America’s Maritime Blind Spot: How China is Gaining the Upper Hand on the High Seas

For decades, the US has taken the security of global sea lanes for granted, assuming that commercial and military shipping would always function smoothly. But while America remained complacent, China methodically expanded its maritime dominance, ensuring the steady flow of its own cargo while developing the capability to disrupt American supply chains at will. Chinese interference in a military transshipment in Poland should have served as a wake-up call, making it clear that this was no abstract threat. China’s influence over global ports and shipping logistics is a looming reality that could upend America’s economy and the ability of its military to mobilize in the event of a geopolitical crisis.

Maritime Vulnerabilities

The US stands out as perhaps the only global superpower in history seemingly content with an astonishingly weak position when it comes to maritime commerce. China owns over 5,500 oceangoing merchant vessels, while the US controls a mere 80. China’s shipbuilding capacity dwarfs America’s by a factor of 232, and while China has invested over 100 ports worldwide, the US has few strategic holdings. Even within America’s own borders, the vast majority of port terminals are controlled by foreign entities. In essence, the US relies on an intricate network of allies and foreign operators—some friendly, some not—to keep its supply chains moving.

China’s maritime expansion does not stop at traditional shipping routes. Branding itself as a ‘near-Arctic state,’ Beijing has aggressively pursued access to the Northern Sea Route, deploying icebreakers, building partnerships with Russia and making investments to tap into Arctic trade lanes and natural resources.  The implications are clear—China is securing alternative routes to bypass traditional Western-controlled shipping channels while simultaneously increasing its influence over global trade.

Beyond commercial dominance, China’s control over maritime logistics has direct military consequences. In a major conflict, the US military would rely on commercial shipping for up to 90% of its cargo transportation. Yet, without its own cargo fleet, the US would have to depend on foreign-flagged vessels—a vulnerability that China could easily exploit. 

China’s Digital Control

China also wields significant digital control over global logistics through its state-backed LOGINK software, which provides real-time tracking of cargo shipments. This software is used in key trade hubs across Japan, South Korea, and Europe, giving China visibility into supply chains and potential leverage in economic or geopolitical disputes. While Congress has banned the Pentagon from using ports that rely on LOGINK, commercial trade remains exposed.

China’s Physical Control

While the data from LOGINK gives China data to pinpoint America’s vulnerabilities, its investments in ports allow it to exploit those insights. The Maritime Silk Road—an extension of China’s Belt and Road Initiative—has allowed Beijing to gain operational control over critical ports worldwide. In places like the Port of Piraeus in Greece and the Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka, China has transformed infrastructure investments into strategic footholds, expanding its reach in regions vital to US and allied military operations. 

This level of control gives China an increased ability to dictate logistics, impose economic pressure, and potentially prioritize its own interests over those of rival nations, including the US and its allies. For example, China’s dominance in global port infrastructure allows it to shape international maritime regulations and norms. By controlling ports and associated logistics chains, China can set new standards for shipping fees, port access rules, and customs policies that could disadvantage US businesses. This economic leverage could pressure smaller nations into aligning with Beijing’s policies or risk trade disruptions. And if tensions escalate, China could disrupt shipping access, slow down logistics, or gather intelligence on US military movements. The recent US Department of Defense (DoD) decision to place COSCO Shipping Holdings on the Section 1260H national security risk list reflects growing concern over China’s growing ability to manipulate maritime logistics. 

Fragmented Response

Despite the severity of the threat, the US response remains disjointed, with multiple agencies addressing separate pieces of the problem. The DoD and Transportation work closely with the Maritime Administration to secure strategic US seaports and ensure military logistics resilience focuses on securing military logistics, while the DoD is building new naval infrastructure in the Philippines. The Department of Homeland Security and the US Coast Guard monitor foreign control over US port infrastructure, particularly the presence of Chinese-made cranes with suspected intelligence-gathering capabilities. The Treasury Department’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States has taken action, forcing China’s COSCO to divest its stake in the Long Beach Container Terminal. The Federal Maritime Commission investigates unfair shipping practices. Meanwhile, agencies like the State Department and US International Development Finance Corporation work on providing alternatives to China’s port investments abroad, though often without the financial firepower to counter Beijing’s massive investments. The National Security Council has established a new role focused on maritime risk, yet it is still nascent and lack authorities to marshal actions of other agencies. 

Action Required

US Government efforts are piecemeal and uncoordinated. Blocking a Chinese acquisition of a US port does little good if China continues to dominate logistics in key global hubs. To reclaim leadership in maritime commerce, the US must take a more strategic, proactive approach.

First, the government must identify which global ports are critical to US economic and military interests and develop the ability to ensure that they remain in neutral or allied hands. Simply warning other nations not to accept Chinese investment is insufficient. The US must provide competitive alternatives, partnering with private industry and allied governments to secure strategic infrastructure. We say this with a consortium of investors led by BlackRock recently acquiring two key ports in Panama that will now be managed by a Swiss firm instead of their previous Hong Kong owner. Such actions must be a concerted ongoing effort globally, not just an ad hoc action for those ports that rise to presidential attention.

Second, the US must counter China’s digital dominance in global logistics. LOGINK and similar Chinese-backed platforms provide Beijing with unprecedented access to trade data and shipping patterns. Stronger cybersecurity measures are necessary, but insufficient. Washington must support the development and global use of alternative logistics platforms to prevent Chinese data collection and potential manipulation of global trade flows.  

Third, America needs to invest in its own maritime capabilities and enhance coordination with allied nations. It must critically examine what type of investment in domestic capabilities and what coordination with allies are necessary to ensure it will have the shipping and shipbuilding capacity necessary during times of geopolitical stress. The recent ICE Pact collaboration with Canada and Finland is a good start. More collaboration is needed. 

Fourth, the US should develop a cohesive maritime security strategy to ensure that the disparate efforts of all departments and agencies are coordinated and able to meet these risks in a timely and effective manner.

The stakes are immense. As tensions rise in maritime chokepoints like the South China Sea, the Red Sea, and the Panama Canal, vulnerabilities in maritime infrastructure could lead to both economic and national security crises. The US can no longer afford to remain passive. A fragmented response will not be enough to counter China’s calculated expansion of maritime influence.

To secure the global sea lanes upon which the resilience of critical supply chains and military readiness depends, the US must act decisively by aligning domestic policies, investing in infrastructure, and strengthening international partnerships. Only through a unified, well-coordinated strategy can America ensure that global trade remains free, open, and resilient against Beijing’s encroachment.