with integrated drayage overseen by robust safety regimens. In an attempt to increase demand, we can expect major players to assume prominent roles. Railroads and bimodals will seek to deploy equipment that has been stored for years. Ocean carriers will continue to consider their inland options. Finally, ports may become more involved as they explore inland options to attract more discretionary cargo. There are no historical comparisons for the last five years. It is unclear when the market will turn, but when it does, the recovery will follow Ernest Hemingway’s description: “Gradually, then suddenly.” We can then hope for the sun also to rise on intermodal. Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com</a>.</div>

In 1948, Gerald Hern, sports editor of the Boston Post, composed a brief poem describing the Boston Braves’ pitching en route to the 1948 National League pennant: First we’ll use Spahn then we’ll use Sain Then an off day, followed by rain Back will come Spahn, followed by Sain And followed, we hope, by two days of rain Warren Spahn and Johnny Sain were responsible for 39 of the Braves’ 91 victories that year. However, it was common to have a one-two punch at the top of a team’s pitching rotation. Intermodal has a similar duality: international and domestic — primarily dry 40- and 53-foot containers, respectively. While intermodal has a plethora of markets and equipment, the two segments have been carrying the industry for decades to constant new heights. They are also closely correlated in that a great deal of the domestic market is import cargo that was transloaded on the West Coast for movement inland. Hern’s work comes to mind when thinking about intermodal’s performance in 2025 and its prospects for 2026. Unlike the hoped-for two days of good rain, the industry has endured four years of painful rain since the halcyon volumes of 2021, the “good old days” of the COVID-19 pandemic. There are a lot of theories explaining the current freight “recession,” but there is no disputing that decreased demand, cutthroat competition, and plummeting rates have occurred simultaneously with inflationary cost components. As a result, intermodal has frequently found itself as a surface freight alternative that is slower and more expensive than trucking. And while there were some green shoots in 2024, the industry has been hoping for a second-half recovery — that has failed to materialize — in each of the past three years. The same seems true for 2026. Supply and demand drivers As we look forward, we need to consider supply and demand drivers. “Affordability” has taken the place of prominence in our political lexicon. As the costs of food and housing rise, discretionary income for other consumer products has shriveled and reduced demand. The same goes for increasing credit card, car, and student loan debt. Regardless of mortgage rates, there are long-term limitations on housing starts. This can further reduce consumer demand because so many purchases — e.g., furniture, home, electronics, etc. — are often associated with new homes. And although seven-year car loans have become more common, I don’t believe 50-year home mortgages will have the same penetration. With demand problematic, intermodal success will probably rely on supply changes. Many contend that the demand during the early days of COVID-19 created excess capacity that the truck market is still trying to absorb. However, it is unclear whether there was really an increase in overall capacity, or just realignment as many truckers decided to go out on their own. Regardless, there were a number of carriers that acquired capacity at historically high prices and must keep operating to just make their payments. The normal culling of unprofitable capacity was precluded by this inability to exit the market, ensuring a never-ending supply of zombie truckers. This capacity is getting older and more expensive to operate. Nevertheless, there is a feeling (or hope?) that 2026 will finally see marginal carriers leave the market and rate stability restored. Enhanced regulatory oversight The environmental green benefits of intermodal are not a priority for the current administration, so economic green will be paramount. Most likely that would come from increased regulatory oversight. Enhanced enforcement on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses is reducing driver supply. And there is still the unknown of hacked electronic logging devices allowing for illegal hours of service. What is unclear is whether these initiatives will impact truckload and drayage carriers equally, or whether one segment will suffer disproportionate opprobrium. If it is the former, intermodal will be advantaged; however, if it is the latter, maybe not. The former would be a rising tide that would raise all intermodal ships, whereas the latter could see the further ascendance of bimodal operations with integrated drayage overseen by robust safety regimens. In an attempt to increase demand, we can expect major players to assume prominent roles. Railroads and bimodals will seek to deploy equipment that has been stored for years. Ocean carriers will continue to consider their inland options. Finally, ports may become more involved as they explore inland options to attract more discretionary cargo. There are no historical comparisons for the last five years. It is unclear when the market will turn, but when it does, the recovery will follow Ernest Hemingway’s description: “Gradually, then suddenly.” We can then hope for the sun also to rise on intermodal. Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

Surface

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Pace of freight market recovery a matter of ‘gradually, then suddenly’

Shanghai to Santos

{dateX.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY} 
Y-o-Y: {percet_year_Santos.formatNumber("##.#%")}

The Shanghai Shipping Exchange’s (SSE) Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI) reflects spot rates and associated seaborne charges for containerized exports from Shanghai. The SCFI includes indices of freight rates in 13 individual shipping routes and a composite index, using Oct. 16, 2009, as the base period (Oct. 16, 2009 = 1,000). [SSE](https://en.sse.net.cn/indices/scfinew.jsp)

Shanghai to Santos container spot rates (SSE)

Shanghai to Santos Container Spot Rates (SCFI-Weekly) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier reported a steep drop in profitability as declining rates combined with higher costs of rerouting ships around southern Africa and startup expenses for the Gemini network.</div>

The carrier reported a steep drop in profitability as declining rates combined with higher costs of rerouting ships around southern Africa and startup expenses for the Gemini network.

