Heightened CBP Security at U.S. Ports Is Turning Customs Holds Into a New Demurrage Risk for Importers

Heightened U.S. Customs and Border Protection scrutiny at seaports is emerging as a distinct cost and timing problem for importers, separate from broader congestion or freight-rate volatility. A July 22, 2026 Journal of Commerce report said trade participants are seeing unusually severe security activity at U.S. marine gateways, with longer holds and growing exposure to demurrage, detention and exam-related costs.

That follows other 2026 reporting showing a broader rise in customs enforcement intensity, particularly for higher-risk importer profiles, China-linked cargo and unfamiliar sourcing patterns. In a June 4, 2026 article republished by S&P Global, customs attorney Alexander Owens said there had been a “recent increase in customs holds for containers from China at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach,” while broker and forwarder Steven Heid pointed to greater scrutiny of foreign entities, questionable delivered-duty-paid structures, valuation issues and country-of-origin concerns amid heavier tariff exposure and stronger analytics by CBP. S&P Global

What appears to be changing

Publicly, CBP has not issued a broad July 2026 seaport bulletin saying it has launched a nationwide port-security crackdown. But several verified signals point in the same direction: more aggressive trade enforcement, more refined targeting and a seaport exam system built to route cargo into multiple layers of inspection.

CBP has been explicit that trade enforcement is being tightened. In June 2026, the agency codified the suspension of the de minimis exemption for non-postal shipments valued at $800 or less, effective June 24, 2026, and set July 24, 2026, as the start date for the new postal process. That policy change does not directly govern full-container seaport imports, but it is part of the same enforcement environment in which more shipments require formal entry, better data and closer review. Greenberg Traurig summary of CBP action

CBP has also emphasized that cargo descriptions must be precise and that admissibility decisions are driven through the Automated Commercial Environment, where the agency applies automation and targeting to determine release. Its trade systems guidance says ABI filers can receive conditional cargo-release results ahead of vessel arrival, but that does not prevent selected shipments from being pulled into further review or exam. CBP cargo description guidance and ABI overview

The agency has been candid for more than a year that artificial intelligence and analytics are being used to identify higher-risk shipments earlier. In remarks at CBP’s Trade and Cargo Security Summit, Acting Commissioner Pete Flores said AI helps the agency identify shipments and entities that pose greater risk “at an earlier point in time.” That lines up with what brokers and trade attorneys have been describing in 2026: more targeted intervention on importer-of-record changes, valuation anomalies, tariff avoidance risk and country-of-origin questions. CBP summit remarks and S&P Global

Where the impact is easiest to see

The clearest named impact in current reporting is Southern California. The June 4 S&P Global/Journal of Commerce report specifically cited increased customs holds for containers from China at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. S&P Global

Operationally, Los Angeles/Long Beach is also a useful case study because the local exam infrastructure is extensive and specialized. The Los Angeles Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Association’s current CBP contact page for the LA/LB seaport shows separate contacts for Selectivity, the Warehouse and Carrier Enforcement dock exam team, an Advanced Targeting Unit, Radiation Portal Monitor operations and multiple Centralized Examination Station operators, including facilities for customs, anti-terrorism contraband enforcement and agriculture exams. That does not prove a July surge by itself, but it shows how quickly a hold can branch into different workflows, handoffs and transfer requirements once a container is flagged. LA/LB CBP seaport contacts

Beyond LA/LB, public port advisories confirming the same pattern at New York/New Jersey, Savannah, Houston or Charleston were not readily visible in official searches on July 22, 2026. That absence matters: it suggests the current story is better treated as a customs-friction risk with confirmed hot spots and broad trade concern, rather than a fully documented, coast-to-coast port shutdown-style event.

Why customs friction becomes a landed-cost problem fast

For cargo owners, the real issue is not the legal concept of an exam. It is the chain reaction after selection.

A container that is available for pickup can suddenly become unavailable if CBP places a hold, directs a dock exam, orders transfer to a Centralized Examination Station, requires non-intrusive inspection or routes the shipment through agriculture or contraband enforcement channels. Once that happens, free time can keep burning, drayage appointments may be missed, chassis turns can fail and warehouse receiving slots may need to be rebooked. In busier gateways, those delays can multiply because retrieving the box requires coordination among the terminal, the ocean carrier, the exam site, the trucker, the customs broker and sometimes a second warehouse or bonded facility.

