Connect with us

Non classé

A Volatile Year Ahead: Scenarios for Ocean Freight in 2025

Published

on

A Volatile Year Ahead: Scenarios for Ocean Freight in 2025

Judah Levine

December 17, 2024

Freightos was delighted to host its seventh annual FreighTech conference recently, bringing together leaders in What does 2025 hold in store for ocean freight? The answer to that question starts with a look back at the factors that impacted the market this year, combined with the underlying freight data from the past few years.

And depending on how those play out in 2025 we can sketch worst case and best case scenarios for the coming year, as well as what may be the most likely path the market takes in 2025.

You can check out our 2025 air cargo outlook here, or catch our recent 2025 Ocean and Air Outlook webinar here.

2024 – A(nother) volatile year for supply chains

The Red Sea crisis started at the end of 2023 and continued throughout 2024 impacting operations, freight rates and seasonal demand. Diversions around the Cape of Good Hope meant additional lead times of one to two weeks for Asia – Europe and Mediterranean shippers, and the capacity absorbed by longer journeys and additional vessels – as well as bouts of significant schedule disruptions and congestion at some Asian and European hubs – on these lanes pushed rates up across the container market.

Ex-Asia container rates tripled from December to January/February – up to nearly $5,000/FEU to the US West Coast and $5,500/FEU to Europe – as the start of the crisis coincided with the seasonal demand increase ahead of Lunar New Year. When demand eased in the spring these rates settled around $3,000/FEU, about double typical levels, as diversions continued to keep capacity constrained.

The Peak Season Impact

And with lead times likewise extended, peak season started and ended earlier than usual, pushing rates past the $8,000/FEU mark in July. For transpacific shippers, peak season was also pulled forward by shippers rushing to receive goods before an expected October ILA port worker strike, which ended after three days with both a new wage agreement and a January 15th deadline to resolve the role of port automation or face another strike.

National Retail Federation Q4 volume estimates in December were adjusted well above projections from two months prior as frontloading began ahead of the possibility of a new strike and tariff increases
Data source: National Retail Federation, Global Port Tracker

Tariff Expectations

The new strike deadline and a Trump victory in November meant stronger than expected Q4 US ocean imports – and container rates – as shippers once again frontloaded ahead of a possible strike and now also ahead of expected tariff increases during the second Trump Administration.

And for Asia – Europe shippers, rates started climbing again in November – much earlier than usual for pre-LNY demand – as importers must ensure they move all the inventory they need out of China before the holiday or risk a much longer than usual wait to receive goods after LNY due to continued Red Sea diversions.

The Bottom Line

All of these factors – Red Sea diversions, potential labor disruptions, and tariff threats – remain in play for 2025, with the potential for overcapacity in the market once Red Sea traffic resumes another wrinkle in the story.

Stay informed every single week with our free weekly freight update.

Subscribe now (free)

So what will 2025 look like? Three Potential Outcomes

Worst Case

Including: Continued Red Sea attacks, labor strikes, and increased tariffs.

If attacks on Red Sea traffic persist throughout the year, we should expect shippers – especially Asia – Europe – to continue to move freight earlier than usual impacting the timing of seasonal demand. And though lessons learned this year could mean lower levels of congestion and schedule disruptions, we should still expect freight rates to look very similar to those of 2024 as long as diversions continue.

For transpacific shippers, a prolonged East Coast and Gulf port labor strike in January would cause additional congestion and backlogs, and possibly diversions to the West Coast that would put additional pressure on freight rates from their already elevated starting point.

Transpacific ocean rates have been elevated throughout the year due to Red Sea diversions, but frontloading ahead of expected tariffs is already putting additional pressure on rates as 2025 approaches.

If President Trump persists in tariff threats, and if he follows through on his stated intentions – 60% tariffs on Chinese imports, a universal 10% – 20% on all imports and 25% on goods from Canada and Mexico – then freight rates will face additional pressure up until expectations change or tariffs go into effect.