<div class="phx-topic">A solid increase in Hapag-Lloyd’s Gemini Cooperation-driven volume last year and cost savings across the new network were not enough to offset a sharply correcting market in 2025, the carrier said Monday. Hapag-Lloyd reported a steep drop in profitability for the year as declining rates combined with the higher costs of rerouting ships around southern Africa and startup expenses for the Gemini network to weigh on its 2025 results. Hapag-Lloyd launched the Gemini network with partner Maersk in February 2025. “Robust growth in global trade and the new Gemini network led to an 8% increase in the transport volume to 13.5 million TEUs,” Hapag-Lloyd said in a statement on its preliminary 2025 results. The carrier provided no after-tax figures; its full annual report with a 2026 outlook will be unveiled March 26. Even as demand rose, it was mirrored by a drop in average rates that were down 8% year over year at $1,376 per TEU. That led to full-year revenue falling 1.9% to $21.1 billion and earnings before interest, taxes, amortization and depreciation (EBITDA) declining 28% to $3.6 billion. While earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) were down 60% at $1.1 billion, they was at the higher end of the profitability forecast Hapag-Lloyd gave the market following the announcement of its nine-month results last November. <h3>Gemini savings kicking in </h3>The results showed that much of the 2025 financial damage occurred in the fourth quarter, similar to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/gemini-benefits-face-looming-challenge-from-oversupplied-market-maersk-ceo-6164887">the full-year earnings of Maersk</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/frontloading-drags-one-to-a-loss-in-its-fiscal-third-quarter-6161263">the fiscal third-quarter results of Ocean Network Express</a>. Hapag-Lloyd’s fourth-quarter volume was up 6% year over year, but revenue fell 7.4% to $5 billion, EBITDA dropped 42% to $800 million and EBIT for the quarter was down 75% at $200 million. “On the other hand, Gemini-related cost savings started kicking in during the second half of 2025 and will be fully realized in 2026,” the carrier said. Hapag-Lloyd’s savings to be generated by Gemini are expected to be between $350 million and $400 million, which is approximately 40% of a total $1 billion in savings the carrier expects to have in place by the end of this year as part of an aggressive cost-savings program across its overall network. Hapag-Lloyd did not provide financials for its Hanseatic Global Terminals division, but it is a key part of the Gemini network. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd control most of their terminal network, which gives the carriers greater berth access and handling productivity than common user facilities, especially in the congested hubs of Europe. That access saw Maersk reporting a record performance in its terminals division in 2025. Maritime consultant Drewry has upgraded its financial year 2025 profit forecast from $20 billion to $32 billion following “better than expected” third-quarter results from carriers and raised the outlook for 2026 from a $10 billion loss to a $1 billion profit. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/frontloading-drags-one-to-a-loss-in-its-fiscal-third-quarter-6161263">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A solid increase in Hapag-Lloyd’s Gemini Cooperation-driven volume last year and cost savings across the new network were not enough to offset a sharply correcting market in 2025, the carrier said Monday. Hapag-Lloyd reported a steep drop in profitability for the year as declining rates combined with the higher costs of rerouting ships around southern Africa and startup expenses for the Gemini network to weigh on its 2025 results. Hapag-Lloyd launched the Gemini network with partner Maersk in February 2025. “Robust growth in global trade and the new Gemini network led to an 8% increase in the transport volume to 13.5 million TEUs,” Hapag-Lloyd said in a statement on its preliminary 2025 results. The carrier provided no after-tax figures; its full annual report with a 2026 outlook will be unveiled March 26. Even as demand rose, it was mirrored by a drop in average rates that were down 8% year over year at $1,376 per TEU. That led to full-year revenue falling 1.9% to $21.1 billion and earnings before interest, taxes, amortization and depreciation (EBITDA) declining 28% to $3.6 billion. While earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) were down 60% at $1.1 billion, they was at the higher end of the profitability forecast Hapag-Lloyd gave the market following the announcement of its nine-month results last November. Gemini savings kicking in The results showed that much of the 2025 financial damage occurred in the fourth quarter, similar to the full-year earnings of Maersk and the fiscal third-quarter results of Ocean Network Express . Hapag-Lloyd’s fourth-quarter volume was up 6% year over year, but revenue fell 7.4% to $5 billion, EBITDA dropped 42% to $800 million and EBIT for the quarter was down 75% at $200 million. “On the other hand, Gemini-related cost savings started kicking in during the second half of 2025 and will be fully realized in 2026,” the carrier said. Hapag-Lloyd’s savings to be generated by Gemini are expected to be between $350 million and $400 million, which is approximately 40% of a total $1 billion in savings the carrier expects to have in place by the end of this year as part of an aggressive cost-savings program across its overall network. Hapag-Lloyd did not provide financials for its Hanseatic Global Terminals division, but it is a key part of the Gemini network. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd control most of their terminal network, which gives the carriers greater berth access and handling productivity than common user facilities, especially in the congested hubs of Europe. That access saw Maersk reporting a record performance in its terminals division in 2025. Maritime consultant Drewry has upgraded its financial year 2025 profit forecast from $20 billion to $32 billion following “better than expected” third-quarter results from carriers and raised the outlook for 2026 from a $10 billion loss to a $1 billion profit. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Fourth-quarter rate slump drags down Hapag-Lloyd’s 2025 financials

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The likely sale this year of the Port of New York and New Jersey’s largest marine terminal portends possible changes to how it will be operated in the long run. </div>

The likely sale this year of the Port of New York and New Jersey’s largest marine terminal portends possible changes to how it will be operated in the long run.

