US weighs curbs on $3.13bn in Spanish exports

The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), Washington's regulator for ocean shipping, proposed on 14 October to restrict some imports from Spain, olive oil and ceramic tiles among them (FMC, draft rule). It is responding to Spain's refusal to let US-flagged ships linked to military cargo for Israel call at the port of Algeciras. Nothing is in force yet. A quarrel over port calls has become a threat to Spanish exporters, and Madrid cannot answer it on its own.

A second proposal would charge $200,000 every time a Spanish-flagged ship enters a US port from abroad (FMC). The fee follows the flag, not the owner or the cargo. A US-flagged vessel run by a Danish-owned company would not pay. If a fee went unpaid, the FMC could ask the Department of Homeland Security to deny clearance, the permission a ship needs to use US ports, to that ship or another Spanish-flagged one (draft rule).

The exports in the line of fire

The heavier threat falls on goods. US imports from Spain in the five product groups under review were worth about $3.13 billion in 2025, including $836.9 million of olive oil (Reuters, draft rule). That figure measures the trade the measures could touch. It is not a forecast of losses, and the FMC leaves room for narrower limits.

The net is wider than Spanish producers. The draft covers goods "exported from Spain", not goods made there, and would let the FMC seek detention of a ship of any flag carrying them (draft rule). Produce grown in Morocco and loaded at a Spanish port could in principle be caught. The text does not say how such re-exports would be treated.

Two accounts of the same ships

In November 2024, Spain's Foreign Ministry said the Maersk Denver and Maersk Seletar would not stop at Algeciras (EL PAÍS). Both are run by Maersk Line, Limited, the American arm of Denmark's Maersk. Its ships fly the US flag and carry cargo for the US government, which is why Washington treats a Spanish port decision as a problem for American shipping.

Madrid argues it judged cargo and destination, not flags. Six months earlier it had turned away a Danish-flagged ship bound for Haifa with reported explosives (RTVE). Maersk acknowledges carrying defence-related cargo for Washington but says no weapons or ammunition were bound for Algeciras (Maersk).

The FMC says Spain's motive does not matter. In its reading, US law lets it act against conditions unfavourable to American shipping without proving that Spain singled out the US flag (draft rule). Its case therefore rests on traffic. Maersk Line, Limited averaged 7.25 Spanish port calls a month before November 2024, then made six visits in total in 2026 up to the notice (draft rule).

That is a steep fall for one operator. The FMC puts no dollar figure on what it cost and keeps its sworn evidence confidential, so outsiders cannot see how the agency connects lost port calls to curbs on Spanish exports.

Who can act next

The FMC will take public comments for 60 days after formal publication, and Spain can request a hearing (docket). The commission then withdraws, revises or finalizes the rule. Homeland Security would enforce any clearance refusals, and US courts could review a final order.

Spain's government said on 14 October it would defend its companies in coordination with the European Commission and other member states (EFE). That coordination is a legal necessity. Under the EU treaties, trade policy belongs to the Union rather than its members, so Spain cannot impose counter-tariffs of its own. Any European countermeasure would have to come from the Commission, the EU's executive, with backing from EU governments.

The draft anticipates a fight. It would let the FMC raise fees or add products if Spain retaliates (draft rule). Whether EU-level measures would trigger that clause is unclear, but the threat raises the price of any response Brussels considers.

The public record supports a narrower conclusion than the FMC's remedies imply. The regulator documents a sharp drop in one operator's Spanish port calls, yet its published case offers no estimate of the money lost and nothing tying that drop to restrictions on roughly $3.13 billion of Spanish exports (Reuters, draft rule). The confidential evidence may close that gap. Until it does, the distance between proof and penalty is Spain's strongest argument in the comment period. If the dispute escalates into a trade conflict, the Commission and EU governments, not Madrid, will decide how Europe responds.