Frontloading ahead of tariffs will mean higher ocean demand and rates ahead of the tariffs and lower volumes and rates afterwards. Typical seasonality could therefore be skewed as shippers make decisions based on when tariffs will go into effect and not on inventory needs around seasonal goods/spending patterns.

And a sharp increase in demand – if there proves to be only a small window before tariffs go into effect – could also lead to some congestion that would likewise put upward pressure on rates. Tariff increases could also mean some shift in container volumes away from China and toward alternatives like Vietnam and India.

Best Case

Variables: End to Red Sea crisis, labor strikes averted and tariffs emerge as primarily a negotiating tactic

If the ILA strike is averted or brief – which may be increasingly likely given President-elect Trump’s recent support for the union – transpacific and transatlantic shippers will avoid a potential source of significant disruption and possible rate spikes.

And if Trump’s tariff threats turn out to be more negotiating tools than policy early enough in the year, then the end to frontloading ahead of tariff hikes would restore typical seasonality to these markets, avoid additional container rate spikes, and provide a degree of certainty to the many trade lanes and businesses that would’ve been impacted by tariff changes.

Finally, an end to attacks in the Red Sea in 2025 would restore container traffic to this crucial lane. An adjustment period, possibly of several months, will follow and will include schedule disruptions, congestion and delays as services are reshuffled and reset. But afterwards, all the capacity that had been absorbed by the diversions will be released back into the market, restoring typical transit times and container flows, removing a key source of congestion and delays in 2024 and relieving pressure on freight rates.

An end to Red Sea diversions would certainly – after the adjustment period – let rates come down from the elevated levels seen in 2024, but the growing container fleet could also push the market into a state of significant over capacity. This may be considered a best case for some shippers in that this supply surge could lead to extremely low rates like those seen in late 2023 when prices dipped below $1k/FEU on some ex-Asia lanes.

Most likely: Somewhere in Between

Labor Strikes

Though of course not a certainty, incoming President Trump’s explicit support for the ILA, may make a strike – or at least a prolonged one – less likely than before this announcement. The USMX could of course resist, but after conceding in October to probably less government pressure than they could face in January, it may be more likely that the dispute will end before or soon after the 15th and probably more in the ILA’s favor.

Tariffs

Some US tariff increases will almost certainly go into effect at some point in 2025, though the process required for tariff changes will mean they likely won’t happen on January 20th but a month or two later at the earliest. They’ll probably also not take the exact form proposed by Trump until now as he’s already facing domestic and international opposition to these sweeping changes.

But assuming tariff increases will be announced with a runway of several months before they’re introduced – which was the case in 2018 (see our analysis of the impact of those tariff increases here and here) – we’ll likely see container demand skew to before their roll out with rates under more upward pressure in that period too.

Red Sea and capacity levels

In terms of the Red Sea, the Israel – Hamas war is the Houthi’s stated motivation for attacking passing vessels. And though some observers speculate that even once there is a Gaza ceasefire Houthi attacks could continue anyway, it is possible that diversions will end once the war ends. And developments in the region make an end to the war this year more likely than it was in 2024.

As noted above, restored Red Sea traffic will trigger a bumpy adjustment period, after which rates will decrease significantly from their elevated levels in 2024. And though significant overcapacity is possible, in a recent earnings call Maersk speculated that a sharp increase in vessel scrapping, offloading chartered vessels, slow steaming and effective use of blanked sailings will allow carriers to avoid a complete rate collapse even after the Red Sea crisis ends.

And despite the flurry of new vessel deliveries and fears of overcapacity, the orderbook continues to be strong, with a high level of new orders throughout this year, suggesting carriers are confident that the fleet can continue to grow without causing a rate collapse.

So rates will certainly normalize once Red Sea traffic resumes. If that coincides with a drop in demand because tariffs led to a significant pull forward earlier in the year, then it will be even more challenging for carriers to avoid loss-making rate levels. Some increased competition as the new alliances are introduced early in the year could also put extra downward pressure on rates. But it will remain to be seen when the Red Sea will reopen, and what that will mean for capacity levels and rates as a result.

So, yet again, it seems the ocean container market must start the new year with high levels of uncertainty as to what the near future holds.