<div class="phx-topic">The potential sale of Maher Terminal at the Port of New York and New Jersey will require a buyer to navigate stricter lease terms, billions in new costs, and decisions on how to grow capacity and service its customers, all portending further changes in container handling at the port. A source told the Journal of Commerce that marine terminal operators including DP World, PSA International, SSA Marine, and Terminal Investment Limited have inquired about a potential acquisition of Maher from private equity firm Macquarie Infrastructure Partners. Maher, the largest container terminal at NY-NJ, could fetch $3 billion, according to the Wall Street Journal. The sale of Maher, which could be announced later this year, comes after the Macquarie fund that owns Maher negotiated <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/macquarie-seals-deal-for-new-maher-lease-at-nynj-through-2063-6137751">a new 33-year lease with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey that starts in 2030</a>. The potential buyers have also contacted the Port Authority, the source said, because the agency would have to sign off on any deal. The new lease means Maher’s buyer faces a variable monthly rent that is based solely on container volume, the source said, rather than the previous lease’s largely fixed-cost base rent. In addition, the new operator will have to share with the Port Authority a greater portion of its “excess revenue,” which generally comes from the demurrage it charges on containers. Outside of the direct rental costs, Maher’s buyer could face at least $3 billion in capital and maintenance costs under the new lease, the source said. <h3>Capacity upgrades</h3>A big chunk of that will be the cost of berth maintenance and repairs that the Port Authority has begun shifting over to tenants under the new leases. Maher, with four berths capable of handling super-post-Panamax ships, faces an estimated $2 billion in such repairs.The new lease also requires Maher to add “demand-induced” capacity as part of the port’s overall plan to double capacity by 2050, Port Director Beth Rooney said after the lease’s December signing. Maher, which can currently handle just over 3 million TEUs, could double its capacity through densification, she said. Densification, though, will require the buyer to rethink signature features of the terminal that have made it preferred among ocean carriers, shippers and motor carriers. The densification process could cost another $1 billion. Maher currently uses a fleet of over 200 straddle carriers to sort containers and bring them to trucks waiting at a parking spot, what the facility bills as a “concierge service,” according to shippers. Maher has won multiple awards from local motor carriers and ocean carriers for its service levels. Densifying the facility would mean gradually rolling out a smaller fleet of gantry cranes, either on rubber tires or rail mounted, for handling higher and wider container stacks. The process would require that yard space within Maher be closed on a rotating basis while the underlying concrete is reinforced and container stacks are remade for the larger machines. It’s not clear how the switch to gantry crane operations will affect service times for trucks, although it would likely mean fewer loading spaces. An equipment change at the terminal will also trigger a clause in the contract with the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) over implementing new technology, requiring negotiations with the union. Along with larger yard equipment, a new buyer for Maher will face decisions on how it optimizes space. Maher has a massive truck gate with some 30 inbound lanes and 20 outbound lanes. The large gate complex allows Maher to handle trucks without requiring appointments, a free-flow operation that allows truckers to quickly enter the facility. But the gate complex also occupies about a quarter of its land, making it a potential target for reclamation to container yard space. A smaller gate, though, might require Maher to rethink the free-flow model. Maher will also have to share more of its daily operational data under the new lease terms, which require the terminal to provide data about key metrics and other measures. The data sharing will “enable the Port Authority and its terminal operators to better collaborate on port efficiency initiatives,” the agency said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce.Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The potential sale of Maher Terminal at the Port of New York and New Jersey will require a buyer to navigate stricter lease terms, billions in new costs, and decisions on how to grow capacity and service its customers, all portending further changes in container handling at the port. A source told the Journal of Commerce that marine terminal operators including DP World, PSA International, SSA Marine, and Terminal Investment Limited have inquired about a potential acquisition of Maher from private equity firm Macquarie Infrastructure Partners. Maher, the largest container terminal at NY-NJ, could fetch $3 billion, according to the Wall Street Journal. The sale of Maher, which could be announced later this year, comes after the Macquarie fund that owns Maher negotiated a new 33-year lease with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey that starts in 2030 . The potential buyers have also contacted the Port Authority, the source said, because the agency would have to sign off on any deal. The new lease means Maher’s buyer faces a variable monthly rent that is based solely on container volume, the source said, rather than the previous lease’s largely fixed-cost base rent. In addition, the new operator will have to share with the Port Authority a greater portion of its “excess revenue,” which generally comes from the demurrage it charges on containers. Outside of the direct rental costs, Maher’s buyer could face at least $3 billion in capital and maintenance costs under the new lease, the source said. Capacity upgrades A big chunk of that will be the cost of berth maintenance and repairs that the Port Authority has begun shifting over to tenants under the new leases. Maher, with four berths capable of handling super-post-Panamax ships, faces an estimated $2 billion in such repairs. The new lease also requires Maher to add “demand-induced” capacity as part of the port’s overall plan to double capacity by 2050, Port Director Beth Rooney said after the lease’s December signing. Maher, which can currently handle just over 3 million TEUs, could double its capacity through densification, she said. Densification, though, will require the buyer to rethink signature features of the terminal that have made it preferred among ocean carriers, shippers and motor carriers. The densification process could cost another $1 billion. Maher currently uses a fleet of over 200 straddle carriers to sort containers and bring them to trucks waiting at a parking spot, what the facility bills as a “concierge service,” according to shippers. Maher has won multiple awards from local motor carriers and ocean carriers for its service levels. Densifying the facility would mean gradually rolling out a smaller fleet of gantry cranes, either on rubber tires or rail mounted, for handling higher and wider container stacks. The process would require that yard space within Maher be closed on a rotating basis while the underlying concrete is reinforced and container stacks are remade for the larger machines. It’s not clear how the switch to gantry crane operations will affect service times for trucks, although it would likely mean fewer loading spaces. An equipment change at the terminal will also trigger a clause in the contract with the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) over implementing new technology, requiring negotiations with the union. Along with larger yard equipment, a new buyer for Maher will face decisions on how it optimizes space. Maher has a massive truck gate with some 30 inbound lanes and 20 outbound lanes. The large gate complex allows Maher to handle trucks without requiring appointments, a free-flow operation that allows truckers to quickly enter the facility. But the gate complex also occupies about a quarter of its land, making it a potential target for reclamation to container yard space. A smaller gate, though, might require Maher to rethink the free-flow model. Maher will also have to share more of its daily operational data under the new lease terms, which require the terminal to provide data about key metrics and other measures. The data sharing will “enable the Port Authority and its terminal operators to better collaborate on port efficiency initiatives,” the agency said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce.Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Longshore labor

