This is part of a series on how U.S. Exporters can adapt to Dynamic Tariff Policies. See Part II: 2025 Framework for Navigating a Dynamic Tariff Environment for U.S. Exporters.

Introduction and Context

In 2018, the United States initiated broad tariff actions - notably Section 232 steel/aluminum tariffs and Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports - which sparked retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods by key trading partners (China’s Retaliatory Tariffs on U.S. Agriculture: In Brief). This “trade war” period (2018-early 2020) dramatically altered trade flows and strained logistics networks. U.S. exporters of containerized agriculture, food, and commodities were hit particularly hard, as overseas buyers imposed hefty duties on products like soybeans, pork, fruits, and nuts. 

This analysis examines how these tariff policies affected port congestion, vessel schedules, and supply-chain performance from January 2017 through March 2020, with comparisons to pre-2017 conditions to highlight trends. Key metrics - port throughput, vessel and container dwell times, truck turn times, and schedule reliability - are presented alongside shifts in export patterns and costs. The goal is to provide an actionable understanding of the challenges U.S. agricultural exporters faced during this period.

Port Congestion and Vessel Performance (2017-2020)

Pre-2017 Baseline: U.S. ports entered 2017 in relatively good shape after recovering from the severe West Coast congestion of early 2015 (when a labor dispute caused a peak of 28 ships anchored off Los Angeles/Long Beach) (Category: Epoxy - Page 136 - Everchem Specialty Chemicals). By 2016-2017, operational improvements were evident. For example, at Los Angeles/Long Beach (LA-LB) - the nation’s busiest port complex - average truck turn times improved markedly as ports implemented efficiency measures. In January 2017, the average truck visit was ~81-82 minutes, down from 104 minutes in early 2016 (Turn Times at California Ports Slow One Minute in January - TT). The share of trucks spending over two hours in terminal dropped from 31% to 23.6% over that period. Vessel schedules were also relatively reliable prior to the trade war: global on-time performance in 2016-2017 hovered in the mid-70% range (Sea-Intelligence Sunday Spotlight), and container ships arriving late were typically about 4 days behind schedule (Sharp Increase in Containership Schedule Reliability).

Tariff Surge and Congestion (Late 2018): The first major impact of the new tariffs came in late 2018. Importers rushed to bring in goods from China ahead of scheduled tariff hikes (a 10% tariff on Chinese imports was set to jump to 25% by Jan 1, 2019) (Xebec | A LOOK BACK AT THE WEST COAST PORT CONGESTION OF 2018 & EARLY 2019). This front-loading created a months-long import surge in Q4 2018, overwhelming Southern California terminals. The combined ports of LA-LB faced “severe congestion” from fall 2018 into early 2019. Dozens of extra ship calls arrived in a short span, and with inland warehouses filled to capacity, containers piled up at the ports for extended periods (in some cases months). Key congestion indicators during this spike:

• Vessels at Anchor: The surge drove an unusual vessel backlog at LA-LB. While virtually no container ships typically waited offshore in 2017, in late 2018 numerous ships were forced to anchor awaiting berths (Xebec | A LOOK BACK AT THE WEST COAST PORT CONGESTION OF 2018 & EARLY 2019). (By one account, the port backup did not fully clear until late February 2019.) This was a smaller-scale echo of the 2015 West Coast logjam, but still a significant disruption for carriers’ schedules and exporters’ supply chains.
• Truck Turnaround Times: Terminal congestion worsened turn times for drayage trucks in late 2018. Average turn times jumped back to ~90 minutes during the 2018 peak season, compared to ~70-80 minutes in normal times (Truck Turn Times Improve at Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach - TT). In November 2018, 24% of truck trips at LA-LB took over two hours, double the share a year later. Some terminals saw extreme delays - for instance, one Los Angeles terminal averaged 140-minute turn times in early 2019 amid the bottleneck. Such delays meant slower container cycling and tighter scheduling for exporters trying to deliver goods to outbound ships.

• Container and Vessel Dwell Times: With yard space scarce, container dwell times (time sitting in port) spiked. Shippers reported boxes sitting unpicked for weeks, incurring demurrage fees (Xebec | A LOOK BACK AT THE WEST COAST PORT CONGESTION OF 2018 & EARLY 2019). Vessels, too, spent longer in port as unloading/loading slowed. While precise vessel dwell data is limited, the anchorage queue indicates ships waited several days extra on average to berth during the height of congestion. (For context, in normal times in 2019, ships at LA-LB rarely waited at anchor at all (Widespread Port Congestion Threatens Farm Exports | Market Intel | American Farm Bureau Federation).) These delays cascaded through schedules.