Stay informed every single week with our free weekly freight update.

Get industry-leading insights in your inbox.

Judah Levine

Head of Research, Freightos Group

Judah is an experienced market research manager, using data-driven analytics to deliver market-based insights. Judah produces the Freightos Group’s FBX Weekly Freight Update and other research on what’s happening in the industry from shipper behaviors to the latest in logistics technology and digitization.

Put the Data in Data-Backed Decision Making

Freightos Terminal helps tens of thousands of freight pros stay informed across all their ports and lanes

The post A Volatile Year Ahead: Scenarios for Ocean Freight in 2025 appeared first on Freightos.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Federal Industrial Partnerships and Supply Chain Realignment Under the Trump Administration: Pharmaceuticals, Semiconductors, Critical Minerals, and Energy

Published

on

By

Federal Industrial Partnerships And Supply Chain Realignment Under The Trump Administration: Pharmaceuticals, Semiconductors, Critical Minerals, And Energy

In the months leading up to the 2026 midterm elections, the Trump administration has launched a broad initiative to negotiate agreements with companies across as many as thirty industries. According to reporting from Reuters and other outlets, these deals involve a range of mechanisms, including tariff relief, equity stakes, revenue guarantees, and regulatory adjustments.

The purpose of the initiative, according to administration officials, is to strengthen U.S. national and economic security by encouraging companies to expand production domestically, reduce reliance on China, and ensure the availability of critical products.

For logistics and supply chain leaders, this represents a significant change in the relationship between government and industry. Federal agencies are no longer simply regulators or supporters of infrastructure. They are becoming active participants in corporate strategy, investment, and supply chain design.

Structure of the Deals

The administration’s approach is not uniform. Each agreement varies depending on the sector and company involved. Examples include:

Pharmaceuticals: Eli Lilly was asked to expand insulin production, Pfizer was pressed to increase output of its cancer and cholesterol drugs, and AstraZeneca was encouraged to establish a new U.S. headquarters. In exchange, companies have been offered tariff relief or regulatory flexibility.
Semiconductors: A portion of grants provided under the CHIPS Act has been converted into equity stakes, including a reported 10 percent stake in Intel.
Critical Minerals: The Department of Defense took a 15 percent stake in MP Materials, secured a floor price for future government purchases, and facilitated a $500 million supply agreement between MP Materials and Apple for rare earth magnets.
Energy: The Department of Energy has asked companies such as Lithium Americas for equity stakes in exchange for federal loans supporting domestic mining and battery production.

The unifying theme is the use of federal leverage, such as tariffs, financing programs, or regulatory approvals, to secure commitments from private companies that align with stated national security objectives.

Agencies as Dealmakers

What distinguishes this initiative is the scale of inter-agency involvement. The White House has described the approach as “whole of government.”

The Department of Health and Human Services is leading negotiations in pharmaceuticals.
The Department of Commerce, under Secretary Howard Lutnick, has overseen transactions in steel, semiconductors, and industrial manufacturing.
The Department of Energy is linking financing programs to equity arrangements in energy and mining.
The Pentagon has led negotiations with defense contractors and suppliers of critical minerals.

Senior officials, including White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and supply chain coordinator David Copley, are directly involved in negotiations. The presence of Wall Street dealmakers, such as Michael Grimes (formerly of Morgan Stanley) and David Shapiro (formerly of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz), illustrates the administration’s transactional orientation.

Financing Mechanisms

The administration is using multiple sources of capital to finance these arrangements:

International Development Finance Corporation (DFC): Originally designed to support development projects abroad, the DFC has proposed expanding its budget authority from $60 billion to $250 billion. If approved by Congress, it would fund projects in infrastructure, energy, and critical supply chains within the U.S.
Investment Accelerator (Commerce Department): Seeded by $550 billion pledged by Japan as part of a bilateral trade agreement, this entity will direct capital into U.S. strategic sectors, serving as a replacement for an earlier proposal to establish a sovereign wealth fund.
Existing Programs: Agencies are repurposing funds from programs such as the CHIPS Act and Department of Energy loan guarantees, often converting grants into equity holdings.

