The 10 largest U.S. ports showed a 6.6% year over year decrease with inbound volume in September. This comes after August’s 0.2% increase and July’s 3.2% increase, both significantly buoyed by frontloading to get goods in prior to additional tariffs going into effect. Prior to that, there were decreases of 8.3% in June and 6.6% in May. Total outbound volume in September was up 0.5% and comes after a 0.5% decrease in August.
Inbound In-depth
The 6.6% year over year decrease in total inbound volume in September was a sharp contrast to the year ago gain of 12.2% in September 2024. The actual trailing three-month inbound numbers showed total inbound volume in September decreasing 1.0%, the fourth straight negative reading of that metric in 23 months as the 19 months that came before were all positive. The September figure was a temporary reprieve in that measure due to frontloading and that metric was generally in a downward trend for most of 2025. The trailing six-month figure in September was down 1.5%, below the 1.3% gain in August and the 2.0% gain in July and the tenth straight month of a declining trendline. The trailing 12-month figure for September was up 4.4%, below 6.1% in August and 7.7% in July and the seventh straight month of that metric dropping. By the end of the year, I expect all of these measures to be negative and show downtrends that will continue well into most of 2026.
September’s overall inbound volume of 2,025,255 TEU’s was sequentially 8.7% below August. The sequential decrease last September was just 2.1% and that is another factual indication that August volume was buttressed by frontloading that distorted more typical seasonal swings.
Ports with the strongest September performance were Savannah (up 2.1%), New York (down 1.8%) and Long Beach (down 6.9%). The weakest performance during September came in at Seattle/Tacoma (down 22.0%), Norfolk (down 11.6%) and Charleston (down 8.0%).
Full-Year, Inbound Outlook
The full year 2024 saw a 15.2% increase in total inbound loads to the U.S. compared to 2023.
The National Retail Federation latest estimate is that 2025 will end with total inbound container volume being 3.4% less than 2024. When you go through the relevant numbers, that translates into the last four months of 2025 being down 15.7% compared to the same four months in 2024.
In a September 17 presentation reviewing the August performance at the Port of Los Angeles, which had inbound volume decreasing 1.0%, the port director stated they expected inbound volume in September to be down 10% compared to the same month last year. As it turned out, the inbound volume for Los Angeles was only down 7.6% in September. That does not change my view that we will soon begin to consistently see double-digit percentage drops at most U.S. ports in the months ahead.
The CTS data is compiled based on shipment date and the loads show as an export at one place and an import at another place. There is no timing difference in the CTS data and that framework can have it out of synch with port data that is based on actual shipment and arrival dates. As such, the CTS data for a given month includes loads that will actually arrive one or even two months later. When the data is followed closely, that can have the CTS data telegraphing volume trends. For instance, the August CTS data for imports to North America shows a decline of 9.9%, yet another indication that inbound volume to the U.S. that represents the majority of loads to North America is moving in a downward direction.
Keep in mind that recent significant drops of inbound volume coming from China are occurring even though the reciprocal tariffs related to China have been paused until mid-November. If and when those tariffs are implemented, it is highly likely that they would lead to broader declines related to inbound containers to the U.S. from China. Such tariffs would inevitably be retaliated with tariff increases by China and the volume impact in both directions of what is still by far the largest container trade lane involving the U.S. could be significant.
Outbound In-depth
Export containers over-performed import boxes from mid-2022 to late 2023, but since then have shown erratic moves that have been in a general downtrend with the longer-term metrics. Overall outbound volume was up 0.5% in September, compared to a 0.5% decrease in August and a 2.0% increase in July. Twenty-two of the last 38 months have shown increases following 14 straight months of decreases. The trailing 12-month figure showed a 1.6% decrease in September, extending on the August decrease of 1.4% and the July decrease of 0.8%. September’s decrease was the fourth straight negative measure for the outbound 12-month metric in 31 months. That longer term metric has also been in a downtrend for 10 straight months.
With outbound volume up 0.5% and inbound volume down 6.7%, the 720-basis point directional gap in favor of outbound in September was the reverse of August and July that had inbound ahead by 70 and 120 basis points. Both months were themselves the reverse of June and May with directional gaps of 650 and 430 basis points also in favor of outbound. These three months with outbound performing better were the only recent months where the gap was in favor of outbound. They followed 19 months where the gap consistently favored inbound, which is what the actual data typically shows. September was in stark contrast with the average 710 basis point gap by which inbound growth has exceeded outbound growth over the last 62 months.
