'Russia's Pearl Harbor' Fuels Fears Over Chinese Cargo Ships at US Ports
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Sunday's Ukrainian drone ambush on a Russian airbase more than 3,000 miles from the front lines has intensified a growing debate among U.S. military analysts over the plausibility of a similar attack launched from Chinese merchant vessels docked at American ports.
The scenario has drawn scrutiny from lawmakers and security analysts alike following confirmation that COSCO Shipping—China's state-owned shipping giant—operates across key U.S. ports, despite being designated by the Department of Defense as a Chinese military company. At issue is whether drones or cruise missiles could be hidden in shipping containers aboard these vessels, activated remotely or after offloading, and used in a preemptive strike.
"This is a very plausible form of attack in the U.S.," said Bryan Clark, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a former U.S. Navy officer. "But the attack would need to overcome several challenges," he told Newsweek.
"The drones need to get out of the container, and that's hard to control aboard a ship. A more feasible approach would be to deploy the drones from a container once it's offloaded and moved on a truck."
In this image taken from video released June 1, 2025, by a source in the Ukrainian Security Service shows a Ukrainian drone striking Russian planes deep in Russia's territory.
In this image taken from video released June 1, 2025, by a source in the Ukrainian Security Service shows a Ukrainian drone striking Russian planes deep in Russia's territory.
AP
Retired Navy commander Thomas Shugart, now a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, has voiced a more urgent warning.
"It is becoming borderline-insane that we routinely allow ships owned and operated by DoD-designated Chinese military companies to sit in our ports with thousands of containers onboard and under their control," Shugart said in a conversation with Newsweek.
Shugart said the concept isn't speculative—it mirrors Chinese military writings. "Their Science of Campaigns is full of references to 'sudden' and 'surprise' strikes," he said, referring to a core text that Chinese military officers are expected to study.
"They explicitly discuss hitting first, especially against what they call the 'powerful entity,' which is clearly a reference to the United States."
The concerns are not just theoretical. In January, members of the House Committee on Homeland Security asked the U.S. Coast Guard for a classified briefing, citing COSCO's access to "major U.S. ports" and warning of risks including "espionage, cyber intrusions, sabotage, and supply chain disruptions," according to a letter sent in January.
Vulnerabilities Can Be Exploited
Zak Kallenborn, a researcher of drone and asymmetric warfare, acknowledged the technical possibility but questioned the timing. "A similar Chinese drone attack is definitely plausible and worth worrying about," he told Newsweek. "However, a Chinese attack is unlikely to come completely out of the blue. If China were to do this, we'd likely already be at war."
Shipping containers, including those from COSCO, a Chinese state-owned shipping and logistics company await transportation on a rail line at the Port of Long Beach on July 12, 2018 in Long Beach, California.
Shipping containers, including those from COSCO, a Chinese state-owned shipping and logistics company await transportation on a rail line at the Port of Long Beach on July 12, 2018 in Long Beach, California.
FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images
Still, the lessons from Ukraine's recent drone strike on Russian airfields linger heavily in the minds of U.S. analysts and war planners grappling with the warp-speed progress of battlefield technological advancements like drone warfare. The operation on Sunday exposed how even hardened military targets can be neutralized by low-cost drones—deep inside a nuclear-armed adversary's territory where an enemy's conventional air power would be difficult to penetrate.
For some of these experts, it raised uncomfortable parallels to U.S. vulnerabilities.
Shugart said the U.S. shouldn't assume distance offers safety. "We've hardened some overseas air bases," he said. "But we still park billion-dollar aircraft in the open on our own soil. That's a risk."
According to a March report from the Atlantic Council, China has developed and demonstrated containerized missile and drone platforms that can be covertly transported aboard commercial vessels. The report warned these systems could enable Beijing to establish "a covert way to establish anti-access/area denial nodes near major maritime choke points."
A Regulatory Blindspot
Ukraine's Operation Spiderweb demonstrated how swarms of inexpensive, off-the-shelf drones—slightly modified to carry explosives and smuggled in wooden containers to be deployed remotely—can inflict billions of dollars in damage on strategic military assets, including long-range bombers. The contrast has fueled criticism of more traditional defense approaches, such as President Donald Trump's proposed "Golden Dome" missile shield, which analysts say may be poorly matched to emerging low-cost threats.
