The pandemic has shocked every sector of the economy. Trade restrictions enacted by the Trump administration and maintained by President Biden have rippled through the U.S. economy but have particularly impacted U.S. ports. The pandemic highlighted that American ports have broader efficiency problems and could use some serious policy and management reforms.

On the west coast in particular, ship congestion has caused severe delays, wreaking havoc on the supply chain. While factories and ports in Asia are working 24/7 to supply American consumers with valuable goods, U.S. ports have been open for far fewer hours because labor union contracts dictate the hourly terms. However, after months of backlog, the ports of Los Angeles (LA) and Long Beach (LB) are finally switching to 24/7 shifts to move goods more quickly.

As a result of these union contracts, government offices are also not open 24/7. The ports of LA and LB account for almost half of all U.S. imports. The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials who must clear and admit goods do not work nights or weekends. These limits create additional pressure to have goods shipped to the United States during a prohibitive time frame, or leave ships idling around the ports until they can get in. The latter is the most common response. Recently, ships have been waiting an average of 12.5 days to enter the LA port. Ship idling has caused other problems too. Orange County, CA was affected by an oil spill that is suspected to have been caused by a pipeline hit with idling ship anchors. These differences in operating hours have caused huge ports efficiency losses that are felt across the country.

While it is positive that retailers, couriers, and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) are making changes to run ports more efficiently, permanent trade policy changes would help ease America’s coastal shipping problems.

The best policy would be to unilaterally remove tariffs by the United States. Simply eliminating tariffs would reduce an administrative burden both for traders and CBP officials. Duty-free trade would increase imports and exports but all other things equal, the freed-up CBP resources would help to move goods more swiftly through the ports.

However, a few smaller reforms could be implemented now that would considerably help the efficiency of U.S. ports. Removing Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum imports could temper the current domestic scarcity of some transportation-related goods, including chassis (the frame of a vehicle that holds containers). These materials are vital inputs for such products and the Section 232 tariffs are affecting American manufacturers’ ability to meet domestic demand. Eliminating duties and tariffs on transportation-related goods, including the 221 percent antidumping and countervailing (AD/CVD) duties and 25 percent Section 301 tariffs on Chinese chassis, could help increase the U.S. supply of chassis. While some freighters are paying the higher prices for Chinese chassis, the supply of transportation is still constrained, which has resulted in higher sticker prices on consumer goods.

As LA and LB move to 24/7 shifts, CBP offices should also be open 24/7. Given the sheer volume of trade these two ports process, it would seem sensible to make staffing 24/7 a permanent change at these ports, and at others depending on trade volumes.

Reforming the Jones Act could also help. All freight moved between U.S. ports must use U.S.-built, ‑crewed, and ‑flagged ships. As a result, traders circumvent these regulations by using alternative modes like trucks and trains. It would be prudent to reform the Jones Act to allow ships not in compliance with the Jones Act to pick up shipments in one U.S. port and unload at another. This would reduce pressure on inland transit that is currently being impacted by the aforementioned tariffs.

These bottlenecks have provided insight into the problems that exist at U.S. ports and with coastal shipping more broadly. Improvements in trade policy have a role to play and policymakers would be remiss not to consider permanent changes that would be beneficial now and could preempt pressures during future economic shocks.