FMC Chairman Laura DiBella on Shipping’s New Reality
An exclusive interview — 10 key insights shaping the next phase of shipping
Container shipping is entering a new phase.
Not only driven by market cycles or geopolitics, but increasingly by regulation, transparency, and accountability.
In this context, U.S. Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) Chairman Laura DiBella spoke with Maritime Analytica about how the regulatory landscape is evolving — and what it means for global carriers and shipping leaders.
🔟 Key Insights from the Conversation
1️⃣ Regulation is becoming proactive
“We are working in sync with the industry as it evolves.”
2️⃣ FMC decisions impact global shipping — not just the U.S.
“If it impacts U.S. cargo, it likely impacts cargo globally.”
3️⃣ The industry must become more transparent
The maritime industry has long been a black box.
4️⃣ “Help us help you”
Carriers must provide more data and greater clarity.
5️⃣ Emergency surcharge scrutiny is rising
8 rejected requests show approvals are now much stricter.
6️⃣ Carriers need to explain pricing decisions
“If you explain in more detail… that creates a better conversation.”
7️⃣ Regulation and commercial decisions are now linked
“If you are not aligned… it may not be beneficial for you.”
8️⃣ Investigations can delay major business decisions
“They are delaying decisions until we issue our ruling.”
9️⃣ FMC is becoming more strategic
“We are doing what we were originally designed to do.”
🔟 CEOs must watch regulatory signals closely
“Pay attention to our investigations.”
Container shipping is no longer operating in a purely commercial system.
It is evolving into a system where:
regulation influences pricing
transparency shapes trust
and alignment defines outcomes
In this environment, ignoring regulatory direction is no longer an option.
👉 The next winners will not just react to regulation — they will understand it, engage with it, and align with it early.
Full Interview
The interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Q1. Many people still see regulation as a background issue. From your perspective, how is regulation now shaping real market outcomes in container shipping?
Laura DiBella: Well, I think this is how the world of shipping, global shipping, is evolving. With the evolution of global shipping, the regulatory space needs to evolve as well.
I like to see a proactive stance toward regulation rather than a reactive one. We are working in sync with the industry as it evolves to help shape and grow it in the most efficient and economical way possible.
Yes, we do work on behalf of the U.S. shipper, but much of what we are involved in has very real and considerable impacts on the entire global maritime supply chain.
We are looking out for cargo interests across the board, not just in the United States.
Q1.1. Can you give one practical example of that impact?
Laura DiBella: Well, I can speak about our investigative work.
A very relevant example is our chokepoints study that we kicked off in early 2025.
The whole premise of that investigation was to identify and take a closer look at several areas around the world — chokepoints in general — that could pose challenges to the U.S. shipper or to shipping in general.
We are looking at how we need to potentially respond to that, and how to bring awareness and information to the proper authorities — not only in the United States, but also to our partners and allies around the world.
Because we don’t operate in isolation. If it impacts U.S. cargo, it likely impacts cargo globally.
By producing this information and being helpful to all stakeholders involved, we can potentially support the creation of regulatory responses in those areas.
That is something I can point out that clearly falls into that category.
Q2. What do you think shipping CEOs and top management teams still misunderstand most about the FMC’s role today?
Laura DiBella: I wouldn’t characterize it as necessarily a misunderstanding.
But the message I would like to deliver is that we have — and we have always had — but especially now, more than ever, an extraordinarily proactive and very sharp team that understands shipping, and in particular the Shipping Act, very keenly and very acutely.
Because of that, we may appear to be a bit more scrutinizing. But it is not meant to be penalizing or punitive in any way.
It is meant to elevate the quality of regulation coming out of our agency and, in doing so, elevate the entire industry.
It is in our best interest to put forward the strongest possible work product to support the industry.
Yes, it is geared toward the U.S. shipper, but it is reflective of the entire industry.
We want the industry to step up. We want it to be better recognized, better reinforced, and better respected across the board.
So, we are demanding more from those involved, because we want to be better.
If the United States is going to put a tremendous number of resources and effort into bringing back the maritime industry, then we must also do better on the regulatory side.