What if I told you that as I type this there was a vessel, associated with the Chinese PLA, that *could* be equipped with many dozens of anti-ship cruise missiles—and was parked less than 4 miles from the bulk of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet.
Well guess what: it's happening—for real. pic.twitter.com/uMys3ZG4Sv — Tom Shugart (@tshugart3) August 22, 2024
The regulatory environment surrounding drones is also a major factor in the growing risk, experts say. "We don't have a drone transportation and logistics system," military theorist John Robb wrote on X. "The FAA strangled it in the crib a decade ago. If the FCC had regulated the internet the way we've handled drones, we'd still be using AOL."
Robb advocates for a national drone framework with built-in security measures: "Monitoring, kill switches, no-fly zones, hardware and software rules, maintenance requirements, and corporate certification."
In Congress, lawmakers continue to press the Coast Guard to ensure more stringent vetting of foreign vessels, crew members and cargo. "The vetting process must be consistent and comprehensive across all U.S. ports," the Homeland Security Committee wrote in its January request. The committee also raised concerns about Chinese political officers allegedly embedded aboard COSCO vessels, which it argued underscores direct Chinese Communist Party influence over ostensibly commercial operations.
For analysts like Clark, the technology is only part of the equation. The more pressing concern is readiness.
"If China believes it can use relatively small drones to cause major damage, and we've done nothing to detect or deter it, that's a vulnerability we can't afford to ignore," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
15 minutes ago
- Politico
Royal letters, famous golfers and rehearsed pitches: The tips and tricks to a successful Trump meeting
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer came carrying a signed letter from the king. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa brought along two golf champs. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney repeatedly practiced his elevator pitch ahead of his Oval Office meeting On Thursday, it's German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's turn to meet with President Donald Trump. Ahead of his first White House visit, the German press has offered some unsolicited advice: lean into their shared affinity for golf. Numerous foreign leaders have invested heavily in the choreography of a face-to-face with the U.S. president. The meetings, which U.S. officials have downplayed as 'just another world leader coming to visit,' come with huge stakes at home and abroad for those leaders. How to handle a mercurial American president prone to ambushing his guests requires unique preparation. 'How to survive your Trump meeting,' as an American lobbyist who advises foreign governments calls it, has become a cottage industry for lobbyists, consultants and national security experts in Washington. That's according to interviews with a dozen government officials, diplomats and advisers. Most of these officials were granted anonymity to speak openly about how foreign governments manage Trump. Even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his team prepared assiduously, hearing from key Republicans on Capitol Hill what amounted to a 'Trump 101' crash course on how to engage with the president, according to three congressional staffers and two other people briefed on the matter. That now infamous meeting went off the rails anyway — exponentially increasing the anxiety of other world leaders about taking part in Trump's newest reality show, an unscripted Oval Office get-to-know-you session featuring several Cabinet officials and playing out live before the White House press corps and broadcast instantly around the world. The Zelenskyy meeting 'was a real 'oh shit' moment for other leaders,' said one senior U.S. congressional aide familiar with the planning that went into that meeting. 'They saw this public gauntlet they'd have to run. How do I avoid the Dumpster fire Zelenskyy fell into?' Managing Trump is nothing new for foreign leaders who saw how the U.S. president operated during his first term. But the efforts to coddle a lifelong public performer, who can shift quickly from charming to contentious, have intensified since Trump took office for the second time in January, noticeably more confident and far less restrained in his approach to the job. 