US tariff fight shifts to Mexico

Mexican-made heavy equipment is being targeted in the latest Section 232 national security probes. These analyses are required before imposition of new tariffs. The claim is that such manufacturing should be performed in the US.

There’s some merit to argue that for national defense the US should have a vibrant heavy equipment manufacturing sector. If you think wars of the future will be fought with tanks, ships, airplanes, and large landing craft, the US should be able to ramp up production fast in case of a war.

Current wars aren’t fought that way. They are waged with missiles, drones, and portable explosives of many different kinds, delivered with high-tech mechanisms. And the Ukraine war and even Iran have shown that conventional forces can be stymied by the high-tech alternatives.

High-tech mechanisms are well within US manufacturing capabilities. There are plenty of jobs available at good wages, if you get the training.

A second argument for the tariffs is based on jobs for workers. High-paying manufacturing jobs are good for those who have them and like the lifestyle. But increasingly, young people are not choosing those jobs, preferring work settings that give them the ability to define their leisure time as they wish. Conventional heavy manufacturing does not fit that mold.

And in the US we have a declining work force, particularly if we choose not to let in immigrants for whom such jobs would be desirable.

So where are the workers going to come from?

We could be better off by cultivating our relations with Mexico and allow them to do the heavy manufacturing of automobile-like components.

Noi Mahoney Wednesday, April 01, 2026

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/us-tariff-fight-shifts-to-heavy-machinery-imported-from-mexico

US shipbuilding hard to revive

BRS is a major shipbroker headquartered in Geneva, with offices around the world. The group has issued its Annual Review 2026. One of its features is an assessment of seven major shipbuilding markets. I was interested in its take on the potential for Trump’s plan to revive American shipbuilding.

The BRS study has a very negative view. It views some ‘structural’ issues, to use economic jargon, as serious barriers. One of these barriers is the lack of sufficient labor of the kinds required in shipbuilding. Not enough engineers, not enough pipefitters, welders, and factory workers.

Not only does the US not have these workers; its recent immigration policies are preventing an influx of immigrants who might take these jobs, or allow Americans to take the jobs instead of working service jobs. The birth rate in America is also at an all-time low of 1.62; a factor of 2 is required even to replace the existing population. And surveys indicate that less than 20% of Americans want to take manufacturing jobs rather than service jobs. So where are the workers?

Another factor is manufacturing support infrastructure. Where are American shipyards going to get the supplies and sub-assemblies they need? American manufacturing has, for many years, been ‘hollowed out’ as the American economy shifted to services. Such supplies will need to come from abroad, adding to the cost and the risk. Even today, much US manufacturing is being farmed out to Mexico; closer and safer, and with more secure labor, perhaps, than China, but not nearby most American shipyard locations.

A third factor is capital. One thing the US has is an excellent capital structure, encouraging investment. But where will that capital want to flow? To the industries generating the greatest returns— artificial intelligence, healthcare, consumer services, financial services— not to hard industrial development. Pitchbook already reports something like 50% of capital for startups is going into AI and to data centers supporting AI. How will this rebuild an industrial base?

And investment capital today is facing some serious redemption issues. Investors want to get their money back with profit and are no longer willing to wait for the returns. It is taking longer to build companies. Investors, especially smaller retail investors being courted by venture capital, want their money back on schedule. That’s typically 5 or 7 years, much less time than startups need, especially in the industrial space. Even for software companies, it’s challenging.

Below, BRS summarizes in a table various countries and their performance on 10 criteria important to shipbuilding. They use a scale of 1 to 10 to evaluate each criterion. It’s enlightening.

I am looking for more information from BRS on how the measurements for the countries are made.

The US has not been a major shipbuilding nation since it ran out of wood. And woodworkers. It’s not likely to come back.

The Annual Review 2026 from BRS is here. You can download it.

Sam Chambers April 1, 2026

https://splash247.com/brs-exposes-the-scale-of-the-challenge-facing-trumps-maritime-ambitions/

China-France Green Corridors: A New Blueprint for Maritime Decarbonization

Green corridors are a meaningful approach to emissions reduction for shipping. They coordinate the various factors required to make emissions reductions possible. Designating a green corridor will ensure that emissions-reducing fuels will be available in sufficient quantity for the ships calling, and the infrastructure for production and delivery is there. On-shore power will also be available for ships, so they do not need to operate engines just to provide power for the ship support. And in the port, cargo handling equipment can also be designed with cleaner emissions. Properly done, drayage functions will also operate with cleaner power.

It’s great to see a new green corridor connecting China and France. The ports involved are both important stops. And we can anticipate more trade between the EU and
China because of the American tariff hoopla.

Michele Labrut,Americas Correspondent

February 6, 2026

https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/ports-logistics/first-green-shipping-corridor-between-france-and-china