Together, these mechanisms represent one of the largest coordinated federal interventions in U.S. industrial and supply chain development in recent decades.

Implications for Supply Chains

The administration’s policies carry several direct consequences for logistics and supply chain management.

1. Reshoring of Manufacturing

Many of the deals include explicit requirements for expanded U.S. production. This will increase demand for domestic transportation, warehousing, and distribution capacity. It also implies higher utilization of U.S. ports and intermodal corridors, as inputs shift from finished imports to raw materials and intermediate goods requiring processing inside the United States.

2. Critical Minerals and Energy Security

The focus on rare earths, lithium, and other inputs for advanced manufacturing indicates a restructuring of upstream supply chains. Logistics providers should expect increased flows from domestic mining regions, such as Nevada’s Thacker Pass lithium project, to processing and manufacturing centers. This represents a shift away from reliance on Asian supply hubs, particularly China.

3. Government as Stakeholder

Equity stakes and long-term purchase agreements create a different operating environment. Logistics providers serving these industries may find demand more stable due to government-backed contracts. However, these arrangements may also impose compliance requirements and reduce flexibility in adjusting supply networks.

4. Public-Private Coordination

Federal involvement in freight and industrial infrastructure financing could accelerate long-delayed projects. Rail expansion, port upgrades, and domestic warehouse capacity may benefit from this investment. Companies positioned to partner on these projects may see long-term opportunities.

Risks and Concerns

Several risks accompany this shift:

Policy Reversal: Executives have expressed concern that a future administration could unwind or renegotiate these deals. Supply chains built around government-backed agreements may face uncertainty if political priorities shift.
Equity Demands: Some companies are wary of ceding ownership stakes to the federal government. This creates hesitation in sectors where ownership control and investor confidence are sensitive.
Market Distortions: Critics argue that selecting which companies receive government support could disadvantage firms excluded from the arrangements, altering competitive dynamics within industries.
Implementation Capacity: The scale of proposed financing, particularly the expansion of the DFC, requires congressional approval and capable management. Delays or political opposition could slow execution.

Policy-to-Supply-Chain Impact Table

Policy Mechanism
Industry Example
Government Action
Supply Chain Impact

Tariff Relief
Pharmaceuticals (Pfizer, Eli Lilly)
Tariff exemptions in exchange for expanded U.S. production
Increases demand for domestic warehousing, distribution, and cold-chain logistics for added output

Equity Stakes
Intel (10% stake), MP Materials (15% stake)
Federal ownership through converted grants or Defense Production Act
Creates long-term stability in supply flows, but may add compliance requirements for logistics providers

Purchase Guarantees
MP Materials with Apple
Pentagon set floor prices, Apple committed to $500M supply contract
Locks in demand for rare earth shipments, increasing domestic transport flows from mining to manufacturing

Federal Loans Linked to Equity
Lithium Americas (DOE loan, 5–10% stake requested)
Loan support tied to partial government ownership
Supports new mining and battery projects, creating future logistics demand for raw materials and finished batteries

Investment Accelerator Funding
Commerce Department
$550B in financing, partly funded by Japan, allocated to U.S. manufacturing and freight infrastructure
Potential expansion of ports, intermodal rail, and distribution centers, reducing bottlenecks in supply chains

Expanded DFC Financing
Multiple critical industries
Proposed budget growth from $60B to $250B for U.S. supply chains and infrastructure
Large-scale capital for freight corridors, warehouses, and strategic materials, enabling reshoring of production

Case Examples

MP Materials

The rare earth mining company received federal backing through a 15 percent Pentagon stake, floor pricing commitments, and a supply agreement with Apple. This illustrates the administration’s template: equity participation, purchase guarantees, and private-sector co-investment.

Intel

The conversion of CHIPS Act funding into a 10 percent federal equity stake in Intel highlights the new approach to semiconductor supply chain security. By tying financial support to ownership, the government ensures both accountability and a direct role in strategic sectors.