Ongoing Volatility and Recovery (2019): After the initial rush, port flows seesawed with trade policy announcements. The tariff deadline was postponed to March 2019, prompting continued high volumes into Q1 2019 (Xebec | A LOOK BACK AT THE WEST COAST PORT CONGESTION OF 2018 & EARLY 2019). By May 2019, the U.S. did raise tariffs to 25%, and China retaliated further . As a result, U.S. import volumes cooled in late 2019, giving ports a chance to recover. LA-LB throughput actually dipped year-on-year in Q4 2019 (e.g. -17% in December) (Port of LA moved near-record cargo in 2019, amid trade war tension - SAFETY4SEA) due to the earlier pull-forward of cargo and uncertain trade environment. This lull improved port fluidity significantly:

• Congestion Eases: By mid-to-late 2019, the acute congestion had subsided. On an average day in 2019, essentially zero container ships were waiting offshore at Los Angeles (compared to dozens in late 2018) (Widespread Port Congestion Threatens Farm Exports | Market Intel | American Farm Bureau Federation). Terminals cleared out the backlog, and container dwell times returned to normal (a few days at most).
• Improved Turn Times: With fewer imports arriving, truck turn times rapidly improved. In fact, by November 2019 the average turn was down to 69 minutes - a 23% improvement from 90 minutes in November 2018 (Truck Turn Times Improve at Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach - TT). Only 11% of truck trips exceeded two hours, versus 24% a year earlier. This was one of the best performances since 2014, thanks to both lower volume and efficiency initiatives (extended gate hours, appointment systems). Lower import volume also freed up more chassis and empty containers for exporters, easing one logistical pain point.
• Vessel Schedule Reliability: The swings in volume and ad-hoc capacity adjustments did negatively affect schedule reliability. Global container schedule reliability in 2018 averaged just 70.8% - the lowest year on record up to that point (down ~3.7 points from 2017) (Sea-Intelligence Sunday Spotlight). The trans-Pacific trade saw particularly steep declines in on-time performance (double-digit drops in 2018), as carriers frequently re-routed or “blanked” sailings in response to trade war demand shifts. By 2019, reliability remained challenged: when ships were late, they arrived an average 4 days behind schedule (similar to 2018) (Sharp Increase in Containership Schedule Reliability). Unpredictable schedules meant U.S. exporters often faced last-minute changes in vessel ETAs or had to hold cargo for the next sailing, introducing more delay and cost (e.g. extra warehousing) into their supply chains.

Other Ports: While Los Angeles/Long Beach experienced the most pronounced congestion, other U.S. ports also felt impacts. East Coast and Gulf Coast container gateways (e.g. New York-Newark, Savannah, Houston) did not see the same level of vessel backlogs in 2018-19, but some experienced milder ripple effects. For instance, East Coast ports handled minor surges as some importers re-routed cargo away from the West Coast. Gulf ports, which are key outlets for agriculture and energy exports, saw fluctuating volumes as tariffs shifted trade (discussed below). Generally, through 2019, no U.S. ports faced chronic congestion - a stark contrast to the massive logjams that would come in the pandemic era (Widespread Port Congestion Threatens Farm Exports | Market Intel | American Farm Bureau Federation). In summary, aside from the late-2018 spike (a direct result of tariff timing), port operations from 2017-early 2020 were relatively stable. Table 1 highlights key port performance metrics before and during the tariff turmoil:

• Average Truck Turnaround (LA-LB): ~80-85 min in 2017; 90+ min late 2018 (congestion peak); 69-70 min late 2019 (post-surge recovery) (Turn Times at California Ports Slow One Minute in January - TT).
• Container Dwell Time: ~3-4 days (or less) typical; extended to weeks in worst of Q4 2018 as containers sat due to warehouse overflow (Xebec | A LOOK BACK AT THE WEST COAST PORT CONGESTION OF 2018 & EARLY 2019). Returned to normal by mid-2019.
• Vessels at Anchor (LA-LB): Normally 0-1; 10+ during Nov 2018-Jan 2019 (estimate); back to ~0 by late 2019 (Widespread Port Congestion Threatens Farm Exports | Market Intel | American Farm Bureau Federation).
• Schedule Reliability (Global): ~74% on-time in 2017; 70.8% in 2018 (multi-year low) (Sea-Intelligence Sunday Spotlight); ~73% in 2019; average delay ~4 days if late (Sharp Increase in Containership Schedule Reliability).

These metrics underscore how the tariff-driven import swings stressed port operations intermittently, even as the overall system adapted and recovered by 2019.

