The numbers coming out of U.S. container ports in early 2026 are not noise — they are a direct readout of how tariff policy and fuel cost inflation are reshaping inbound supply chains for textile manufacturers, apparel brands, and fabric importers. Released April 8, 2026, the Global Port Tracker report from the National Retail Federation and Hackett Associates confirms that import cargo volumes are under simultaneous pressure from two structurally different forces, and neither is resolving quickly.
The report covers thirteen major U.S. container ports and provides both historical data and six-month forward projections. For sourcing teams managing inbound fibre, yarn, greige fabric, or finished sewn goods, these port volumes are one of the most reliable forward indicators available for planning production intake and inventory cycles.
What Global Port Tracker Measures and Why Textile Importers Should Track It
Global Port Tracker monitors container throughput using Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units, or TEU — one TEU equalling one 20-foot container or its cargo equivalent. The ports covered include West Coast gateways at Los Angeles/Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, and Tacoma, alongside East Coast and Gulf facilities including New York/New Jersey, Savannah, Charleston, Port of Virginia, Miami, Port Everglades, Jacksonville, and Houston.
These are the primary entry points for the bulk of imported raw materials and finished textile products reaching U.S. buyers. Volume trends here reflect actual purchase orders and sourcing decisions, not survey opinion. For mills and brands managing lead times against uncertain trade conditions, the data provides a live benchmark.
Import Cargo Volume Data Points to a Constrained First Half of 2026
U.S. ports covered by Global Port Tracker handled 1.95 million TEU in February 2026, down 7.5% from January and down 4.2% year over year. The Port of New York/New Jersey had not yet reported its February figures at time of publication, meaning the final total may shift marginally.
February softness typically reflects Lunar New Year factory shutdowns across Asian textile and apparel manufacturing centres. But the year-over-year decline signals more than seasonal rhythm. Tariff pressure has been compressing order volumes since before the current quarter.
March is projected at 1.97 million TEU, down 8.3% year over year. The data for May and June shows apparent year-over-year gains, but Hackett Associates confirms these reflect a depressed comparison base from 2026, when Liberation Day tariff announcements in April of that year triggered a sharp pullback in import orders during those same months — not a genuine demand recovery in 2026.
| Month | Projected TEU (Millions) | Year-Over-Year Change |
|---|---|---|
| March 2026 | 1.97 | –8.3% |
| April 2026 | 2.08 | –5.6% |
| May 2026 | 2.09 | +7.3% |
| June 2026 | 2.10 | +6.9% |
| July 2026 | 2.20 | –8.0% |
| August 2026 | 2.18 | –6.0% |
The full first half of 2026 is projected at 12.3 million TEU, down 1.8% from 12.53 million TEU in the same period of 2026. Total 2026 imports came in at 25.4 million TEU, itself down 0.3% from 25.5 million TEU in 2024.
How Tariffs and Fuel Costs Are Compressing the Import Sourcing Equation
NRF Vice President for Supply Chain and Customs Policy Jonathan Gold confirmed that tariffs remain the primary structural drag, creating both direct cost pressure and planning uncertainty for brands and their textile supply partners. President Trump last month announced a temporary 10% global tariff under the Trade Act of 1974, following a Supreme Court ruling that limited tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, and copper were also adjusted, and new Section 232 tariffs on pharmaceutical products and ingredients were announced.
The fuel cost dimension is a separate mechanism. Hackett Associates Founder Ben Hackett confirmed that while U.S. container cargo is not meaningfully sourced from the Middle East, the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz is raising fuel prices across global shipping lanes. Asian ports depend on Persian Gulf fuel supplies, and any sustained disruption pushes freight rates higher on every container moving through the Pacific — whether it carries technical fabric, apparel, or raw materials.
“The United States is less impacted operationally as there is no shortage of fuel at U.S. ports, but the price of fuel here is based on international pricing,” Hackett noted. Higher container shipping costs ultimately transmit to consumers and to every end user in the textile and apparel supply chain.
What the Data Does Not Resolve for Mill Operators and Procurement Teams
The forecast figures are projections, not confirmed order flows. February totals remain incomplete pending New York/New Jersey port data. Hackett Associates stated it is too early to assess the impact of the two-week ceasefire announced in the Iran conflict, meaning the fuel cost trajectory could shift in either direction before the next report cycle.
The Global Port Tracker data does not differentiate between textile and apparel cargo and general merchandise. Sector-specific import impacts require separate category-level analysis. The 10% global tariff announced under the Trade Act of 1974 is described as temporary, but no confirmed resolution timeline exists. Trade policy uncertainty continues to function as a sourcing suppressor, as Gold stated directly.
Mills sourcing synthetic fibre precursors or specialty inputs from regions outside Asia face less direct exposure to Pacific volume trends. But freight cost inflation applies universally across all shipping lanes and affects every import-dependent production operation regardless of origin.
The May and June volume projections showing year-over-year increases should not be read as indicators of underlying demand recovery. They are a comparison-period artefact from 2026, not evidence of structural sourcing strength returning to the market.
Sustained Import Pressure Strengthens the Case for Diversified Textile Supply Chains
Every report cycle that confirms continued tariff drag and freight cost inflation adds commercial weight to nearshoring and domestic textile supply chain investment. The structural argument is no longer speculative — it is backed by two consecutive years of volume decline at U.S. container ports.
For the U.S. textile sector, sustained softness in import volumes creates both a competitive opening and a capacity challenge, depending on whether domestic manufacturing can meet the quality specifications and lead times that historically justified offshore sourcing decisions. That gap is narrowing for certain product categories, particularly in technical and performance fabric segments.
I follow this data closely because it tells me something that no single sourcing conversation can: where the aggregate weight of import pressure is actually falling, and how long brands and mills have to adjust before the next policy shift resets the equation again. If you are managing sourcing contracts, freight agreements, or nearshore supplier relationships right now, the Global Port Tracker projections through August 2026 should be an input in those conversations — not background noise.
Mills and fabric buyers that use this window to build more resilient domestic or nearshore supply relationships will be better positioned when import volumes eventually normalise, and the current data makes clear that normalisation is not imminent.