Lithium Americas

A Department of Energy loan of $2.26 billion, paired with negotiations for a 5 to 10 percent federal equity stake, demonstrates how energy supply chains, particularly those tied to electric vehicles and batteries, are being secured through mixed financing and ownership arrangements.

Long-Term Outlook

The administration’s strategy marks a departure from the traditional U.S. model of private-sector–led industrial development. Instead, it resembles coordinated industrial policies pursued in other economies, though with American characteristics.

For supply chain professionals, this means that:

Government will play a larger role in shaping sourcing, production, and distribution decisions.
Access to federal financing and contracts will become a key factor in strategic planning.
Logistics infrastructure may receive substantial investment, creating new opportunities for providers.
Companies must assess political as well as market risks when designing long-term supply chains.

The Trump administration’s pre-midterm industrial deals reflect a significant realignment of government and industry roles in the United States. By leveraging tariffs, financing programs, and direct equity stakes, the federal government is reshaping supply chains across pharmaceuticals, energy, critical minerals, and freight.

The initiative is intended to secure domestic production, reduce reliance on China, and ensure access to strategic inputs. For logistics leaders, the result will be increased reshoring activity, new demand for domestic infrastructure, and closer integration of supply chains with federal priorities.

At the same time, risks remain. The durability of these arrangements depends on political continuity, effective implementation, and the willingness of companies to partner with government under new terms.

In this evolving environment, logistics and supply chain professionals will need to monitor policy developments as closely as they do market trends. Supply chains are no longer shaped solely by efficiency and cost considerations. They are now integral to the nation’s industrial strategy.

The post Federal Industrial Partnerships and Supply Chain Realignment Under the Trump Administration: Pharmaceuticals, Semiconductors, Critical Minerals, and Energy appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Supply Chain and Logistics News Sept 29 – Oct 2nd 2025

Published

on

By

Supply Chain And Logistics News Sept 29 – Oct 2nd 2025

This week in supply chain news, major companies are demonstrating a mix of strategic adaptations and responses to global pressures. ExxonMobil and Kinaxis are collaborating to develop a next-generation supply chain management solution specifically for the complex oil and gas industry, aiming to increase resilience and provide comprehensive visibility. In a push for network efficiency, FedEx has launched a new direct cargo flight between Dublin, Ireland, and Indianapolis, Indiana, bypassing congested coastal hubs to reduce transit times. The pharmaceutical sector is also focused on resilience, with Eli Lilly and Amgen announcing significant U.S. manufacturing investments to bring critical drug production back to North America. Conversely, General Mills is restructuring its supply chain by closing three manufacturing plants in Missouri as a cost-saving measure in response to changing consumer spending habits. Finally, the U.S. government is imposing new tariffs on imported wood products and furniture, effective October 14, 2025, in a move to address what it identifies as a threat to the domestic industry and supply chain security.

The News of the Week:

ExxonMobil and Kinaxis are Developing a Next-Generation Supply Chain Management Solution for Oil and Gas

The oil and gas industry supply chain is one of the most complex in the world. It involves myriad complex production assets both onshore and offshore, transporting highly volatile products around the globe through pipelines, tank farms, ports, ships, rail, and truck. The end product could be gasoline, petrochemicals, natural gas, hydrogen, or any of hundreds of products from asphalt to motor oil. Disruptions to the oil and gas supply chain can have serious consequences for end users. The industry needs more comprehensive supply chain solutions that increase resilience, provide complete visibility across all aspects of the supply chain, and enable swift responses to business challenges and opportunities. Kinaxis and Exxon are collaborating to digitalize various sectors of Exxon’s business. They aim to leverage Kinaxis’s Maestro software to enhance planning and decision-making processes. Through this collaboration, the two companies aim to share solutions tailored to the oil and gas industry, which currently lacks supply chain management solutions that cater to their specific needs.