With exports, only 23 of the last 67 months have shown year over year gains, with a 1.6% average monthly decline over the period. While total inbound loads this September were 13.5% above what they were six years ago during September 2019 for a 2.1% CAGR, total outbound loads were 6.7% less for a negative 1.2% CAGR. That 330-basis point difference in directional growth rates over a six-year period is a noteworthy divergence in the overall performance of exports compared to imports over the same period. The September metric was below the 510-basis point difference in August and 570-basis point difference in July.
Freights Prices
The CTS global pricing index, the definitive measure of overall sector pricing, has come out for August and at the level of 81, it was 3.6% below the July level of 84. The August index brought the actual trailing three-month average to 83.7, or 2.7% below the actual 1Q25 average of 86.0 and 3.7% above the actual 2Q25 average of 80.7. I view the spike in the June CTS global pricing index as an anomaly driven by temporary capacity issues related to frontloading from tariffs and the downward bias in pricing has returned. From its recent monthly peak level of 118 in July 2024, before the June spike the global pricing index has been generally declining since then. That July 2024 peak itself resulted from an uptrend since the November 2023 level of 69 and is largely a result of the Red Sea situation.
Note that the CTS global pricing index uses actual 2008 rates as the base set to 100 and they are not inflation adjusted. That level of 69 was the lowest monthly reading over the last five years and approximates where the index was consistently prior to the pandemic. That overall non-inflation adjusted pricing today is less than it was decades ago is another indication that speaks volumes about the cost efficiency of container shipping. The CTS global pricing index level and trend is the most credible measure of sector pricing and the most relevant pricing index to use in any projection of industry results. My quarterly financial reports will continue to be focused on the latest actual industry results but going forward will include more summary projections.
The SCFI began trending down last December and, except for a summer bump due to frontloading that dissipated, has continued to contract. The latest SCFI reading of 1403 on October 24 is 5.3% below the 3Q25 level of 1481 and 14.7% below the average 2Q25 level of 1645. In the last month, however, the index has increased 25.8% from a reading of 1115 on September 26 which was the lowest the SCFI has been since 12/15/23 when it was at 1094. Note that the late 2023 reading was towards the end of the quarter where the industry reported a small loss as the pandemic effect had ended and it was just before the Red Sea situation provided another notable capacity situation that would sharply push up industry results. What has been pushing up spot rates most recently is capacity reduction in the form of the largest number of cancelled sailings seen since the early days of the pandemic. This is driven by the reduced shipment volume that is occurring as a direct result of the tariffs and other initiatives such as the USTR ship fees. This is another indication of the downward trajectory in container volume that will become apparent in the months ahead.
Global Perspective
The gap between U.S. and worldwide container movements favoring the former that was evident in 2024 narrowed in early 2025 and has now gone away completely and inverted in a pronounced way. From being well ahead of the rest of world, the U.S. is now well behind the rest of the world
Worldwide data is just through August as that is the latest month available from CTS. The worldwide volume growth of 2.7% in August was well ahead of volume growth measures in the U.S. that had inbound volume up 0.2% and total volume unchanged at 0.0%. That gap is guaranteed to grow and widen in the months ahead.
In my view, it is incumbent on policymakers and those involved with economic policy to better understand the actual and relative container volume trends now occurring and what they are saying and telegraphing about U.S. tariff policy.
Inventory Snapshot
The Census Bureau would have normally released the business inventories data for August by now, but that factual benchmark information has been delayed as a result of the federal government shutdown. The latest actual data is from July. Between it and the June data, I can see at most some $20 billion in frontloading effect from getting containers in earlier. While that sounds like a meaningful impact, relative to the value of inbound containers over that period it is still just a high single digit percent of those containers.
Shifting Port Traffic
September’s overall inbound volume was 2.2% above that 62-month average. East/Gulf Coast ports were 0.4% above their 62-month average while West Coast ports were 4.0% above their average. Those respective changes are another clear indication that the frontloading due to tariffs was focused on those ports closest to Asia as would be expected, as two-thirds of the boxes coming into the U.S. originate there.
The West Coast ports have outperformed the East/Gulf Coast ports in 19 of the last 26 months. Those seven months that were the exceptions, including the two most recent months, were a return to the period before the last 22 months that saw a streak of 26 straight months where the East/Gulf Coast ports out-performed West Coast ports.