I want carriers to interact with us more.
I want them to understand that we understand their business, probably more than they think.
And it should benefit them to work with us more, because we can help them achieve their goals — and that ultimately helps us achieve our goals as the United States.
Q2.1. Why does that misunderstanding matter now?
Laura DiBella: The maritime industry has always been very opaque — somewhat of a black box in how it operates.
I’m not saying that model needs to change entirely, but it has not necessarily served its purpose in today’s environment.
If you look at where we are now, the maritime sector has suffered in terms of visibility, especially during the supply chain disruptions we have seen.
Other industries — like aviation or rail — received more attention, while maritime remained somewhat under the radar.
Because it has not been as open or transparent about how it operates and what it truly needs, it has not always received the level of support it requires.
Now we are at a critical point where the industry truly needs that support.
And that requires a much higher level of openness and transparency.
Q3. In recent weeks, the FMC has taken a firm line on emergency surcharges. What message should carriers and shippers take from that?
Laura DiBella: I think the best message is: help us help you.
It stems from what I just mentioned — being more transparent, being more open, and giving us more that we can work with.
On its face, the rejections — there are multiple now, 8 at the time of discussion — may seem like we don’t want to work with the carriers. That’s not true. We absolutely do want to work with them.
But the information we were receiving was not enough. It was simply not enough.
This is also a different relationship than they’ve had in the past with the FMC.
We took special permissions away from the staff level, where approvals could happen very quickly, and moved them to a higher level of scrutiny.
Going back to the theme of this interview — we expect more. We’re raising the bar on industry altogether. And that includes any special permission requests.
If you are going to ask for special permission to move within the agreed timeframes, we need more than just a number and a one-sentence explanation.
There is a lot of complexity involved. There are real impacts on the shipper side. And ultimately, those costs will be passed through.
So we need to maintain that balance and represent both sides as fairly as possible.
Thirty days — the risk will go up within that period. Give us something to work with. Help us help you.
Q4. When markets are hit by war, disruption, or sudden cost spikes, how should the industry think about fairness in passing those costs on to customers?
Laura DiBella: It is the reality.
I think there is a general understanding — this is business.
Going back to the special permissions discussion, the goal is to protect the shipper, because those higher costs will ultimately be passed through anyway.
In many ways, it comes down to understanding and explaining why.
These are business decisions. If you explain in more detail that costs are rising, and therefore the shipper will experience higher costs because of specific reasons, that creates a better conversation.
It is better than simply raising a rate with nothing attached to it.
I think it is just a healthier way to do business — through better communication.
The impacts will be felt across the board in these situations. We are very aware of that.
But they are handled better when there is a stronger relationship and better communication between parties.
Again, it comes back to transparency and helping everyone understand the “why.”
Q5. Do you believe the industry is entering a new era where pricing decisions need more transparency and stronger justification than before?
Laura DiBella: Yes, I do. I do.
I think it’s where we are now. It’s the evolution of transparency altogether.
There is so much data — data infiltrates our lives in everything that we do.
Shipping is not isolated in that space.
We are in control of so much information coming to us on every single matter.
And there is one area where there is still not a whole lot coming through, and that is incongruent with the way the world is now.
So, I think the shipping industry, in a sense, needs to conform to what the global business environment is asking for.
It is very hard not to operate in that space any longer.
Q6. The FMC has also shown stronger enforcement in areas like billing, tariffs, and commercial practices. What should senior executives take from that at a leadership level?
Laura DiBella: To be fair, they have so much available to them.
All we are asking is that they are fair to those who are ultimately fueling their business.
We are keeping an eye on that cargo — the cargo that drives demand and creates the need for those ships.
As one of the largest consumer markets in the world, we are trying to protect those who are ultimately driving their business.
Fairness will go a long way.
Working with us — helping us help them — will ultimately improve their bottom line.
Coming in and penalizing them for unfair practices is not what I want to do every day.
I would rather find ways to make their business better — and, in doing so, make cargo flows more efficient and the supply chain more fluid.
I would like to flip the model — move away from purely punitive enforcement and toward something that encourages better outcomes and more cargo movement.