Maher’s next buyer faces billions in upgrades, decisions on capacity

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While linehaul performance has largely returned to normal for US Class I railroads, delays and bottlenecks triggered by the severe winter storm two weeks ago have now moved downstream to terminals in Chicago, Cincinnati and Memphis.</div>

While linehaul performance has largely returned to normal for US Class I railroads, delays and bottlenecks triggered by the severe winter storm two weeks ago have now moved downstream to terminals in Chicago, Cincinnati and Memphis.

<div class="phx-topic">Rail terminals at key inland hubs have become congested with containers two weeks after a severe winter storm slammed a large portion of the US, slowing both the handoff of import boxes to trucks and the start of export moves. While port-to-rail service and linehaul performance have largely returned to normal for US Class I railroads, the delays and bottlenecks triggered by the storm have now moved downstream to terminals in Chicago, Cincinnati and Memphis. “We’ve had drivers spending up to five hours just in line, consistently missing deliveries and having containers going into [demurrage],” said one Chicago-based trucker who asked not to be identified. “The customers refuse to pay and are getting frustrated. Drivers are getting frustrated.” Truckers say the terminal delays are eroding productivity and adding costs, particularly as railroads assess fees during extended container dwell times. For drayage providers, profitability depends on delivering cargo, making hours-long delays inside terminals costly. Frustration has been directed at BNSF Railway, Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) and Union Pacific Railroad (UP). Slowdowns are common during frigid temperatures because heavy equipment such as overhead cranes and hostler vehicles can malfunction. Outdoor terminal crews also must battle the harsh conditions. In Memphis, drivers have raised concerns after UP began stacking ocean containers inside the terminal on Feb. 4 because of a chassis shortage, according to a UP advisory circulated to drivers and shared with the Journal of Commerce. A UP spokesperson declined to confirm the advisory’s authenticity, although two independent sources provided copies to the Journal of Commerce. “Union Pacific does not own chassis and works closely with customers and their carriers to ensure availability,” the UP spokesperson said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce. “Following the unprecedented storm, Union Pacific recovered exceptionally well and maintained a fluid rail network.” Truckers object to UP’s decision, prompted by the post-storm conditions, to charge a fee to lift containers out of stacks. The so-called “flip fee” traditionally applies when transferring a container from a perfectly usable pool chassis to a trucker’s privately owned chassis. Other North American Class I railroads do not assess a fee in similar circumstances, and major US ports similarly do not charge simply to lift a container from a stack onto a truck. Cargo owners are not covering the cost, so UP’s decision is a financial hit for truckers, provoking angry e-mails from truckers that were shared with the Journal of Commerce. Data from technology provider E-Dray shows that the average time to unload an ocean container and make it available at UP’s Memphis terminal has increased from less than one (0.7) day before the storm to 2.9 days as of this week. <h3>Frustrations with BNSF, Norfolk Southern </h3>Drivers report similar frustrations at BNSF’s Memphis and Logistics Park Chicago terminals, where E-Dray data shows container availability times have doubled from approximately one day to two days in both locations. The delays are not driven by chassis shortages, but by extended waits for crane availability. “Turn times at both facilities are about 30%, or 20 minutes longer,” Jon Gabriel, BNSF’s group vice president of consumer products, told the Journal of Commerce. “We expect that turn times [will] return back to normal at both facilities next week, likely Memphis a little sooner.” In Chicago, drivers have also voiced concerns about Norfolk Southern terminals, although E-Dray data shows no material deterioration in terminal efficiency metrics there. Norfolk Southern, however, acknowledged congestion in Cincinnati. “We are taking proactive steps to improve the driver experience, reduce dwell, and maintain service reliability,” NS wrote in a Feb. 3 advisory posted online. “Our focus is on restoring smooth terminal flow and improving the driver experience as quickly as possible.” Congestion also remains elevated in Louisville, where a disruption that began more than a month ago persists. <h3>Linehaul performance rebounds </h3>Moving containers into major inland hubs is no longer an issue for the railroads. BNSF’s transit times between Floyd, Mississippi, and Plaines, Illinois, nearly doubled to 19 hours in the immediate aftermath of the storm, but had fallen back to about 10 hours as of Feb. 5, according to rail visibility provider RailState. UP’s transit times between Edwardsville, Kansas, and Mazonia, Illinois, spiked to nearly 80 hours after the storm before declining to approximately 35 hours this week, RailState data showed. NS’ transit times between Mishawaka, Indiana, and East Palestine, Ohio, jumped about 50% during the storm but have since returned to historical norms. (The RailState data used in this report was the 75th percentile of transit times, as calculated by RailState, to better capture “outlier” instances created by the storm.) Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Rail terminals at key inland hubs have become congested with containers two weeks after a severe winter storm slammed a large portion of the US, slowing both the handoff of import boxes to trucks and the start of export moves. While port-to-rail service and linehaul performance have largely returned to normal for US Class I railroads, the delays and bottlenecks triggered by the storm have now moved downstream to terminals in Chicago, Cincinnati and Memphis. “We’ve had drivers spending up to five hours just in line, consistently missing deliveries and having containers going into [demurrage],” said one Chicago-based trucker who asked not to be identified. “The customers refuse to pay and are getting frustrated. Drivers are getting frustrated.” Truckers say the terminal delays are eroding productivity and adding costs, particularly as railroads assess fees during extended container dwell times. For drayage providers, profitability depends on delivering cargo, making hours-long delays inside terminals costly. Frustration has been directed at BNSF Railway, Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) and Union Pacific Railroad (UP). Slowdowns are common during frigid temperatures because heavy equipment such as overhead cranes and hostler vehicles can malfunction. Outdoor terminal crews also must battle the harsh conditions. In Memphis, drivers have raised concerns after UP began stacking ocean containers inside the terminal on Feb. 4 because of a chassis shortage, according to a UP advisory circulated to drivers and shared with the Journal of Commerce. A UP spokesperson declined to confirm the advisory’s authenticity, although two independent sources provided copies to the Journal of Commerce. “Union Pacific does not own chassis and works closely with customers and their carriers to ensure availability,” the UP spokesperson said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce. “Following the unprecedented storm, Union Pacific recovered exceptionally well and maintained a fluid rail network.” Truckers object to UP’s decision, prompted by the post-storm conditions, to charge a fee to lift containers out of stacks. The so-called “flip fee” traditionally applies when transferring a container from a perfectly usable pool chassis to a trucker’s privately owned chassis. Other North American Class I railroads do not assess a fee in similar circumstances, and major US ports similarly do not charge simply to lift a container from a stack onto a truck. Cargo owners are not covering the cost, so UP’s decision is a financial hit for truckers, provoking angry e-mails from truckers that were shared with the Journal of Commerce. Data from technology provider E-Dray shows that the average time to unload an ocean container and make it available at UP’s Memphis terminal has increased from less than one (0.7) day before the storm to 2.9 days as of this week. Frustrations with BNSF, Norfolk Southern Drivers report similar frustrations at BNSF’s Memphis and Logistics Park Chicago terminals, where E-Dray data shows container availability times have doubled from approximately one day to two days in both locations. The delays are not driven by chassis shortages, but by extended waits for crane availability. “Turn times at both facilities are about 30%, or 20 minutes longer,” Jon Gabriel, BNSF’s group vice president of consumer products, told the Journal of Commerce. “We expect that turn times [will] return back to normal at both facilities next week, likely Memphis a little sooner.” In Chicago, drivers have also voiced concerns about Norfolk Southern terminals, although E-Dray data shows no material deterioration in terminal efficiency metrics there. Norfolk Southern, however, acknowledged congestion in Cincinnati. “We are taking proactive steps to improve the driver experience, reduce dwell, and maintain service reliability,” NS wrote in a Feb. 3 advisory posted online. “Our focus is on restoring smooth terminal flow and improving the driver experience as quickly as possible.” Congestion also remains elevated in Louisville, where a disruption that began more than a month ago persists. Linehaul performance rebounds Moving containers into major inland hubs is no longer an issue for the railroads. BNSF’s transit times between Floyd, Mississippi, and Plaines, Illinois, nearly doubled to 19 hours in the immediate aftermath of the storm, but had fallen back to about 10 hours as of Feb. 5, according to rail visibility provider RailState. UP’s transit times between Edwardsville, Kansas, and Mazonia, Illinois, spiked to nearly 80 hours after the storm before declining to approximately 35 hours this week, RailState data showed. NS’ transit times between Mishawaka, Indiana, and East Palestine, Ohio, jumped about 50% during the storm but have since returned to historical norms. (The RailState data used in this report was the 75th percentile of transit times, as calculated by RailState, to better capture “outlier” instances created by the storm.) Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Rail News

Key inland rail terminals battle post-storm congestion, driver complaints

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

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">La Caisse, a major infrastructure fund and co-investor with DP World, said it wants clarity from the ports operator about Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem’s relationship with the convicted sex trafficker after messages between the two men became public this week.</div>

La Caisse, a major infrastructure fund and co-investor with DP World, said it wants clarity from the ports operator about Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem’s relationship with the convicted sex trafficker after messages between the two men became public this week.