September showed a 5.3 percentage point coastal gap favoring East/Gulf Coast ports based on a 9.1% decrease at West Coast ports compared to the 3.8% decrease at East/Gulf Coast ports. That was below the 10.0 percentage point advantage of East/Gulf Coast ports in August. Both September and August were a flip from the 7.2 and 1.8 percentage point coastal gaps favoring West Coast ports in July and June.
Impact of Government Shutdown
My own personal intersection with the tangible impact on supply chains of the federal government shutdown had me recalling one of the maritime related impacts from the long shutdown that lasted 35 days in 2018. As the shutdown grew longer, it had an increasingly detrimental effect on container dwell time at many ports. For instance, Los Angeles reported that average dwell times increased by 15-20% because of delays in customs and other federal agencies processing paperwork. While my understanding is that such work continues during the shutdown, the longer it goes on, the cash flow stress related to not getting regular paychecks invariably increases absenteeism and that slows down such processing.
Latest Developments on Tariffs & USTR Ship Fee Plan
The recent past has seen President Trump threaten to impose an additional 100% tariff on imports from China next month. One of the catalysts for the latest rhetoric was announcements by China on various retaliatory measures, including the imposition of its own set fees for U.S. affiliated ships that call on Chinese ports.
As we go to press, President Trump has announced that he is ending all trade negotiations with Canada, referencing a television ad it is running that he said misstates the facts. According to press reports, the ad involved President Reagan speaking negatively about tariffs. Canada is the largest destination for U.S. exports of goods and services. Earlier in the day, Canadian Prime Minister Carney announced plans to double exports to countries outside the U.S. because of the tariffs. It is hard to see countries taking the U.S. seriously with such erratic behavior by our president.
The USTR ship fee plan is targeted at ships built in China or operated by Chinese carriers and it went into effect on October 14. The scheduled fees will make it difficult to operate such ships in trade lanes involving the U.S. Days before those fees went into effect, China announced similar fees related to U.S. affiliated ships calling on its ports. While there are relatively few U.S. built ships or ships operated by U.S. based companies that will be affected, the major unknown is how a provision related to 25% U.S. ownership will be interpreted. In an expansive interpretation, that would include companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges as well as vessels where U.S. financial institutions have an interest. Under that interpretation, the impact would be quite significant.
Tariffs and the proposed USTR ship fee plan are moving container volume related to trade lanes involving the U.S. into unchartered waters. As those lanes account for more than one quarter of container miles worldwide, there will be a ripple effect that will be felt globally. The USTR plan is another form of a tariff but a blunter one that is targeted at ships either operated by Chinese carriers or ships built in China. It is too early to see the impact of the USTR ship fee plan or the countervailing plan by China, but either could result in a withdrawal of capacity that will put upward pressure on the shipping rates charged by carriers for loads into and out of the U.S.
The legal challenge to the reciprocal tariffs will now be heard by the Supreme Court in mid-November. Even if the highest court affirms that the reciprocal tariffs are illegal as I anticipate, they are not the only tariffs and there are other mechanisms that I expect will be utilized to accomplish similar goals. What seems clearer more than ever now is that in some form tariffs are here to stay at high and unprecedented levels at least through the end of the current administration. It is also becoming clear from the multiple angles at which tariffs are coming from that this is increasingly looking like an all out government attack on the concept of trade itself. That is unfortunate as real analysis backed up by history shows that the U.S. economy will suffer from these misguided actions.
My overall takeaway is that it is useful to think of the initial impacts from the tariffs and the USTR ship fee plan on a spectrum involving both commerce and inflation. The more one, the less the other and vice versa. The more inbound container volume to the U.S. declines, the more commerce and growth will be impacted but the less inflation we will get. The less inbound container volume to the U.S. declines, the more inflation we will get but the less commerce and growth will be impacted. There is just no good place to be on that spectrum.
This is an excerpt of the McCown Container Volume Observer, which features an exhaustive deep dive into the facts and figures behind U.S. container shipping volumes, including analysis of monthly trends by port and by direction. The observations and data in the 25-page report include some 20 graphs and tables, providing timely container volume and pricing information. To subscribe to The McCown Report, visit The McCown Report site.
About the author: John D. McCown is an internationally recognized shipping expert with over four decades of experience in the sector. He currently serves as a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Center for Maritime Strategy, the think tank of the Navy League. McCown was the co-founder and former CEO of U.S. flag container carrier Trailer Bridge, Inc. He also focused on the shipping and transportation industries from an investment perspective as the transport sector head at a $20 billion hedge fund.
