logo
Tariffs devastated America's ports. Soon, they could face a surge from stockpiling

Tariffs devastated America's ports. Soon, they could face a surge from stockpiling

RNZ News15-05-2025

By
Vanessa Yurkevich
, CNN
Containers at the Port of Long Beach in Long Beach, California on 12 May.
Photo:
Tim Rue/Bloomberg/Getty Images via CNN Newsource
US ports are facing a dramatic slowdown in cargo - but they could see the exact opposite in a matter of weeks.
Starting Wednesday (local time), cargo leaving China bound for the United States will carry a 30 percent tariff rate - a reduction from the higher 145 percent tariff that was in place for six weeks. The United States and China announced a dramatic de-escalation in tariffs on Monday, lowering cripplingly high rates for 90 days. Experts say retailers will likely frontload more cargo during the pause, working against the clock to bring in inventory before things change again.
"You're right kind of smack dab in the middle of when all that holiday merchandise is supposed to be coming in. So, there might be some retailers who decide to bring more product in early to get ahead of that potential expiration if they're able to," said Jonathan Gold, vice president of supply chain and customs policy at the National Retail Federation
That's exactly what retailers did before the first wave of tariffs took effect on 9 April, stockpiling imports in March. China is one of America's most important trading partners, where it gets most of its clothes, footwear, toys, electronics and microchips. For many businesses, the higher tariffs make it too expensive to do business with China.
The Port of Seattle's commission vice president Ryan Calkins told CNN Wednesday "we anticipate that by mid-summer we are going to see a surge, and we will staff up significantly… to make sure we can operate at full capacity to manage all that".
Flexport, a logistics and freight forwarding broker, said Monday it was too early to predict the exact scale of the surge following the US-China announcement, but that they were anticipating a "boom" in bookings.
Charles van der Steene, North American president of shipping giant Maersk, told CNN Wednesday that shipment volumes from China into the United States had fallen by as much as 40 percent, because of significant uncertainty around tariffs. Most shippers simply pressed the pause button on trade, he said.
"Because of the uncertainty, unsure what would be happening, they literally stopped their supply chain," van der Steene told CNN's Jon Berman. "So now that we look ahead and there's a reprieve against lower tariffs for 90 days and clarity about what we have in front of us, the expectation is the pent-up supply will now make it back into the supply chain."
Peter Boockvar, an economist at The Boock Report, says that while it's still unclear how much a 30 percent tariff rate on China will make a difference, some retailers will take advantage of the lower rate.
"You are going to see a rush of ordering over the next 90 days the likes we've never seen before. You are going to see the cost of transportation skyrocket too in the coming weeks/months," Boockvar wrote.
Despite experts predicting goods will soon surge into American harbours, West Coast ports are still projecting the number of ships, and the volume of cargo, to fall significantly this month. That because it takes ships three to four weeks to arrive on the West Coast from China.
"By the end of this month, we'll be down 20 percent the number of ship calls and probably about 25 percent in the volume of cargo," Gene Seroka, the executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, told CNN's Erin Burnett on Monday.
The Port of Long Beach also saw a 35-40 percent reduction in cargo last week and noted that for a 12-hour period on Friday, no ships left China bound for the San Pedro Bay Complex, which encompasses both Long Beach and the Port of Long Angeles. It was an occurrence officials hadn't seen since the pandemic.
Currently, there are 17 fewer ships than usual bound for the two ports through 16 May, according to the Marine Exchange of Southern California & Vessel Traffic Service Los Angeles Long Beach.
The Port of Seattle also reported empty docks last week, another anomaly that hasn't happened since the pandemic. The Northwest Seaport Alliance, which represents the ports of Seattle and Tacoma, expects volume to drop anywhere from 8 percent to 15 percent compared to normal times. Vessels from China that are set to arrive this week are carrying 17 percent less cargo than usual, the alliance said.
"These (tariff) reductions don't undo the consequences of their implementation. The uncertainty, market disruption, cargo fluctuation, and lost business caused by the initial and remaining tariffs is still a significant concern. Both reductions in cargo and surges have consequences that impact the supply chain. Consistency is a requirement of a fluid supply chain and the jobs that depend on it," the Northwest Seaport Alliance said in a statement.
It's not just the West Coast - it also takes four to six weeks for ships to reach East Coast ports from Asia, which would push back any cargo surge till next month.
"If they (retailers) start placing orders now, mid to late June is when that cargo might start to arrive. So you'll probably see a slowdown for the next few weeks and then an uptick up until July," said Gold.
But a 30 percent tariff on Chinese imports, while significantly lower than 145 percent, is still unworkable for many businesses, especially smaller ones. The US Chamber of Commerce said Monday that "tariffs are much higher overall than they were at the beginning of the year," and reaffirmed their request for the Trump administration to exempt small businesses from tariffs.
"The larger retailers are in a better position than some of the smaller retailers to be able mitigate" the costs of tariffs, Gold said. "I think there are a lot of ongoing discussions right now about how this is all going to work out."
- CNN

