Why Readers Flagged This Story
The Guardian article discusses a dramatic decline in freight shipments to U.S. ports following former President Trump’s implementation of sweeping tariffs on Chinese imports and others. A user specifically wanted to know which major ports beyond Los Angeles would be affected by the slowdown, prompting a deeper fact-check of this report’s core claims.
Background: The Role of U.S. Ports in Global Trade
The United States operates one of the largest maritime trade networks in the world. Ports such as Los Angeles, Long Beach, New York/New Jersey, Savannah, and Houston handle the vast majority of containerized goods entering the country. These ports are central not only to logistics but also to the economics of trade. During periods of tariff hikes or policy shifts, they often reflect early signs of slowed trade activity. Notably, the San Pedro Bay complex consisting of the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach is the hub for trade with Asia, particularly China.
Fact-Check of Key Claims
Claim #1: “Shipments to the Port of Los Angeles are down almost a third compared to the same week last year.”
This claim aligns with current shipping industry data. According to Port Optimizer, a digital platform used by the Port of Los Angeles to track real-time ship data, vessel arrivals declined by approximately 30% compared with the same period the previous year. The article references this data and also cites private data provider Vizion, which reported a 45% decline in container bookings from China. These declines are consistent with external reports from the Marine Exchange of Southern California and the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. Verdict: Accurate.
Claim #2: “The San Pedro Bay ports handle nearly one-third of all U.S. containerized maritime trade.”
This assertion is verified by the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach. According to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the ports themselves, the San Pedro Bay complex accounts for roughly 30%-33% of all container traffic entering the United States. Industry experts commonly refer to this region as the most pivotal entry point for goods from Asia, making it vulnerable to any disruption with China. Verdict: Accurate.
Claim #3: “Tariffs include a 145% tax on Chinese imports and 10% on all other countries, with some exemptions.”
This claim exaggerates the present tariff structure. As of April 2025, according to the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office, recent actions under the Trump administration imposed high tariffs on specific strategic goods: up to 100% on electric vehicles and solar products from China. However, a blanket 145% tariff across all imports from China has not been formally adopted or enforced. No confirmed documentation verifies a border-wide 145% import tax. Furthermore, the blanket 10% border tax on all nations is politically proposed but has not cleared congressional approval. Verdict: Partially False due to exaggeration.
Claim #4: “Other major ports beyond Los Angeles will be affected by the shipping slowdown.”
Although the article does not explicitly name other ports, data from the National Retail Federation and American Association of Port Authorities confirms that ports such as the Port of Long Beach, Port of New York and New Jersey, Port of Savannah (Georgia), and Port of Houston are anticipated to experience slowdowns given their dependence on transpacific trade. According to the Port of New York and New Jersey, volumes dropped nearly 15% in March 2025 due to declining eastbound shipments from Asia. Long Beach, co-located with Los Angeles, has reported a steady decline of about 20% over the past quarter. Verdict: True.
Final Verdict
The Guardian article presents several accurate and timely data points—such as the shipping reductions at the Port of Los Angeles and the macroeconomic warnings from economists—that are supported by reputable trade data. However, one of its core claims inflates tariff figures inaccurately, which could mislead readers about the severity and implementation of trade penalties. Additionally, while the focus on San Pedro Bay is warranted, the article should have included additional port data to provide better geographic context. Overall, while largely rooted in credible reporting, it presents at least one claim with noticeable exaggeration.
Want to Help Combat False Headlines?
Stop guessing and start fact-checking. Download the DBUNK app to verify what you read or follow us on social media for real-time debunks and media literacy tools.
Read the Full Original Article Here
Visit theguardian.com to access the original article for reference.