'What Zelenskyy went through was a huge lesson learned for other world leaders. Without a doubt, everyone's been studying that really closely,' said another American who engages with the Ukrainian government on how to manage U.S. ties. Japan's new prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, the second head of state invited to the White House after Trump's inauguration, prepared for his early February visit by studying graphics showing Japan as the top foreign investor in the U.S. and brainstorming with aides about what demands Trump might make, Ishiba's aides said at the time. When asked by reporters during his Oval Office sit-down what he thought of the president, Ishiba said, through a translator, that Trump's television career made him 'intimidating' but that he was 'powerful' and 'sincere' in person. Carney, whose condemnations of Trump's bullying '51st State' rhetoric propelled his Liberal coalition to an unlikely electoral victory this spring, spoke with several official and informal advisers in the run-up to his post-election White House visit in early May. One person who spoke with the prime minister, granted anonymity to discuss the private conversation, said they counseled him to distill his message into a couple clear phrases and repeat them as needed. 'With Trump, you want to make sure there is one core sentence, even two to three core sentences you are going to find a way to get out no matter what,' the person who advised Carney continued. 'And you don't need to talk that much. Let him speak.' Carney followed the advice, emphasizing that Canada was 'not for sale' but that the two countries were 'stronger when they work together.' It proved effective in lowering the temperature: Trump complimented Carney's initial statement and, shortly after the prime minister left the White House, described the conversation as a 'great meeting' with 'no tension.' The person said they gave the same advice to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre before his White House visit in late April.'The reason the Zelenskyy meeting went so badly was Zelenskyy was trying to spar like an equal,' they said. 'That is not allowed in the meeting.' The risk of entering Trump's lion's den can be worth the reward for world leaders. Trump pared back his musings of acquiring Canada as a 51st state after the meeting with Carney. Finnish President Alexander Stubb, who traveled to Mar-a-Lago in late March just to play a round of golf with Trump, later convinced the U.S. president to reverse a decision on building icebreakers and purchase those ships from Finland. South Africa's Ramaphosa, who similarly tried to connect with Trump over golf by bringing South African golfers Retief Goosen and Ernie Els with him to the White House, received a harsher treatment. Trump, eager to highlight unfounded allegations about a 'genocide' targeting South Africa's white farmers, turned down the lights and played on a television wheeled into the Oval an unsourced video of what he said were gravesites. Forced into a defensive posture, Ramaphosa expressed uncertainty about the scenes depicted but did not directly criticize Trump, even as he tried to dispel the notion that a genocide was occuring. However awkward his meeting, the South African leader, unlike Zelenskyy months earlier, managed to avoid a bigger blow-up. Brian Clow, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's top adviser during Trump's first term and the early days of the ongoing trade war, revealed the blueprint for dealing with the president. 'Even if Trump says some outrageous things, you've got to choose if you're going to interject or disagree — because it may be counterproductive in the long term if you get into too much of a back and forth.' Translation: don't get Zelenskyy-ed. Clow's next piece of advice: vibes matter. 'You've got to prepare for the overall tone and approach that you want to take,' Clow said. 'That can be just as important as the policy issues.' He suggested calling up the White House in advance, Clow said: 'Scope out how conversations might go, what could come up. That can actually influence how the meeting itself goes.' But preparation can only go so far with a U.S. president famous for unpredictability, Clow said. In March, Trump raised an obscure 1908 border treaty with Trudeau as he mused about erasing the border between the two countries. Trudeau was forced to deflect ian the moment. The big takeaway: 'Tread carefully,' Clow advised anybody who walks into the Oval Office. 'This is Trump's show, and you've got to let him do his thing.'