<div class="phx-topic">A Quebec-based pension fund has put future investments with DP World on hold until the ports operator clarifies the relationship its chief executive had with deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The pause could slow development of Canada’s next big container terminal. La Caisse, which has C$496 billion in assets under management, said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce Wednesday it is waiting to hear from DP World about what steps it is taking in regards to its Chairman and Chief Executive Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem after messages between him and Epstein were released by US Congressional representatives this week as part of a probe into Epstein’s ties to rich and powerful men across the globe. Some of <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/c813601e-e8cb-4eb9-b1de-6ca504bb689f">the messages between Sulayem and Epstein</a> were sexual in nature. La Caisse, which has invested in DP World port projects across the world, said that until it hears from DP World, it is “pausing additional capital deployment alongside the company.” “It is important to distinguish the company, DP World, from the individual, who is the focus of the current situation,” La Caisse said. “On that point, we have made it clear to the company that we expect it to shed light on the situation and take the necessary actions.” According to local media, La Caisse had been slated to provide over C$100 million toward the development of Quebec’s Contrecoeur terminal, which is estimated to cost about C$1.6 billion and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dp-world-to-build-big-ship-container-terminal-in-montreal-6077326">would be operated by DP World</a>. La Caisse said no final decision on financing Contrecoeur has been made. In 2020, DP World and La Caisse acquired the Fraser Surrey terminal at the Port of Vancouver. That was followed by La Caisse investing up to $5 billion in 2022 in DP World’s Jebel Ali port in Dubai, along with a nearby free trade zone and industrial park. Montreal Port Authority (MPA) Chief Executive Julie Gascon said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce that it’s not yet clear whether La Caisse’s pause would affect Contrecoeur’s expected 2030 opening date. The MPA, which is responsible for <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/quebec-provides-new-funding-for-proposed-montreal-terminal-citing-us-trade-tensions-5947783">the separate government-backed financing of dredging and other below-water work at the site</a>, is also waiting to hear from DP World about how it will respond to La Caisse. Gascon said, however, that development of Contrecoeur is a national priority for Prime Minister Mark Carney, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/canada-looks-for-new-container-gateways-for-decoupling-from-us-6122714">who is looking to grow Canada’s non-US international trade</a>. Contrecoeur will be needed to serve the country’s eastern half as the Port of Montreal will likely be at capacity by the next decade. “My concern is that as soon as we start signing more services, then we’re full,” Gascon said. “So, I can’t come in late with Contrecoeur. It’s 2026, and it’s going to be delivered in 2030, so we need to be on time.” <h3>DP World expanded in US </h3>Dubai-based DP World, the fourth-largest ports operator globally by volume, is Canada’s largest terminal company, operating the Fraser Surrey, Centerm and Nanaimo facilities in Vancouver; the Prince Rupert terminal, and the Port of Saint John container terminal. In the US, DP World has a limited presence in non-marine logistics. Last year, it acquired Unique Logistics International, a North Carolina-based contract logistics provider, and bought Michigan-based warehousing and logistics operator Syncreon in 2021. But DP World is also looking to expand in the US, with the company reported to be one of the potential suitors for the Maher terminal at the Port of New York and New Jersey. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

A Quebec-based pension fund has put future investments with DP World on hold until the ports operator clarifies the relationship its chief executive had with deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The pause could slow development of Canada’s next big container terminal. La Caisse, which has C$496 billion in assets under management, said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce Wednesday it is waiting to hear from DP World about what steps it is taking in regards to its Chairman and Chief Executive Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem after messages between him and Epstein were released by US Congressional representatives this week as part of a probe into Epstein’s ties to rich and powerful men across the globe. Some of the messages between Sulayem and Epstein were sexual in nature. La Caisse, which has invested in DP World port projects across the world, said that until it hears from DP World, it is “pausing additional capital deployment alongside the company.” “It is important to distinguish the company, DP World, from the individual, who is the focus of the current situation,” La Caisse said. “On that point, we have made it clear to the company that we expect it to shed light on the situation and take the necessary actions.” According to local media, La Caisse had been slated to provide over C$100 million toward the development of Quebec’s Contrecoeur terminal, which is estimated to cost about C$1.6 billion and would be operated by DP World . La Caisse said no final decision on financing Contrecoeur has been made. In 2020, DP World and La Caisse acquired the Fraser Surrey terminal at the Port of Vancouver. That was followed by La Caisse investing up to $5 billion in 2022 in DP World’s Jebel Ali port in Dubai, along with a nearby free trade zone and industrial park. Montreal Port Authority (MPA) Chief Executive Julie Gascon said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce that it’s not yet clear whether La Caisse’s pause would affect Contrecoeur’s expected 2030 opening date. The MPA, which is responsible for the separate government-backed financing of dredging and other below-water work at the site , is also waiting to hear from DP World about how it will respond to La Caisse. Gascon said, however, that development of Contrecoeur is a national priority for Prime Minister Mark Carney, who is looking to grow Canada’s non-US international trade . Contrecoeur will be needed to serve the country’s eastern half as the Port of Montreal will likely be at capacity by the next decade. “My concern is that as soon as we start signing more services, then we’re full,” Gascon said. “So, I can’t come in late with Contrecoeur. It’s 2026, and it’s going to be delivered in 2030, so we need to be on time.” DP World expanded in US Dubai-based DP World, the fourth-largest ports operator globally by volume, is Canada’s largest terminal company, operating the Fraser Surrey, Centerm and Nanaimo facilities in Vancouver; the Prince Rupert terminal, and the Port of Saint John container terminal. In the US, DP World has a limited presence in non-marine logistics. Last year, it acquired Unique Logistics International, a North Carolina-based contract logistics provider, and bought Michigan-based warehousing and logistics operator Syncreon in 2021. But DP World is also looking to expand in the US, with the company reported to be one of the potential suitors for the Maher terminal at the Port of New York and New Jersey. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com . 

DP World’s financial partner hits pause over CEO’s ties to Epstein

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The fourth-largest US domestic intermodal provider has received additional funding and now must focus on meeting revenue and expenditure targets through the second quarter.</div>

The fourth-largest US domestic intermodal provider has received additional funding and now must focus on meeting revenue and expenditure targets through the second quarter.