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump says Musk will face 'very serious consequences' if he funds Democrats
Trump says Musk will face 'very serious consequences' if he funds Democrats

RNZ News

time4 hours ago

  • RNZ News

Trump says Musk will face 'very serious consequences' if he funds Democrats

By Nandita Bose , Reuters Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Photo: Brendan Smialowski / AFP Donald Trump said on Saturday there would be " serious consequences " if Elon Musk funded US Democrats running against Republicans who vote for the president's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill and said his relationship with his billionaire donor was over. In a telephone interview with NBC News, Trump declined to say what those consequences would be, and went on to add that he had not had discussions about whether to investigate Musk . Asked if he thought his relationship with the Tesla and SpaceX CEO was over, Trump said, "I would assume so, yeah." "No," Trump told NBC when asked if he had any desire to repair his relationship with Musk. Musk and Trump began exchanging insults this week, as Musk denounced Trump's bill as a "disgusting abomination". Musk's opposition to the measure was complicating efforts to pass the bill in Congress, where Republicans hold a slim majority in the House of Representatives and Senate. The bill narrowly passed the House last month and is now before the Senate, where Trump's fellow Republicans are considering making changes. Nonpartisan analysts estimate the measure would add $2.4 trillion (NZ$4 trillion) to the US debt over 10 years. Trump said on Saturday he was confident the bill would get passed by the US July 4 Independence Day holiday. "In fact, yeah, people that were, were going to vote for it are now enthusiastically going to vote for it, and we expect it to pass," Trump told NBC. Musk had deleted some social media posts critical of Trump, including one that signalled support for impeaching the president, appearing to seek a de-escalation of their public feud, which exploded on Thursday. Trump late on Friday suggested a review of federal government contracts held by Musk. People who have spoken to Musk said his anger had begun to recede and they think he would want to repair his relationship with Trump. - Reuters

Why the Musk and Trump relationship is breaking down
Why the Musk and Trump relationship is breaking down