Effects of Tariffs on Agricultural Export Flows

U.S. agricultural exporters faced a dual challenge in 2018-2020: demand shocks from retaliatory tariffs and the logistical side effects of port disruptions. Broad Chinese tariffs on U.S. farm products, plus some retaliatory duties from other countries, dramatically reshaped export patterns. Below is a breakdown of key commodity flows and route shifts:

• Soybeans and Grains: Soybeans - the largest U.S. export crop by volume - illustrate the trade war’s impact. China had been buying over half of U.S. soybean exports (China’s Retaliatory Tariffs on U.S. Agriculture: In Brief), but after mid-2018 it effectively halted purchases from the U.S. by imposing a 25% retaliatory tariff. U.S. soybean exports plunged by over 50% in value, from $19 billion in 2017 to $9 billion in 2018. Tons of U.S. soy had to find alternative markets: shipments to the EU jumped 2-3x as European buyers took advantage of low U.S. prices (EU touts jump in soybean imports from U.S. | Reuters). In fact, U.S. soybeans captured a 52% share of EU imports in late 2018 (vs ~25% before), briefly displacing Brazil as Europe’s top supplier (U.S. is now the EU's main supplier of soya beans with a share of 52%). Other nations like Mexico, Egypt, the Netherlands, and even Argentina (which imported U.S. beans for processing) absorbed some volume. These new routes often meant longer voyages (e.g. Gulf Coast exports through the Panama Canal to Europe) instead of shorter Trans-Pacific trips. Despite diversions, total exports remained depressed - large carryovers piled up in U.S. silos, requiring government price support payments to farmers. By mid-2019, China had fallen from the #1 destination for U.S. ag exports to 4th place (behind Canada, Mexico, and Japan). Other feed grains saw similar shifts: China’s 25% duty on U.S. sorghum in 2018 (briefly imposed) caused China’s imports to evaporate, forcing U.S. shippers to reroute sorghum to Europe and Japan. Corn and wheat were less directly hit by tariffs, but U.S. exporters lost some price competitiveness in Asia to rivals (e.g. Black Sea wheat) due to the overall trade climate.
  
  
• Specialty Crops (Fruits, Nuts) and Other Commodities: A wide array of food exports faced new barriers. In April 2018, China levied tariffs of 15-25% on 94 U.S. agricultural products including pork, fruits, and tree nuts (China’s Retaliatory Tariffs on U.S. Agriculture: In Brief). This list expanded to over 1,000 ag and food items by 2019. Tree nuts (like almonds, pistachios), wine, and fresh fruits were among California’s key exports hit by China’s and India’s retaliatory duties (3rd Quarter 2023 | Choices Magazine Online). For example, China imposed an extra 45% tariff on U.S. in-shell almonds, causing exports to China to drop sharply. California almond growers, who export ~70% of their crop, saw overall export volumes dip and prices fall due to reduced access to China and Turkey. They sought alternative buyers in Europe, the Middle East, and South Asia, but those markets could not fully replace China’s demand. 
  • Pork and Meat: China also targeted U.S. pork with tariffs that eventually exceeded 50%, contributing to a steep decline in U.S. pork exports to China in 2018-2019. U.S. pork producers pivoted to other Asian markets (Japan, South Korea, Philippines) and Latin America, often shipping via West Coast ports to those destinations. 
  • Dairy exports (like milk powder and whey) to China were hit by tariffs too, leading to surplus stocks and more shipments to Southeast Asia. 
  • Cotton and hay (alfalfa for animal feed) - major containerized exports from U.S. West Coast - saw reduced Chinese buying, pushing U.S. suppliers to find new buyers in Vietnam, Bangladesh, and the Middle East. 
  • In short, for many specialty and commodity products, export flows shifted to secondary markets, frequently involving new routes and logistics. These shifts sometimes meant using different port gateways; e.g., some Pacific Northwest grain and nut exports that would go to China were redirected to Europe via East/Gulf Coast ports or to India via all-water routes.
    
