U.S. Maritime Policy and the Strait of Hormuz: Fact-Checking Recent Claims

President Donald Trump has announced plans to restart a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and for the U.S. to “become the guardian” of the waterway, including the imposition of a 20 percent toll on ships transiting the strait. However, these proposals lack a basis in international law and face significant opposition from maritime authorities.

Legal Status of International Waterways

The Strait of Hormuz is a vital chokepoint for global energy supplies. Under international law, vessels enjoy the right of transit passage, and the introduction of tolls in waterways goes against international law.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN shipping agency, has maintained a consistent stance against the imposition of tolls. According to the IMO, there is no legal basis for any nation to charge mandatory fees simply for transiting a strait used for international navigation. In previous statements, IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez emphasized that such charges are contrary to international law.

Operational Realities and Security Risks

Commercial shipping operations in the Strait of Hormuz are primarily dictated by risk management, including insurance costs, security assessments, and operational continuity. Shipping companies navigate the region based on the ability to transit safely rather than shifting political mandates from individual nations.

Analysts note that attempting to enforce an American-led toll would create significant legal and commercial ambiguity. For shipping firms, the introduction of an unrecognized fee without an international enforcement mechanism increases uncertainty. Markets generally prioritize predictable costs, and adding layers of conflicting guidance from regional actors and naval authorities complicates the already volatile security environment in the Gulf.

International and Strategic Context

The concept of levying tolls on international shipping has been widely criticized by global leaders. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva recently characterized the proposal of charging a 20 percent fee on cargo as “piracy,” highlighting the diplomatic friction such a policy would generate.

Strategic experts, including Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer at the School of Security Studies at King’s College London, have argued that proposals for unilateral tolls often misunderstand the nature of the dispute in the Strait of Hormuz. Rather than a matter of revenue generation, the tension in the region centers on authority, prestige, and the rules governing the waterway. Experts suggest that unilateral actions, when not supported by a broad international consensus, may inadvertently strengthen the position of regional adversaries by signaling a lack of military or diplomatic options, rather than providing a sustainable path to security.

Summary of Key Points

• No Legal Basis: International law prohibits the imposition of tolls on ships passing through international straits.
• IMO Opposition: The International Maritime Organization has formally opposed the charging of fees for passage through such waterways.
• Market Uncertainty: Commercial shipping companies rely on established international norms and insurance guidance; unilateral tolls create unpredictable risks.
• Strategic Impact: Analysts warn that improvising policy without international consensus may undermine the legal and political standing of the United States in the region.