UN maritime body opposes proposed Strait of Hormuz transit fees after U.S. demand for “protection” payments

A United Nations maritime agency has urged against creating or expanding transit fees for vessels using the Strait of Hormuz after the Trump administration demanded “protection money” tied to safeguarding ships through the key oil chokepoint, according to a report Thursday.

The report said the International Maritime Organization opposed the idea in light of a rapid deterioration in the security environment around the strait. CNBC reported that Iran attacked multiple commercial ships transiting the route over the past week, heightening risks for crews and increasing disruption concerns for global trade.

The dispute centers on how security costs should be addressed. The Trump administration’s demand for protection payments has raised the prospect of a fee structure that would shift part of the burden for maritime security to shippers and other users of the waterway, rather than treating the protection of international navigation as a broader security responsibility.

In its pushback, the International Maritime Organization argued against linking a charging mechanism to a deteriorating situation in the region, according to the report. The concern, as characterized by CNBC, is that fees could add additional economic and operational strain on commercial shipping while the area remains under heightened threat.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important transit routes for seaborne energy flows. When security threats increase, shipping operators face higher insurance and risk premiums, longer planning horizons, and possible rerouting, all of which can translate into higher costs for downstream consumers and businesses.

The Trump administration’s approach, as described in the report, has framed protection as something that should be funded through payments rather than only through standard governmental security deployments. The International Maritime Organization’s position complicates efforts to formalize any such payment requirement through international maritime channels.

Officials and shipping stakeholders now face a process question: whether security costs can be allocated through a fee system for transit, or whether maritime organizations and member states should pursue other measures that avoid adding new charges during an acute safety and disruption period. The timing of any maritime framework would depend on negotiations among participating governments and the legal and operational constraints around international shipping standards.

With attacks on commercial vessels continuing to drive risk assessments, the outcome may affect not only shipping budgets but also how guidance is issued to crews, insurers, and port operators operating along a route that is central to global supply chains.