Port of Long Beach’s Hacegaba says volume down 11% in January

Noel Hacegaba, the new CEO at the Port of Long Beach, reported that in January: “We moved 847,765 TEUs, marking our second busiest January on record. Now, that's down 11% from January 2025, which is still the Port of Long Beach's strongest January and second strongest month in its 115-year history.”

Hacegaba was speaking at the Port’s February 25^th media briefing in which he detailed the Port’s January 2026 cargo performance:

• Imports declined 13.1% to 409,828 TEUs,
• Exports rose 0.8% to 99,478 TEUs.
• The Port moved “51% of the cargo processed in January at the San Pedro Bay Ports complex.”

Tariff Impact

Hacegaba provided detailed insights into the impact of tariffs on the U.S. economy: “On average, tariffs added up to an additional $1,700 in costs for the average household, affecting the price of clothes, shoes, toys and electronics items that we typically import from East Asian countries …Our tonnage for 2025 was down 32% for iron and steel compared to 2024, while toys and sports equipment declined 15%, dyes were down 15%, synthetic fibers were down 43%, and we saw a 21% reduction in salt, sulfur and cement.”

To help explain the impact on US households, Hacegaba provided a look at the impact on Americans who knit and how those costs rose in 2025 due to higher tariffs: “Now, closer to home, senior citizens living on a fixed income are also paying more, even more than the yarn and other materials anyone might use to knit or crochet a gift for their loved ones.”

Specifically, he reported that: “Knitting needles, crochet hooks, embroidery hoops, and other stitching tools primarily come from China, and many brands of yarn are spun in China. In 2024, the San Pedro Bay Ports Complex moved 1,130 metric tons of knitted or crocheted fabrics. In 2025, we processed only 123 metric tons of knitted or crocheted fabrics, representing an 89% decline year over year. And that isn't because people lost their love for knitting. Now, today, higher prices have forced consumers to be more selective and to purchase more generic items.”

SCOTUS Reject and Refunding $175 Billion to US Importers

Hacegaba reported on the US Supreme Court ruling that: “About two-thirds of tariffs imposed last year under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, were unconstitutional. While this decision ruled on the legality of IEEPA tariffs, it did little to remove the uncertainty that we've seen and continue to see across the goods movement industry. Our customers are)seeking clarity on whether tariffs already paid will be refunded, and when and how these refunds will be processed. Until these questions are answered, the only certainty is more uncertainty, and affordability will continue to be a topic of conversation.”

It is estimated that the Trump administration may have to repay $175 billion in imposed tariffs to American importers.

There will be resistance from the Trump Administration in refunding that could take years, according to the conservative Cato Institute: “There is an obvious way forward. The federal government and courts have long recognized that when tariffs are later invalidated, the government must refund collections with interest. Customs officials regularly process duty refunds; US lawyers regularly request them; and even large, retroactive refunds have been automatically issued in the past …. That was then. Now, both the president and the Treasury secretary have indicated that they won’t refund the money without a fight, and that the process could take years. The Department of Justice has gone quiet, and as of this writing, CBP (US Customs and Border Protection) has issued no refund guidance whatsoever.”

Plan B Tariffs

Hacegaba said that ahead of the Supreme Court decision, the Administration had already signaled that “they had a Plan B if the IEEPA tariffs were overturned. As we heard last night during the President's State of the Union speech, the Administration intends aggressively to pursue tariffs through other means, including a newly enacted 10% global tariff, the same one which has already been announced at 15%, but as of today is actually still set at 10%.”

The Plan B tariff authority cited by the Trump Administration is imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 in which the 10% duties were announced by the Administration following the Supreme Court rejection of the IEEPA tariffs.

However, the Trump Administration’s Justice Department had reportedly previously argued that the Section 122 tariffs, which can only apply for 150 days, are not legally suitable.

The New York Times reported that during legal arguments last year, the Department of Justice tried to persuade a court that the president should be allowed to use an international emergency law (the IEEPA tariffs rejected by the Supreme Court) to impose tariffs, because Section 122 wasn’t appropriate for the situation: “In a brief submitted to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last year, the administration’s lawyers wrote that Section 122 did not “have any obvious application here, where the concerns the President identified in declaring an emergency arise from trade deficits, which are conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits.”

New Cargo Surge?

Hacegaba said that adding to the uncertainty around the tariffs’ situation is that “at this point, if this could trigger another cargo surge. We saw this type of front-loading before tariffs were originally enacted and again when tariffs and reciprocal tariffs were briefly paused last year. This time around, importers will have to wait to implement any front-loading activity as factories in Asia are closed for up to two weeks to celebrate the Lunar New Year, which started February 17th.”

Finally, Hacegaba made a plea to policymakers to provide a more certain trade environment: “Trade policies have far-reaching impacts on US supply chains, global competitiveness, and the movement of goods through America's ports. As global trade continues to evolve, we urge policymakers to prioritize predictable, transparent, and cooperative frameworks that reinforce the United States position as a leader in global commerce.”