RNZ News

time16 hours ago

  • RNZ News

Why the Musk and Trump relationship is breaking down

By Geoff Beattie* of Elon Musk and US President Donald Trump. Photo: Brendan Smialowski / AFP It is not a good break-up. These were always two big beasts used to getting their own way. Two alpha males, if you like the evolutionary metaphor, trying to get along. And now the Donald Trump and Elon Musk relationship is in meltdown. Who could forget that iconic image from just a few short weeks back? Elon Musk standing behind the seated US president, Donald Trump, in the Oval Office, towering over him. Trump, his hands clasped, having to turn awkwardly to look up at him. That silent language of the body. Musk accompanied by his four-year-old, a charming and informal image, or that great evolutionary signal of mating potential and dominance, depending on your point of view. These were also clearly two massive narcissistic egos out in their gleaming open-top speedster. Musk was appointed special advisor to Trump, heading the Department of Government Efficiency, cutting excess and waste. The backseat driver for a while. There were a lot of bureaucratic casualties already, road kill at the side of the highway as the sports car roared on with frightening speed. But things were always going to be difficult if they hit a bump in the road. And they did. Perhaps, more quickly than many had imagined. There were differing views on what caused the crash. Many pointed to the dramatic fall in Tesla's sales - a 71 percent fall in profits in one quarter - and the inevitable impact on Musk's reputation. Since the break-up, Tesla's share price has also dropped sharply], as investors have panicked. The attacks on Tesla showrooms couldn't have helped either. Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate. Others pointed to Trump's proposed removal of the tax credit for owners of electric vehicles, or the political backlash in Washington over Space X's potential involvement in Trump's proposed "golden dome" anti-missile defence system. However, according to former White House strategist Steve Bannon, what really caused the crash was when the president refused to show Musk the Pentagon's attack plans for any possible war with China. There's only so far being the president's best buddy can get you. Bannon is reported as saying: "You could feel it. Everything changed." That, according to Bannon, was the beginning of the end. So now we watch Trump and Musk stumbling away from the crash scene. One minute Trump is putting on a show for the cameras. He's beaming away and introducing the "big, beautiful bill", a budget reconciliation bill that rolls together hundreds of controversial proposals. Next, he is accusing Musk of "going crazy" and talking about withdrawing government contracts from the Musk empire. Musk is unhappy too. "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," he wrote on X. "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong." He says he's disgusted by the bill . Disgust is one of the most primitive of all the emotions. A survival mechanism - you must avoid what disgusts you. He's social signalling here, alerting others, warning them that there's something disgusting in the camp. Musk is highly attuned to public perception, perhaps even more so than Trump (which is saying something). With his acquisition of X (formerly Twitter), Musk was able to direct (and add to) online discourse, shaping public conversations. Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle? Psychologically, Musk's rejection of Trump is an attempt to simultaneously elevate himself and diminish the man behind the bill. He can call out the president's action like nobody else. He is positioning himself anew as that free thinker, that risk taker, innovative, courageous, unfettered by any ties. That is his personality, his brand - and he's reasserting it. But it's also a vengeful act. And it's perhaps reminiscent of another political insider (and geek), former Downing Street adviser Dominic Cummings, who was sacked by the then UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, in 2020. Cummings was accused of masterminding leaks about the social gatherings in Downing Street. He went on to criticise Johnson as lacking the necessary discipline and focus for a prime minister as well as questioning his competence and decision-making abilities. The revenge of a self-proclaimed genius. And revenge is sweet. In a 2004 study, researchers scanned participants' brains using positron emission tomography (PET) - a medical imaging technique that is used to study brain function (among other things) - while the participants played an economic game based on trust. When trust was violated, participants wanted revenge, and this was reflected in increased activity in the reward-related regions of the brain, the dorsal striatum. Revenge, in other words, is primarily about making yourself feel better rather than righting any wrongs. Your act may make you appear moral but it may be more selfish. But revenge for what here? That's where these big narcissistic egos come into play. Psychologically, narcissists are highly sensitive to perceived slights - real or imagined. Musk may have felt Trump was attempting to diminish his achievements for political gain, violating this pact of mutual respect. This kind of sensitivity can quickly transmogrify admiration into contempt. Contempt, coincidentally, is the single best predictor of a breakdown in very close relationships. Disgust and contempt are powerful emotions, evolving to protect us - disgust from physical contamination (spoiled food, disease), and contempt from social or moral contamination (betrayal, incompetence). Both involve rejection - disgust rejects something physically; contempt rejects something socially or morally. Musk may be giving it to Trump with both barrels here. Break-ups are always hard, they get much harder when emotions like these get intertwined with the process. But how will the most powerful man in the world respond to this sort of rejection from the richest man in the world? And where will it end? * Geoff Beattie is a Professor of Psychology at Edge Hill University in the United Kingdom. - This story first appeared in The Conversation

US-China chip export debate highlights risks for AI leadership
US-China chip export debate highlights risks for AI leadership

