When people look back at 2025, they won't think of it as a year of better shipping efficiency or cleaner practices. Instead, it will be remembered as a time when the world’s oceans became arenas for national ambitions, where every shipping route was a strategic asset and each journey held political significance.
From the Arctic to the Red Sea, and from Venezuelan waters to the Black Sea, maritime activities transformed from simple commerce to tools of state power. This change was rapid and permanent. Here are some significant maritime developments from 2025.
On April 9, President Trump signed an executive order named "Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance," prioritizing ports, shipyards, and trade routes as national security interests. The message was clear: maritime power was not a luxury; it was vital for survival.
In December 2024, Hanwha from South Korea purchased Philly Shipyard for $100 million, then surprised the market with a $5 billion expansion plan aimed at increasing production from fewer than two vessels a year to 20. By August, Hanwha secured the largest U.S. commercial shipbuilding contract in twenty years, which included 10 oil and chemical tankers and two LNG carriers, bringing the United States' orders to one of its highest levels since the 1970s.
Beyond commercial interests, the government sped up the delivery of Polar Security Cutters, viewing icebreakers as crucial assets amid the competition with Russia and China in the Arctic. By year-end, contracts were awarded for six Arctic Security Cutters to be built in Finland and by U.S.-based Bollinger, building on a trilateral agreement with Canada and Finland.
Shifting focus from Constellation-class frigates and adjustments to the Coast Guard’s Offshore Patrol Cutter program, Trump unveiled plans for a new “Trump-class” battleship. This marks a return of a ship type that hasn't been seen since the 1940s, starting with the lead ship USS Defiant (BBG-1) as part of a proposed "Golden Fleet" of 20 to 25 battleships. The Marine Corps also picked a Damen design for the Medium Landing Ship program, aiming for 18 to 35 vessels specifically to counter China.
In 2025, shipbuilding was not just about commerce; it was about state power.
This Spring, Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs triggered a rush as importers hurried to bring in goods before higher taxes took effect, momentarily overwhelming U.S. ports and tightening capacity. By mid-year, imports had decreased, particularly from China, as cargo diverted to countries like Southeast Asia, India, and Latin America. Global shipping didn’t collapse; it transformed, adopting longer supply chains and increased volatility.
The White House pursued bilateral agreements, including tariff reductions for South Korea linked to shipbuilding investments. By year-end, while the trade war didn’t disrupt global shipping entirely, it significantly changed its structure. As the Supreme Court reviewed the legality of tariffs, bigger questions remained for 2026.
For a few tense weeks in the Fall, Washington was ready to impose fees based on a ship's origin rather than its cargo.
A USTR Section 301 investigation into China’s maritime influence proposed new trade-war fees targeting Chinese-built or Chinese-associated vessels arriving at U.S. ports. China retaliated with similar fees on U.S. ships.
However, Trump's trade agreement with China led to the suspension of these reciprocal port fees, preserving a key element of his maritime strategy. Yet the underlying message was clear: the U.S. was willing to penalize ships and their operators.
In 2025, the shipping industry learned that in a trade war, even the vessels themselves could become political targets.
By 2025, the crisis in the Red Sea was now an accepted reality. In late 2023, Houthi attacks turned Bab el-Mandeb into a conflict zone, prompting most shipping lines to avoid the Suez route and making the Cape of Good Hope the default pathway. These diversions added 10 to 14 days to Asia-Europe trips, resulting in extra fuel usage and tighter capacity.
The back-to-back sinkings of the M/V Magic Seas and the M/V Eternity C in July, both of which were Liberian-flagged and Greek-operated, and attacked with drones, missiles, and explosive boats, highlighted this danger. War-risk insurance premiums remained high, and schedules had to account for delays rather than precision.
By December, the Red Sea remained unsafe yet not entirely abandoned. This uncertainty dominated the year, as the crisis became a constant threat to maritime operations.
In 2025, Russia and China weren't just talking about the Arctic; they were actively using it. Moscow pushed for the Northern Sea Route, using ice-class LNG carriers and tankers to transport sanctioned goods eastward even during winter. In August, China sent five icebreaking research vessels to the region simultaneously, the first time more than three had operated together in the Arctic.
In September, China launched the “Arctic Express,” a seasonal container service that drastically shortened transit times from 40-50 days via Suez to just 18-20 days. By October, the Chinese Panamax containership Istanbul Bridge completed a 7,500-nautical-mile journey from China to the UK via the Arctic Northern Sea Route in just 20 days, proving the feasibility of Arctic trade.
By year-end, the Arctic had already established itself as “the shortcut.”
If 2025 was a comeback story for shipbuilding, it represented a setback for offshore wind. In December, the Trump administration issued broad stop-work orders on several East Coast projects, citing national security concerns related to radar interference, grid stability, and proximity to sensitive coastal areas.
This halted billions in investments. Ports that had heavily invested in turbine installation faced empty marshalling yards, delayed charters, and workforce instability. The White House made it clear: offshore wind was considered “a strategic liability,” and maritime resources should be refocused on “shipbuilding, naval construction, and energy exports.”