    
• Trade Volume and Balance Effects: The aggregate impact was a decline in U.S. agricultural export volumes in 2018-2019. One estimate is that U.S. farm exports fell by about $27-30 billion between mid-2018 and end of 2019 due to the trade war (Policies and Politics: Effects on US-China Soybean Trade). The loss was most acute in 2018; by late 2019, the “Phase One” negotiations led China to resume some purchases (e.g. China imported a surge of U.S. soybeans in early 2020 in anticipation of a deal). Even so, U.S. Census data show that calendar 2019 exports of agriculture remained below 2017 levels in many categories. The geography of U.S. exports also changed: Canada and Mexico (which weren’t subject to new agriculture tariffs aside from brief steel/aluminum disputes) gained share as top customers (China’s Retaliatory Tariffs on U.S. Agriculture: In Brief), while China’s share of U.S. agricultural exports dropped from 16% in 2017 to around 9% by 2019. This had implications for port traffic: U.S. West Coast ports (focused on China routes) handled fewer loaded export containers, whereas Gulf and East Coast ports saw relative upticks from Latin American and European-bound agribusiness cargo. For instance, the Port of Los Angeles reported that 2019 loaded exports (4.47 million TEU) were still slightly below 2017’s level, reflecting the drag of trade tensions despite a modest rebound from 2018 (Port of LA moved near-record cargo in 2019, amid trade war tension - SAFETY4SEA). In contrast, ports like Houston saw resilient volumes, buoyed by steady grain, meat and poultry shipments to Mexico and Asia. Overall, the trade war forced U.S. exporters to adapt logistics strategies - sourcing new customers, dealing with different customs requirements, and often accepting lower prices - to keep product moving.

Supply Chain Costs and Delays for Exporters

The tariff turmoil not only reshaped where goods went, but also added significant costs and delays for U.S. exporters moving goods through the supply chain. Several interrelated challenges emerged:

• Unpredictable Schedules and Blank Sailings: As container lines coped with erratic trade flows, they frequently canceled voyages or re-routed ships. On the trans-Pacific, carriers blanked a number of sailings in early 2019 when U.S. import demand fell after the tariff rush. For an exporter, a blank (canceled) sailing meant their container booking might get rolled to a later ship, delaying delivery by a week or more. Even when sailings proceeded, ships often didn’t arrive on time - only about 70% of global vessels were on-schedule in 2018, down from ~75% before (Sea-Intelligence Sunday Spotlight). Average delays of ~4 days for late vessels in 2018-19 (Sharp Increase in Containership Schedule Reliability) meant longer transit times and increased uncertainty. These delays could spoil time-sensitive shipments (e.g. perishable foods) or cause exporters to miss contract deadlines abroad. To buffer against uncertainty, some shippers started building in extra lead time or holding safety stock overseas, which ties up capital.
  
  
• Port and Inland Delays: The late-2018 congestion translated into direct delays for exporters at ports. For example, an almond exporter in California in December 2018 might have had product ready, only to find the outbound terminal clogged with inbound containers. Trucks were delayed in returning empties or picking up export loads, sometimes missing cut-off times for vessels. One effect widely reported was a shortage of empty containers and chassis available to exporters during the import surge. Shipping lines, eager to quickly turn around equipment to refill in Asia, prioritized getting empties back to China. In extreme cases, carriers began shifting empty containers out of the U.S. rather than waiting for lower-paying ag export loads, a trend that became pronounced by late 2019 and into 2020 (and notorious by 2021) (3rd Quarter 2023 | Choices Magazine Online). This left some agricultural shippers scrambling to find containers for their goods, or paying higher fees to reposition empties from elsewhere. Rural exporters (e.g. in the Midwest) had to truck their goods longer distances to ports where equipment was available, raising domestic transport costs. If a scheduled vessel skipped a port due to congestion or schedule recovery, export boxes would incur further storage time and handling until the next vessel, adding warehousing and terminal storage fees.
  
  
• Higher Freight Rates and Surcharges: Trade policy swings led to spot freight rate volatility. Ahead of tariff deadlines, trans-Pacific ocean freight rates spiked due to the import glut, which indirectly affected exporters - carriers would sometimes impose peak season surcharges or higher backhaul rates to allocate scarce space. While U.S. export freight rates are typically much lower than import rates (owing to trade imbalance), there were instances in late 2018 where equipment imbalance surcharges were levied on U.S. exporters to reposition containers. Trucking costs also rose in congested corridors; for instance, if a trucker had to make multiple attempts to retrieve a container from a jammed terminal, those extra drayage charges might be passed to the exporter. Additionally, exporters faced demurrage and detention fees when their containers sat unpicked or their trucker was delayed beyond free time - situations more common during port congestion. All these added fees cut into the already thin margins of agriculture suppliers.
  
  
• Inventory and Production Impacts: The tariffs themselves effectively raised the cost (or lowered the price) of U.S. goods in certain markets by double-digit percentages, forcing difficult choices. Some exporters ate the cost to stay competitive, others saw buyers cancel orders. Excess inventory accumulated for products that lost market access - for example, unsold soybeans were stored in grain silos or even outdoor piles, incurring storage costs and quality risks, while almonds and perishable goods filled warehouses and containers in yards waiting for transport (3rd Quarter 2023 | Choices Magazine Online). This inventory overhang not only cost money to maintain but also depressed domestic prices. USDA reported multi-year lows in farm prices for commodities like soy, pork, and dairy during 2018-19, partly due to the export downturn. The U.S. government’s $28 billion farm aid program (Market Facilitation Program) in 2018-2019 helped offset farmers’ losses, but it did not address the logistical headaches faced by exporters trying to move product in a chaotic trade environment.
  