Techday NZ

timea day ago

  • Techday NZ

US-China chip export debate highlights risks for AI leadership

DeepSeek. TikTok. Taiwan. And a White House shake-up on AI rules. The spiralling US-China technology rivalry landed at the heart of Johns Hopkins University last week, as a panel of top experts and policymakers took to the stage to debate whether restricting exports of advanced semiconductors to China can help the US maintain its edge in the race for artificial intelligence. The discussion, hosted by Open to Debate in partnership with the SNF Agora Institute, comes at a critical time. In Washington, the Trump administration has announced plans to roll back the Biden-era AI Diffusion Rule and introduce new chip export controls targeting China – a move seen by many as a signal that the technology contest between the two superpowers is only intensifying. On one side of the Johns Hopkins debate were Lindsay Gorman, managing director at the German Marshall Fund's Technology Program, and former CIA officer and congressman Will Hurd. They argued the answer is yes: semiconductor controls can give the US a real advantage in the AI race. Gorman pointed to DeepSeek, a Chinese AI model whose CEO has publicly lamented the impact of advanced chip bans. "Money has never been the problem for us. Bans on shipments of advanced chips are the problem. And they have to consume twice the power to achieve the same results," she quoted, highlighting how China's AI advances still depend heavily on imported hardware. "The United States has significant hard computing power advantages – the ability to produce high-end chips, designed specifically for training AI models," Gorman told the audience. She argued that, together with its allies, the US controls a "strategic choke point" on computing power. "Properly implemented controls can have an effect and also have an increasing and compounding effect over time in retarding China's AI advantages and giving the United States a head start," she explained. Will Hurd, who also served on OpenAI's board before running for US president, compared the AI contest to the nuclear arms race. "Artificial intelligence is the equivalent of nuclear fission. Nuclear fission controlled gives you nuclear power… uncontrolled, nuclear weapons can kill everybody," he said. Hurd emphasised the importance of first-mover advantage, warning that the US cannot afford to lose its technological lead. He also highlighted a lack of reciprocity in the tech relationship between the two countries. "Chinese companies like Baidu, DJI, and TikTok operate freely in the US, but American companies are not allowed to operate in China," Hurd pointed out. "If there was a level of reciprocity between our two countries, we wouldn't be here having this debate about chip controls." Yet, on the opposing side, former senior US diplomat Susan Thornton and technology strategist Paul Triolo insisted the US could not outpace China in AI simply by tightening export controls. Triolo argued that the controls are "not working and will not lead to US dominance in AI", describing them as a blunt instrument that creates confusion for industry and disrupts global supply chains. "Most experts believe that Chinese companies are only three months behind US leaders in developing advanced AI models," Triolo said, suggesting any technological gap is vanishingly slim. Thornton, who spent decades at the heart of US-China diplomacy, warned of unintended consequences. "The main thing we should be asking ourselves about this question… is what is the cost benefit of US policy actions?" she said. "We have to face the reality that China is already building AI… a third of the world's top AI scientists are Chinese. China is one third of the entire global technology market. So it's clearly a player." She cautioned that blocking China from critical technology could backfire, hurting US companies, alienating allies and raising the risks around Taiwan, the global centre of advanced chip manufacturing. "Certainly, the one thing we need to do is avoid going to war," Thornton warned. "Taiwan, the most sensitive issue in US-China relations, has now been dragged right into the middle of this AI issue because they're the place that produces all the cutting-edge chips that we're trying to control." Audience members pressed the panel on whether international collaboration on AI safety was possible, and whether the US could ever match China's data advantage, given the size of the Chinese population and its permissive data environment. Hurd conceded that "the US will always have less data because we have a little thing called civil liberties," but argued that superior algorithms and privacy-protective machine learning could level the playing field. For Triolo, the dynamic nature of the technology means that attempts to wall off China are self-defeating. "There are many ways to get to different ends. The controls have forced Chinese companies to work together, develop innovations, and become more competitive both domestically and globally," he said. Gorman, in closing, rejected what she called "a defeatism that says America can't out-compete China or slow its progress". "Our companies are doing well. There isn't an issue here with demand, it's with supply. Doing better means that we have to throw what we can at this problem now with a smart application of tools," she argued. But Thornton had the last word, urging caution. "Making the AI competition with China a zero-sum game, not only will not work, it is dangerous," she said. "We should focus on the things that are going to matter to our children and their children, which is the long-term AI competition, which if not constrained and bounded by international agreements and by cooperation among countries… it'll be a very dangerous world."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store