Globally, offshore wind projects fared slightly better but faced challenges from inflation, high interest rates, and persistent supply chain issues, which forced developers to reconsider their plans.
Over 1,000 tankers associated with Russia, Iran, and Venezuela operated with opaque ownership structures, flag-hopping, altered identities, and minimal insurance across vital oil routes. Many of these vessels were at the end of their operational lives, kept afloat by shell companies and convenience flags.
P&I clubs warned that the threat here was significant environmental exposure: a major oil spill from a shadow tanker could leave no clear owner, no insurance, and no fallback plan for cleanup. Coastal states braced for taxpayers to cover the cleanup costs.
By year’s end, the industry realized a hard truth: the shadow fleet had grown too large to monitor discreetly, too dangerous to ignore, and too entrenched to dismantle with sanctions alone. It existed as a parallel system to legitimate shipping, operating outside the bounds of regulation, insurance, and responsibility.
Western sanctions were intended to isolate Russia, Iran, and their allies. However, in 2025, they did more—they reshaped global shipping. Led by the U.S., the EU, and the UK, the sanctions expanded, banks distanced themselves, insurers adjusted their coverage, and ports became increasingly wary of risks, making compliance itself a new bottleneck in international trade.
By year-end, the global shipping fleet was essentially divided into two: the legitimate fleet and the shadow fleet—operating underinsured, frequently changing flags, and one accident away from becoming someone else's issue. Sanctions didn’t just limit trade; they redefined it.
As 2025 came to a close, one reality was clear across the oceans: the days of shipping as an impartial enterprise were over. Maritime activities were now indistinguishable from national strategy, with every ship a potential chess piece and every route a possible battleground. The pressing question for 2026 wasn’t whether this trend would continue—but how far it would extend.
Trump's military strikes against alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers in the Caribbean sparked a diplomatic uproar and blurred the lines between sanctions enforcement and undeclared warfare. The administration intensified its efforts with a complete oil “blockade,” framing the seizure of tankers as part of a broader mission to cut off funding for Maduro's “foreign terrorist organization.”
Venezuela condemned these actions as acts of piracy, and its legislature attempted to criminalize support for these blockades. By the end of the year, the situation in the Caribbean reflected less traditional law enforcement and more a gray-zone confrontation: “hard power cloaked in legal language,” with commercial shipping caught in the middle.
Throughout spring and summer, the Trump administration launched a significant campaign against the IMO’s Net Zero Framework, labeling it an unfair “global carbon tax” that would negatively impact U.S. consumers and businesses. Before the October meeting in London, senior officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio threatened tariffs, sanctions, visa bans, and other repercussions against supportive nations.
This effort succeeded. The anticipated vote was delayed by a year. By year’s end, while shipping still aimed for decarbonization, it couldn’t agree on how to proceed—or who would be responsible for the costs.
In 2025, the maritime effects of the Ukraine war expanded without relief.
Russian attacks continued to target Ukrainian ports, compromising export capacities and forcing operators to frequently adjust terminals, corridors, and routing strategies. The commercial risk extended beyond the port areas to affect the entire environment in the Black Sea.
Simultaneously, Ukraine pushed the conflict into the maritime domain through asymmetric tactics, keeping the waters contested far beyond the front lines. A growing campaign of Ukrainian sea-drone attacks—targeting tankers deep in the Black Sea and even in the eastern Mediterranean—added further uncertainty, all while insurance costs surged.
Grain shipments persisted but relied on a delicate mix of diplomacy, risk management, and sheer luck.
By the end of the year, shipping companies were no longer questioning when the war would end; they were more concerned with how far its maritime repercussions would reach.
Panama’s water crisis began to ease in 2025, but it soon gave rise to new pressures.
With rainfall returning and draft limits easing, the canal regained operational reliability after enduring severe restrictions the previous year. However, as capacity improved, Washington shifted focus from water issues to control over this critical passage.
President Trump initiated a high-profile campaign accusing China of exerting excessive influence over canal-adjacent infrastructure, vowing to “retake” the waterway from Beijing’s grasp. This rhetoric coincided with the proposed sale of two major Panama Canal ports by CK Hutchison, which became mired in political scrutiny and now appears stalled.
By December, vessels were navigating with fewer delays, yet the future of the canal remains uncertain—a reminder that in 2025, Panama’s biggest challenge was not merely water levels but power dynamics.
By mid-2025, insurance—not ships or fuel—had become the most crucial factor in shipping.
War-risk premiums became permanent fees for routes in the Red Sea, Black Sea, and Caribbean, while reinsurers discreetly redefined which routes were financeable. Ships in the shadow fleet operated without meaningful coverage, leading to a two-tier system: those ships that could be insured and those that accepted the risk.
In a world marked by sanctions, drones, and gray-zone conflicts, shipowners faced a more significant concern than where they could sail; it was whether anyone would insure their journeys at all.
If you found this article interesting, consider joining the gCaptain Club to receive the Dispatch, a weekly email recapping maritime news.