Los Angeles Times
15 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What ‘China shock'? Trade didn't wreck the U.S. economy
When Donald Trump first campaigned in 2016, he capitalized on a potent narrative: that China's rise gutted American manufacturing, leaving countless blue-collar communities devastated. Known now as the 'China shock,' that idea paved the way for a dramatic resurgence in protectionism, culminating in sweeping tariffs including Trump's controversial 'Liberation Day' duties. Yet we continue to learn just how shaky the theory's foundations are. Pioneered by economists David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson, the China shock trope suggests that American regions heavily exposed to Chinese imports suffered significantly greater job losses than did less-exposed areas. Populists seized upon it to argue that China's 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization caused millions of job losses in the U.S. and social disintegration. But a theory's easy and outsized application to policy does not settle questions about its accuracy. That's what American Enterprise Institute scholar Scott Winship wanted to determine in a recent comprehensive review that set out to prove whether the China shock reduced American manufacturing employment. By examining alternative studies and methodological adjustments, Winship contends that the negative effects of trade with China have been significantly exaggerated and that populist narratives blaming this trade for U.S. economic decline aren't supported by rigorous evidence. The originators of China shock examined how Chinese imports affected certain U.S. locales compared with others — not with the entire country — based on initial industry composition and employment size. By these metrics, areas heavily exposed to Chinese imports showed disproportionately worse manufacturing job losses. However, Winship points out that even if we accept these estimates, the findings suggest only relatively modest employment effects. To put things in perspective, Winship gives the example of two hypothetical commuting zones with 200,000 working-age residents and 20,000 manufacturing workers. Data from the theory's proponents indicate that moving from low (10th percentile) to high (90th percentile) exposure to Chinese imports would result in a loss of roughly 2,700 manufacturing jobs — just a 1.4 percentage point drop in overall manufacturing employment. While significant, this does not convincingly explain the community decline, social disruption, and populist backlash often blamed specifically on Chinese trade. In addition, Winship flags multiple methodological issues. Once other economists revised the proponents' methods, the estimated negative impact shrank dramatically. Various follow-up studies found the China shock effect on manufacturing employment to be 50% smaller than initially claimed. Further research revealed that job losses in exposed areas were often offset or even outweighed by employment gains in other sectors. One detailed Census Bureau study even found that firms with greater Chinese import exposure increased manufacturing employment, reallocating jobs to more efficient domestic production lines enabled by cheaper imports. Moreover, the steady decline in U.S. manufacturing employment began decades before China's WTO entry. Between the late 1970s and 2000, factory employment had already decreased substantially, mostly because of technological advances and shifting consumer demand. Notably, there was no sudden acceleration of this decline after China joined the WTO. The rate of manufacturing job losses remained consistent with earlier trends, undermining claims that Chinese trade uniquely devastated American manufacturing. Furthermore, former manufacturing workers generally did not face permanent unemployment. In fact, unemployment rates among this group were lower in recent years compared to the late 1990s, before the peak of Chinese imports. Many workers transitioned successfully into other sectors, belying the notion of an enduring displacement crisis. It's also worth noting that there are around a half of a million unfilled manufacturing jobs today. Despite these realities, the exaggerated narrative persists as a political force. Trump's tariffs — taxes on American consumers raising prices on everyday goods from cars to clothing — have greatly increased economic uncertainty. American manufacturers reliant on imported components face higher input costs, dampening their competitiveness and causing unintended layoffs. In fact, evidence from Trump's first term showed that his tariffs often hurt American firms more than their foreign competitors. With broader and higher tariffs, we can only fear the worst. Instead of doubling down on tariffs and isolation, we need to empower U.S. workers to adapt to economic changes, whether caused by trade or economic downturn. Economists have shown that to the extent that workers sometimes don't recover from shocks, it tends to be a failure to adjust because of obstacles erected by government. Winship's critical reassessment of the China shock clarifies the actual, limited role Chinese imports have played in manufacturing-employment trends. The real 'shock' America faces in 2025 is not from Chinese imports, but from a resurgence of misguided protectionism based on a misdiagnosed problem. The path forward harnesses trade's real benefits rather than chasing economic illusions. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.
16 minutes ago
Trump directs DOJ, White House counsel to investigate Biden's mental state in office
President Donald Trump ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether former President Joe Biden's administration sought to conspire to cover up his mental state while in office, prompting a response from Biden. "Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency," Biden said in a statement. "I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false." The move by the White House represents a significant escalation from the White House, as it is a directive to the Justice Department to formally investigate. It goes beyond the review into Biden's last-minute pardons before leaving office Biden responded to Trump's memo to Bondi and the Department of Justice, calling an investigation "nothing more than a mere distraction" and defending his decision-making ability. In a statement he says any suggestion he was not in control is "ridiculous and false." "This is nothing more than a distraction by Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans who are working to push disastrous legislation that would cut essential programs like Medicaid and raise costs on American families, all to pay for tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations," Biden said in a statement sent to ABC News. The president directed the U.S.'s top law enforcement official, in coordination with his White House counsel, to investigate "the circumstances surrounding Biden's supposed execution of numerous executive actions during his final years in office," according to a statement from the White House.