  

In summary, U.S. agriculture and food exporters during 2017-March 2020 faced major logistical challenges and added costs stemming from tariff policies. Port congestion and trade uncertainty introduced delays at nearly every step: from the farm (where to send goods?) to the port (will it ship on time?) to the destination (will it incur extra tariffs or find a buyer?). By early 2020, there were signs of easing - the U.S. and China signed a Phase One agreement in January 2020 with commitments to boost ag purchases, and port operations in early 2020 were fluid. However, by March 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic began causing new disruptions (e.g. Chinese port lockdowns and global shipping disarray) - a separate crisis beyond the scope of this analysis.

Conclusion - Key Takeaways and Challenges

The 2017-2020 period of U.S. tariff escalation and retaliation underscored the tight linkage between trade policy and supply-chain performance. U.S. containerized exporters, especially in agriculture, experienced a perfect storm of demand risk (losing key markets to tariffs) and operational risk (port congestion, unreliable shipping). Compared to pre-2017, ports saw periods of extreme stress (late 2018) but also innovation and recovery by 2019. The key challenges for exporters during this time included:

• Market Volatility: Sudden loss of China’s market and the need to develop new export destinations, often with different logistics requirements and longer transit routes.
• Port Bottlenecks: Congested terminals and equipment imbalances during tariff-induced import surges, which delayed export shipments and made it difficult to obtain empty containers.
• Schedule Disruptions: Lower vessel schedule reliability and frequent blank sailings, requiring exporters to be flexible with shipping plans and inventory management.
• Higher Costs: Additional expenses from longer trucking hauls, demurrage/detention fees, emergency surcharges, and inventory carrying costs due to slower supply chains.
• Planning Uncertainty: Unpredictable policy changes (tariffs implemented, then increased, then eased) made it hard to plan production and shipping, demanding agility from supply chain managers.

Understanding these impacts is crucial for policymakers and industry alike. For policymakers, the trade war demonstrated that tariffs can reverberate beyond their intended targets, harming domestic logistics and exporters’ competitiveness. 

For exporters and supply chain professionals, the period reinforced the importance of diversifying markets and building resilient logistics strategies - such as securing alternate ports or carriers, increasing communication with supply chain partners, and advocating for infrastructure improvements (e.g. more capacity for inland container storage) to cope with surges. 

By learning from 2017-2020, stakeholders can better navigate future disruptions, whether driven by policy or other forces.

References

1. Randy Kendrick, “A Look Back at the West Coast Port Congestion of 2018 & Early 2019,” Xebec Realty Blog, July 25, 2019. (Xebec | A LOOK BACK AT THE WEST COAST PORT CONGESTION OF 2018 & EARLY 2019)
2. Congressional Research Service, China’s Retaliatory Tariffs on U.S. Agriculture: In Brief (R45929, Sept. 2019) (China’s Retaliatory Tariffs on U.S. Agriculture: In Brief).
3. Ari Ashe, “Turn Times at California Ports Slow One Minute in January,” Transport Topics, Feb. 15, 2018. (Turn Times at California Ports Slow One Minute in January - TT) 
4. Eric Miller, “Truck Turn Times Improve at Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach,” Transport Topics, Dec. 12, 2019. (Truck Turn Times Improve at Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach - TT)
5. Sea‑Intelligence, “Schedule Reliability in 2018,” Sunday Spotlight Issue 397, Jan. 27, 2019. (Sea-Intelligence Sunday Spotlight)
6. The Maritime Executive, “Sharp Increase in Containership Schedule Reliability,” Mar. 8, 2023. (Sharp Increase in Containership Schedule Reliability) (providing 2018-2019 delay benchmarks)
7. Reuters, “EU touts jump in soybean imports from U.S.,” Aug. 1, 2018. (EU touts jump in soybean imports from U.S. | Reuters)
8. American Farm Bureau Federation, Market Intel: “Widespread Port Congestion Threatens Farm Exports,” Oct. 20, 2021. (Widespread Port Congestion Threatens Farm Exports | Market Intel | American Farm Bureau Federation) (used for context on 2019 anchor delays)
9. Choices Magazine (Agricultural & Applied Economics), “Retaliatory Tariffs and Container Shipping Disruptions Cause Trade Damages to California’s Almond Industry,” 3rd Quarter 2023.