Q6.1 Is this now a board-level priority in your view?
Laura DiBella: It’s getting there. Most definitely.
We will never have a perfect system. There is still a lot to improve — especially in supporting U.S. shippers and the broader global ecosystem.
I look forward to feedback from carriers on how we can improve things through the powers we have.
Q6.2 How often are you interacting with top management at the major container carriers?
Laura DiBella: To be very candid, not that much.
But in their defense, I will give them grace.
I’ve only been in my seat here for just under fourteen weeks. So, it may feel like a long time, but it would not be fair to say they should have come to see me already.
I have spoken to every single one of them, and I have met nearly all of them in person.
At this stage, I hear more from other parts of the supply chain.
But it is all relative. And I believe now, with the nature of some of our decisions and much of what you are seeing coming out of the FMC — since I have been on board, and even slightly before —
I expect that the conversations with carriers will become more regular and more robust.
Q7. How should global shipping leaders think about the line between normal commercial decisions and practices that may raise regulatory concern?
Laura DiBella: I almost see them as one and the same.
They have to be aligned, in sync and symbiotic in nature.
I am not saying I want to be part of every single commercial decision, but especially these days, commercial decisions are heavily impacted by the regulatory space.
That’s a very interesting question. Let me think about it for a moment.
I guess that’s where I would go — to the proactive side.
Everybody is looking to — everybody, I’m talking about carriers, everyone in the supply chain, business in general — is looking to make things better, faster, and more economical.
I would love to be a part of the “better, faster, more economical” discussion as a regulator, just to see how we can help, really make how the sausage is made, kind of similar — how we do it in government and how it’s done on the business side.
If there are certain regulatory activities that would be very helpful for a company — Company X — what would that be? This would help you make a commercial decision.
I can point to one investigation — taking away from what’s happening globally and bringing it back to the United States.
We have a chassis investigation that’s been open for a very long time — a very long time — and it’s coming to a close very soon.
We’ve had many commercial interests that are impacted by this, that have made it very clear that they are withholding business decisions until we come down with our ruling on this particular investigation.
So that’s why — going back to my first point — I really see them as one and the same.
If you are not aligned with where the regulatory action is, from a commercial decision standpoint, it may not be beneficial for you.
Having closer conversations with regulators and making sure that you are aligned with the general direction of your regulatory body — what they wish to see — is paramount before making any commercial decisions.
Q8. The FMC has also spoken about foreign government actions that may affect U.S. shipping interests. Is the Commission’s role becoming more strategic in a more geopolitical shipping world?
Laura DiBella: Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely — becoming more strategic.
I answer that by bringing you back to the origins through which we were created.
Not many realize that the Federal Maritime Commission was created — was bifurcated — from the Maritime Administration.
With that, our role is to regulate U.S. Ocean shipping, but also to support the U.S. flag by helping on the cargo side, by inducing cargo flows.
I feel that side of the equation — the U.S. flag side — has lessened over time.
But what we are doing now, with the Maritime Action Plan and the broader efforts to bring the industry back in the United States, is going back to our roots.
This is not new. It is what we were originally designed to do.
We lost our partner, in a sense, over time — but we are getting that partner back.
So how we support that is something we are actively discussing, including how it will work through the Maritime Action Plan and how it will roll out.
Those discussions are underway right now.
But ultimately, we are doing what we were originally designed to do — supporting U.S. cargo in every way, and helping elevate the industry overall, including from the U.S. flag standpoint.
Q8.1 How should carriers factor that into their planning?
Laura DiBella: I think it would be so wonderful.
There are several carriers that I am very much aware of that are involved in U.S. cargo interests from the flag standpoint.
For carriers that I am not aware of — if there are any carriers out there that have an interest in helping us, when I say us, I mean the United States — helping the United States bring back the U.S. flag, through any mechanisms they can, I would love to know. I would love to know.
It is not necessarily in my direct purview to work on that, but because we have the relationships and we operate in the regulatory space, if they have ideas or anything that can support that, it only helps the industry in the end.
I think it is very complementary. It helps them diversify their offerings, especially for the types of cargoes that can only be transported by U.S. ships.