The Federal Maritime Commission has repeatedly acknowledged that government holds can create exactly this kind of cost spiral. In a formal response to the National Shipper Advisory Committee, the FMC said government holds can last “weeks or months” in extreme cases and may result in “millions of dollars” in demurrage or detention charges, while also making clear that charges connected to government inspections are still subject to the Shipping Act’s requirement that carrier and terminal practices be just and reasonable. FMC response on government inspections

The FMC’s standing detention-and-demurrage guidance also underscores the scale of the issue in the ocean market. Across nine major ocean carriers, the agency says roughly $15.4 billion in detention and demurrage charges were collected between April 1, 2020 and March 31, 2025. FMC detention and demurrage page

A fresh July 8, 2026 FMC announcement is also relevant for shippers weighing disputed charges. The agency said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld its position that detention fees must promote freight fluidity, affirming that charges can be unreasonable when the invoiced party had no practical ability to return equipment during a port closure. That ruling was not about CBP exams, but it reinforces the broader principle that detention and demurrage are not supposed to function as automatic penalties divorced from operational reality. FMC court decision notice

Why industrial and project cargo importers should pay attention

Inspection-related dwell time can be especially disruptive when the cargo is tied to maintenance, outages, construction or production continuity.

A delayed consumer shipment may create a merchandising problem. A delayed industrial shipment can stall a planned plant shutdown, push a turbine or mining-equipment repair window, disrupt construction sequencing or leave a production line waiting on a single imported component. That is why the issue is bigger than compliance housekeeping. When customs release becomes less predictable, schedule integrity degrades even if vessel capacity, inland transportation and warehouse space were arranged correctly.

This is also where the problem intersects with other logistics choke points CAP has covered before. Even if a shipper has already shifted inland strategy because drayage capacity is becoming the next industrial supply-chain risk or because intermodal is becoming shippers’ main escape valve from tight truckload, a customs hold at the port can still break the plan before the inland move begins.

What remains uncertain

Two things are true at once.

First, the trade community’s warning appears real. Multiple 2026 sources point to stricter enforcement, more holds and particular pressure on imports with tariff, origin, importer-of-record or compliance red flags. Journal of Commerce trigger report and S&P Global

Second, hard public data are limited. CBP does not publish a simple daily count of seaport container exams by gateway, and official port notices visible on July 22 did not clearly establish a single national operation or one July directive explaining every hold. For now, the most supportable reading is that importers are operating in a tougher enforcement climate rather than under one openly declared coastwide emergency measure.

What importers should do now

A few practical steps are well supported by the current environment:

Tighten filing accuracy before the box arrives

CBP’s own guidance continues to stress precise cargo descriptions and timely electronic filing. That means reviewing HTS classification, importer-of-record setup, valuation logic, country-of-origin claims, ISF quality and supporting documentation before arrival rather than after a hold appears. CBP cargo description guidance and ISF timing guidance

Identify cargo profiles that could draw extra scrutiny

The strongest current reporting points to elevated risk around China-linked cargo, unusual sourcing shifts, DDP structures, tariff exposure and origin or valuation anomalies. Companies importing replacement parts, fabricated components or project materials through new supplier channels should assume those patterns may be more visible to CBP than they were a year ago. S&P Global

Build more slack into dray and receiving plans

Once a container moves from release-ready to exam-pending, the handoff calendar can collapse. For critical freight, earlier dray preplanning, flexible warehouse appointments and contingency budgets for exam transfers, storage and re-delivery are becoming more important.

Know the dispute framework on charges

FMC rules do not automatically erase every charge connected to a government hold, but they do require that detention and demurrage practices be just and reasonable and tied to their freight-fluidity purpose. Parties that believe they were invoiced improperly can use the FMC’s charge-complaint process. FMC guidance and FMC government-hold response

For CAP Logistics readers, the near-term takeaway is straightforward: customs friction at U.S. seaports is becoming a planning variable, not just a compliance afterthought. Importers moving critical industrial parts, maintenance materials and project cargo may need more documentation discipline, more schedule buffer and a clearer cost plan for exam-related delays if this tougher enforcement pattern continues through the second half of 2026.