Trump’s Hormuz Fee Explained: Legal Questions Over Maritime Protection Charges

US President Donald Trump’s proposal to charge a 20 per cent fee for American protection of ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz has triggered debate over its legal basis, commercial feasibility, and impact on global shipping. Trump described the United States as the “Guardian of the Hormuz Strait” and said vessels using American protection would have to provide financial reimbursement based on cargo shipments.

In a statement on his Truth Social platform, Trump said the US would protect maritime traffic through the strategically important waterway while receiving a 20 per cent payment on all cargo transported. However, the proposal has not provided details on how the fee would be calculated, whether it would be based on cargo value, security costs, or the expenses involved in deploying US naval resources.

Maritime experts have questioned whether shipping companies would accept such a high charge. John McCown, senior fellow at the Center for Maritime Strategy, said the pricing structure remained unclear and could potentially be linked to escort costs or the value of goods being transported. He noted that shipping companies generally pay freight charges of around 2 to 3 per cent of cargo value, making a 20 per cent levy significantly higher and potentially difficult for operators to absorb.

Also Read: Mother Of Pune Murder Victim Writes Emotional Letter To PM Modi Seeking Justice

The proposal has also raised concerns among insurers, who play a major role in global shipping decisions. Experts said that even if companies agreed to pay for US naval protection, insurers could still refuse coverage if they believed risks in the Strait of Hormuz remained too high. The waterway is a critical route for global energy shipments, and any disruption could have major consequences for international trade.

Legal experts have debated whether such a fee would comply with international maritime law. The Strait of Hormuz is considered an international waterway where vessels have rights of free passage. James Kraska, a professor of international maritime law at the US Naval War College, said a compulsory toll for using the waterway would likely not be permitted under international law. However, he suggested that a voluntary arrangement where ships choose to join US-led naval convoys could be legally different.

Industry analysts have also pointed to historical examples of maritime fees, including charges once imposed by Denmark on foreign vessels passing through the Øresund Strait. Experts said that while a voluntary security service may be legally possible, questions remain over whether shipping companies would find the cost reasonable or whether the proposal would create additional complications for international trade routes.

Also Read: Indian Court's Warrant Against Hafiz Saeed Opens New Chapter In Pahalgam Terror Trial