It also helps the industry altogether.
The more strength and the more muscle we can put into this effort, and the more collaboration, the better.
So that is what I can say — it is about helping elevate the industry.
And in the end, what we want is more competition.
That is why we want the U.S. flag to continue to grow, because it means more competition.
Competition is good. That is what we are all about. We are all about competition here.
Q9. As the U.S. puts more focus on maritime strength and U.S.-flag shipping, how should international carriers understand the FMC’s place in that broader direction?
Laura DiBella: We are walking a fine line — protecting competitive interests all around, while at the same time championing U.S. interests, particularly U.S. cargo.
We want to make sure that U.S. cargo is protected.
All of this — every effort surrounding the Maritime Action Plan and our role within it — whatever it ultimately looks like, and it is still in a preliminary discussion phase — is meant to support the industry altogether.
The United States is going to be putting a massive amount of money into infrastructure improvements — road, rail, the entire supply chain.
The needs of the supply chain are going to be addressed in a way they have never been before.
There will be significant investment in dredging and in operational improvements across the system.
All of this is positive.
Yes, it is designed to elevate and promote U.S. interests and the U.S. flag.
But going back to one of the central themes of this interview — the entire maritime community will benefit from this.
More resources for workforce, infrastructure, and regulation — this is an overwhelming level of support for the industry.
It is meant to show that we are serious about bringing the industry back — shipbuilding, infrastructure, all of it.
Everyone will benefit from what we are doing here, not just the United States.
That is the central message.
Q9.1 Does this change how global players engage with the U.S. market?
Laura DiBella: Yes. Yes, absolutely. We can’t do it without them. We can’t do it without them.
We’re working with our allies around the world. They’re helping support this industry — bringing in experts on the shipbuilding side, bringing in experts on the infrastructure side, and working with crane manufacturers and operators.
I’m casting a very wide net, asking for support from the industry to help us get where we need to go.
It’s not a one-and-done situation.
This is generational in scope — what we’re looking to do.
This effort should not — and I hope will not — stop after one administration. It should continue with the next president and continue beyond that.
So, the ability for the industry to be a participant — either in a very active or supportive role — is going to exist for a very, very long time.
As we go through the many iterations of what this Maritime Action Plan is going to involve, there will continue to be opportunities.
So right now, it’s the foundational work — addressing what needs to be addressed first.
Because if you ask Administrator Kamal — Steven Kamal — he’ll say everything needs to be addressed at the same time.
But how best do we position all the players to get this off the ground in the right way?
And so, it’s going to be its own perpetuating machine, moving on from there.
So, there’s going to be plenty of opportunities for the industry at large to play a role.
And I’m sure, if not this iteration, one of the subsequent ones, there will be a place for these groups.
Q10. Looking ahead, what are the two or three things every container shipping CEO should pay much closer attention to over the next 12 months?
Laura DiBella: You should definitely pay attention to our investigations. Our investigations will be very helpful for them.
My statements are not very frequent — at least not right now. Not yet.
But when I do put something out, there is significance behind it.
So, anything that comes from the Office of the Chairman — Chairman Laura DiBella — is something to be keenly aware of.
What else should they be on the lookout for?
They should look at what I am asking for — and that will come through my statements and in interviews like this.
I am asking for more communication — for a better relationship with the carriers.
I am not saying that we are in a bad relationship right now.
Of course, there is always room to improve.
I think the relationship got pretty complacent over the past decades.
The relationship is different now — and I think they know that.
I do not want them to look at that as a bad thing. I want them to see it as a good thing.
I am a very pragmatic, business-minded individual.
I want to make the best business decisions for the industry right now.
And they are a huge part of it. They are massive.
They are the big elephant in the entire picture.
I need to hear from them more than I currently do.
Q10.1 What is the one thing they still underestimate most?
Laura DiBella: They probably underestimate the ability of the agency.
I do not want to say that is their fault.
But I think they may not fully realize how powerful our charter is, and what we are able to do.
The type of authority that we have — in this geopolitical environment — may actually be helpful to them in some areas.
Not necessarily harmful — it could be helpful.
That is really what I can say.