<div class="phx-topic">STG Logistics has received $40 million in new funding and another reserve fund of $25 million after a deal was reached between lenders ahead of a key hearing before a New Jersey bankruptcy court. The deal agreed to on Tuesday results in a temporary truce between two lenders who sued STG Logistics in a New York court and a group of lenders who provided the rescue funds when <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/stg-files-ch-11-bankruptcy-but-intermodal-operations-remain-intact-6150641">the bankruptcy was filed on Jan. 12</a>. STG operates a thriving transloading and drayage business and is also the fourth-largest US domestic intermodal provider with 15,000 privately-owned containers. The agreement allows Axos Financial and Siemens Financial Solutions to proceed as a sub-case within the bankruptcy case in exchange for withdrawing an objection to the rescue funding. If a deal had not been struck, then the bankruptcy judge would have ruled on the objection Tuesday. The final order authorizes STG to pay drivers, warehouse workers, and railroads, among others. STG owed Union Pacific Railroad $13.4 million in back payments, significantly more than the $1.2 million owed to CSX Transportation. In exchange for receiving payment, the railroads cannot change credit terms with STG or increase rates or fees while it remains in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. <h3>Default triggers </h3>Hurdles remain in STG’s efforts to emerge from bankruptcy restructuring. The original bankruptcy filing included a 13-week budget outlining projected revenue from operations and expenses. If STG spends more than 115% of the budgeted expenses, fails to book at least 80% of the estimated revenue, or falls below $50 million in cash on hand, then it will be considered in default. A default doesn’t automatically mean operations would cease, but it gives the lenders the right to stop the cash flow entirely. STG did not fall below the 80% threshold after the recent winter storm briefly disrupted operations on UP and CSX, according to a source close to the bankruptcy hearing. Next month, there will be a window known as a “sale toggle” in which the lenders could decide to sell the company to an outside bidder, who then would decide how to manage STG’s operations. The sale toggle is a standard practice in Chapter 11 bankruptcy allowing the bankrupt company to explore other offers. Finally, the Axos-Siemens case isn’t resolved, just shifted to a sub-case. The bankruptcy judge must still rule before STG emerges from bankruptcy. If the judge rules in favor of Axos and Siemens, the group of rescue lenders could pull their financial support. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

STG Logistics has received $40 million in new funding and another reserve fund of $25 million after a deal was reached between lenders ahead of a key hearing before a New Jersey bankruptcy court. The deal agreed to on Tuesday results in a temporary truce between two lenders who sued STG Logistics in a New York court and a group of lenders who provided the rescue funds when the bankruptcy was filed on Jan. 12 . STG operates a thriving transloading and drayage business and is also the fourth-largest US domestic intermodal provider with 15,000 privately-owned containers. The agreement allows Axos Financial and Siemens Financial Solutions to proceed as a sub-case within the bankruptcy case in exchange for withdrawing an objection to the rescue funding. If a deal had not been struck, then the bankruptcy judge would have ruled on the objection Tuesday. The final order authorizes STG to pay drivers, warehouse workers, and railroads, among others. STG owed Union Pacific Railroad $13.4 million in back payments, significantly more than the $1.2 million owed to CSX Transportation. In exchange for receiving payment, the railroads cannot change credit terms with STG or increase rates or fees while it remains in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Default triggers Hurdles remain in STG’s efforts to emerge from bankruptcy restructuring. The original bankruptcy filing included a 13-week budget outlining projected revenue from operations and expenses. If STG spends more than 115% of the budgeted expenses, fails to book at least 80% of the estimated revenue, or falls below $50 million in cash on hand, then it will be considered in default. A default doesn’t automatically mean operations would cease, but it gives the lenders the right to stop the cash flow entirely. STG did not fall below the 80% threshold after the recent winter storm briefly disrupted operations on UP and CSX, according to a source close to the bankruptcy hearing. Next month, there will be a window known as a “sale toggle” in which the lenders could decide to sell the company to an outside bidder, who then would decide how to manage STG’s operations. The sale toggle is a standard practice in Chapter 11 bankruptcy allowing the bankrupt company to explore other offers. Finally, the Axos-Siemens case isn’t resolved, just shifted to a sub-case. The bankruptcy judge must still rule before STG emerges from bankruptcy. If the judge rules in favor of Axos and Siemens, the group of rescue lenders could pull their financial support. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

STG Logistics survives key bankruptcy hurdle to remain in business

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Xeneta’s “Schedule Reliability Scorecard” for 2025 showed Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are more reliable under Gemini than in standalone services, while other alliances showed uneven performance among partners. </div>

Xeneta’s “Schedule Reliability Scorecard” for 2025 showed Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are more reliable under Gemini than in standalone services, while other alliances showed uneven performance among partners.