FedEx Expands Global Air Network with New Dublin- Indianapolis Route

In an effort to shorten transit times and strengthen its international network, FedEx has launched a new direct cargo flight between Dublin, Ireland, and Indianapolis, Indiana. The new four-day-a-week service bypasses traditional, more congested coastal gateways, which is expected to reduce shipping times by a full day for goods moving between Ireland and the U.S. Midwest. This strategic expansion is a response to the growing trade between the two regions and demonstrates how major carriers are adapting their networks to create more direct and efficient routes to meet evolving customer demands.

Eli Lily and Amgen Announce Massive U.S. Manufacturing Investments

In a major push for domestic drug production, pharmaceutical giants Eli Lilly and Amgen have announced huge investments in new U.S. manufacturing facilities. Eli Lilly is planning a new $6.5 billion factory in Houston, while Amgen is expanding its Puerto Rico plant with a $650 million investment. These moves are a direct response to the global supply chain vulnerabilities exposed in recent years and represent a significant effort to boost the resilience of the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain. The investments aim to bring critical drug production back to North America, creating jobs and reducing reliance on overseas manufacturing.

General Mills is Closing Three Manufacturing Plants in Missouri

General Mills is closing three manufacturing plants in Missouri—a pizza crust facility in St. Charles and two pet food locations in Joplin—as part of a multiyear supply chain restructuring effort. The company expects to incur $82 million in restructuring charges, including asset write-offs and severance costs. This action is part of a broader trend among food and beverage companies to implement cost-saving measures in response to consumer spending pullbacks. The closures follow previous organizational actions by General Mills, such as job cuts and the closure of its innovation unit, and are intended to improve the company’s competitiveness.

US to Begin Furniture, Wood Import Tariffs on Oct. 14

New tariffs on imported wood products, including furniture, will take effect on October 14, 2025, following a Section 232 national security investigation. The initial duties will be 10% on softwood lumber and 25% on upholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets, and vanities. On January 1, the tariff rates are scheduled to increase to 30% for upholstered furniture and 50% for kitchen cabinets and vanities. The executive order provides for lower tariff caps for imports from specific trading partners, such as the U.K., Japan, and the European Union. These new tariffs are intended to address what the administration has identified as a threat to domestic industry and supply chain security.

Song of the week:

The post Supply Chain and Logistics News Sept 29 – Oct 2nd 2025 appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Call for Speakers: Ready to Drive Real Change in Intelligent Operations and Resilient Supply Chains – ARC Industry Forum 2025

Published

on

By

Call For Speakers: Ready To Drive Real Change In Intelligent Operations And Resilient Supply Chains – Arc Industry Forum 2025

Call for Speakers – ARC Industry Forum 2025

The ARC Industry Forum is the premier event where operations, supply chain, and technology leaders gather to shape the future of intelligent and resilient enterprises. In 2025, supply chains face unprecedented disruption, but also unmatched opportunity. We are seeking speakers—executives, practitioners, and innovators—who can share strategies, frameworks, and real-world experiences to inspire and guide their peers.

Sample Session Themes

To help illustrate the types of topics we feature, here are a few recent examples:

The New Frontier of Operations and Supply Chain: AI, Resilience, and Intelligence – Exploring how AI, analytics, automation, and connected intelligence converge to deliver agility and resilience.
Building Resilient Supply Chains in the Age of Shifting Geopolitics – Addressing the regulatory, tariff, and policy challenges facing global supply networks.
Unlocking the Power of Knowledge Transfer in Enterprise Systems – Showcasing best practices to fully leverage enterprise and knowledge management systems.

These examples are only a sample of the many tracks available. Additional sessions will cover digital transformation, sustainability, cybersecurity, workforce strategies, and other timely topics.

Submission Guidelines

We invite proposals that highlight real-world case studies, practical lessons, and strategic frameworks. Presentations should be vendor-neutral, educational, and tailored for an audience of senior executives and practitioners.

If you are interested in speaking, please submit:

A proposed session title and abstract (150–250 words)
Key takeaways for attendees
Speaker bio and organizational role

To submit a proposal, or simply for more information, contact us now

The post Call for Speakers: Ready to Drive Real Change in Intelligent Operations and Resilient Supply Chains – ARC Industry Forum 2025 appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Trending