Like this time last year, global logistics leaders face no shortage of trends and uncertainties. But the list continues to grow—ranging from a pending Supreme Court ruling on the White House’s IEEPA tariffs to the expanding influence of artificial intelligence, mixed economic signals, and persistent geopolitical risk.
For shippers, the mandate remains unchanged: stay ahead of disruption while remaining prepared for the unexpected. That challenge is especially critical in ocean freight, which enters 2026 following one of the most unusual years in recent memory.
Much of that volatility traces back to the White House’s tariff actions on key trading partners. The implementation—followed by pauses and delays—triggered waves of front-loaded imports as shippers rushed cargo into the U.S. ahead of potential cost increases, producing sharp swings in volume throughout 2025.
According to Philip Damas, managing director and head of Drewry Supply Chain Advisors, tariffs were the dominant force shaping ocean shipping last year. “Many industry stakeholders expected tariffs to immediately drive inflation, but so far, higher import tariffs have not significantly filtered through to consumer prices in the U.S.,” he says. “However, consumer sentiment is very low, suggesting that consumers expect higher prices in the near future.”
As for why tariffs did not fully translate into higher consumer prices, Damas attributed the delayed impact to shippers’ early inventory moves. By pulling forward cargo before tariffs took effect, companies were able to sell goods at pre-tariff prices. With those inventories now largely depleted, new purchases are beginning to reflect the full cost of tariffs—setting the stage for pricing pressure to emerge.
Rates under pressure
From a freight-rate perspective, Damas notes that pricing is still being driven primarily by demand and capacity. “On the demand side, U.S. imports of consumer goods are declining,” he says. “For example, September imports at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach were down 7% year over year after several strong months earlier in the year. Globally, North America has become an outlier.”
While other regions are growing between 5% and 15%, North America is down roughly 5%, putting it at the back of the growth queue, adds Damas, who expects three consecutive quarters of declining U.S. container imports through the second quarter of 2026.
From his perspective, Jon Monroe, president and founder of Jon Monroe Consulting, is equally direct in assessing market conditions. He describes the ocean shipping market as weak, driven in large part by unstable freight rates. General rate increases (GRIs), he notes, may be announced, but they typically hold only for a few days before unraveling.
“Technically, rates might be quoted around $2,050 to $2,100, but in reality, you’re seeing West Coast rates as low as $1,700,” says Monroe. “East Coast spreads tell a similar story—rates might be listed at $2,800, but transact closer to $2,400 to $2,500. As carriers chase volume, they keep cutting rates, and many shippers have figured this out. When a GRI is about to hit, they stop shipping for a week, because they know it won’t hold.”
At a fundamental level, Monroe says, U.S. demand is weaker than expected. “Roughly 80% to 90% of consumer spending is now driven by the top 20% of earners—people making over $350,000 a year. That leaves a lot of consumers on the sidelines, which hurts categories like electronics, toys, and furniture.”
That softness is being compounded by additional vessel capacity coming into the market, even as demand remains muted. At the same time, Monroe notes that China is not experiencing the same downturn as the U.S., prompting factories to pivot away from U.S.-bound freight and redirect exports to Southeast Asia, Central and South America, and other regions.
What does this mean?
Which leads to the question: What does this mean for U.S.-bound freight flows going forward? Monroe says that some volume may disappear and some may get redistributed globally, adding that tariffs add another layer of uncertainty.
“We don’t yet know how courts will rule, but importers are already dealing with multiple tariff layers—base duties, fentanyl-related tariffs, and reciprocal tariffs—all clearly itemized on entry summaries,” says Monroe. “There are two schools of thought: one says this will be messy, the other says it’s manageable administratively. Personally, I hope tariffs go away, but I also hope we don’t end up refunding them retroactively, because that would create serious economic stress and add to national debt.”
Adding to that, Monroe notes, is the tougher annual volume comparisons in store for 2026, as a result of 2025’s pull-forward and front-loading activity. There will be seasonal demand, with companies reordering, but, at the same time, he says that consumer demand is likely to be weaker.
“The first half of 2025 was relatively strong,” says Monroe. “This year is expected to be much softer; and that puts pressure on carriers. They’ll try to push spot rates up so contract rates can sit below them. Otherwise, beneficial cargo owners will minimize MQC [minimum quantity commitments] and rely on the spot market. That dynamic alone will keep volatility high.”
What about capacity?
Like Monroe, Ben Hackett, founder of maritime consultancy Hackett Associates, points to new vessel capacity as a major challenge, with the 2026–2028 period shaping up to be especially difficult as a large wave of newbuilds comes online.
“Roughly 65% to 70% of those vessels are ultra-large container ships—around 25,000 TEU—which puts even more pressure on carriers’ ability to remain profitable,” says Hackett. “We’re already seeing the financial impact. Maersk has said recent quarters have been weak and that the outlook is not improving. Other carriers, like OOCL, are reporting higher volumes but lower revenues—which tells you freight rates are falling.”
Another capacity issue shippers will be watching in 2026 is the potential resumption of normal Red Sea transits. If that occurs, a large amount of latent capacity would be released back into the market, worsening overcapacity and pushing freight rates lower, according to Drewry’s Damas.
From a shipper perspective, Damas says it may make sense to wait for better visibility before locking into long-term contracts—while recognizing that once the Red Sea fully reopens and insurance premiums normalize, rates could drop sharply.
Turning to carrier alliances, three major groupings are now in place—Gemini Alliance, Premier Alliance, and Ocean Alliance—alongside MSC, which Damas says effectively operates as a single-carrier alliance due to its scale. He notes that while the first quarter of last year saw disruptions, including cancelled sailings and delays, performance has since stabilized.
“Shippers are generally satisfied because they still have multiple alliance options and ample capacity,” says Damas. “Gemini, in particular, is experimenting with a hub-and-spoke model, where ships depart on schedule rather than waiting for delayed cargo. This has resulted in significantly better on-time performance than other alliances.”
Monroe agrees, calling Gemini a potential game-changer. “The Maersk–Hapag-Lloyd network will likely be the most reliable because they control key terminals—14 of them,” he says. “Even with a hub-and-spoke model, control matters. Maersk’s schedule reliability is already above 90%. Other alliances don’t always control their terminals, which introduces risk.”
According to Monroe, MSC may be technically independent, but it’s increasingly moving into feeder services and has begun ordering feeder vessels. “Longer term, global trade is shifting from a China/U.S. focus to a broader ‘China plus 10’ model—Vietnam, Mexico, Thailand, Eastern Europe, Central and South America. People aren’t leaving China; China is expanding outward. Carriers are adapting, but capacity is so high that it won’t be absorbed anytime soon.”