<div class="phx-topic">Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd broke further away from other ocean carriers in on-time performance in 2025, although vessels under their new Gemini Cooperation alliance showed better reliability than their standalone services, data from Xeneta shows. Most other carriers saw performance remaining flat last year, with reliability varying among other alliances. Xeneta’s “Schedule Reliability Scorecard” for 2025 showed that Maersk saw 56% of all its ships arrive on time last year, with an average delay of two days. That is up from the 37% on-time performance and average two-and-half day delay reported at the end of 2024 by eeSea, which Xeneta acquired last August. Meanwhile, second-place Hapag-Lloyd also saw improvement in its 2025 overall reliability, Xeneta data showed, with 52% of all vessels arriving on time and an average delay of three days. At the end of 2024, Hapag-Lloyd saw only about a fifth of its ships arriving on time with an average delay of close to five days. The gain for each carrier stems from the jointly-operated services under the Gemini partnership, with vessels in the alliance hitting 81% schedule reliability. But Xeneta said the performance data shows “the reliability of their non-alliance partnerships generally falls short of Gemini’s optimized structure.”The average delay days for Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are the lowest among the 12 global ocean carriers in Xeneta’s benchmark. Among that group, delays averaged about four-and-half days. Cosco Shipping and Wan Hai Lines saw average delays of just under three-and-half days, while HMM saw an average eight-and-half-day delay, the highest among the dozen carriers on Xeneta’s list. <h3>Alliance partners show mixed results</h3>Container alliances other than Gemini saw their overall performance in 2025 remain largely flat, Xeneta’s data showed. Individual ocean carrier performance within those alliances varied, which Xeneta said highlighted the need for shippers to know who is operating a particular service. Xeneta said Ocean Alliance had an overall on-time performance of 26% in 2025, which is a step up from the 20% reported for the alliance in 2024. The gain stems largely from improvements at CMA CGM, which saw on-time performance reach 33% in 2025 versus 27% in 2024, and Cosco Shipping, which reached 35% in 2025 compared with a 24% rate the year prior. Those gains appeared to offset performance from Ocean Alliance partner Evergreen Marine, which lagged with a 25% on-time performance last year. “This is valuable evidence for shippers to consider selecting CMA CGM or COSCO on their non-alliance offerings, or to potentially lean into Ocean Alliance services where they function as the primary vessel providers instead of [Evergreen],” Xeneta said.A similar dynamic played out with the Premier Alliance, which had an overall on-time performance of 26% last year. Partners Ocean Network Express and Yang Ming both saw individual on-time performance hit close to that mark, but HMM was only at a 15% on-time rate, according to Xeneta.Mediterranean Shipping Co. saw its on-time performance hit 25% last year with a nearly five-day average delay, “just a pace above the bottom of our rankings” Xeneta said. Zim Integrated Shipping Services, which has container space-sharing agreements with MSC on several lanes, saw last year’s on-time performance improve to 36%, up from 27% in 2024 and placing it in the top three for 2025. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd broke further away from other ocean carriers in on-time performance in 2025, although vessels under their new Gemini Cooperation alliance showed better reliability than their standalone services, data from Xeneta shows. Most other carriers saw performance remaining flat last year, with reliability varying among other alliances. Xeneta’s “Schedule Reliability Scorecard” for 2025 showed that Maersk saw 56% of all its ships arrive on time last year, with an average delay of two days. That is up from the 37% on-time performance and average two-and-half day delay reported at the end of 2024 by eeSea, which Xeneta acquired last August. Meanwhile, second-place Hapag-Lloyd also saw improvement in its 2025 overall reliability, Xeneta data showed, with 52% of all vessels arriving on time and an average delay of three days. At the end of 2024, Hapag-Lloyd saw only about a fifth of its ships arriving on time with an average delay of close to five days. The gain for each carrier stems from the jointly-operated services under the Gemini partnership, with vessels in the alliance hitting 81% schedule reliability. But Xeneta said the performance data shows “the reliability of their non-alliance partnerships generally falls short of Gemini’s optimized structure.” The average delay days for Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are the lowest among the 12 global ocean carriers in Xeneta’s benchmark. Among that group, delays averaged about four-and-half days. Cosco Shipping and Wan Hai Lines saw average delays of just under three-and-half days, while HMM saw an average eight-and-half-day delay, the highest among the dozen carriers on Xeneta’s list. Alliance partners show mixed results Container alliances other than Gemini saw their overall performance in 2025 remain largely flat, Xeneta’s data showed. Individual ocean carrier performance within those alliances varied, which Xeneta said highlighted the need for shippers to know who is operating a particular service. Xeneta said Ocean Alliance had an overall on-time performance of 26% in 2025, which is a step up from the 20% reported for the alliance in 2024. The gain stems largely from improvements at CMA CGM, which saw on-time performance reach 33% in 2025 versus 27% in 2024, and Cosco Shipping, which reached 35% in 2025 compared with a 24% rate the year prior. Those gains appeared to offset performance from Ocean Alliance partner Evergreen Marine, which lagged with a 25% on-time performance last year. “This is valuable evidence for shippers to consider selecting CMA CGM or COSCO on their non-alliance offerings, or to potentially lean into Ocean Alliance services where they function as the primary vessel providers instead of [Evergreen],” Xeneta said. A similar dynamic played out with the Premier Alliance, which had an overall on-time performance of 26% last year. Partners Ocean Network Express and Yang Ming both saw individual on-time performance hit close to that mark, but HMM was only at a 15% on-time rate, according to Xeneta. Mediterranean Shipping Co. saw its on-time performance hit 25% last year with a nearly five-day average delay, “just a pace above the bottom of our rankings” Xeneta said. Zim Integrated Shipping Services, which has container space-sharing agreements with MSC on several lanes, saw last year’s on-time performance improve to 36%, up from 27% in 2024 and placing it in the top three for 2025. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trump administration unveils US maritime revitalization ‘action plan’

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Fourth-quarter rate slump drags down Hapag-Lloyd’s 2025 financials

Maher’s next buyer faces billions in upgrades, decisions on capacity

Key inland rail terminals battle post-storm congestion, driver complaints

Recent Commentary

A few market predictions and some advice for BCOs as contract season heats up

Pace of freight market recovery a matter of ‘gradually, then suddenly’

Top 5 Most Read Stories