President Donald Trump said Monday that the United States will “keep” the Strait of Hormuz, reinstate a blockade on Iranian shipping and charge a 20% fee on cargo moving through the waterway to cover security costs, escalating a dangerous fight over one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints. CBS News reported Trump’s new warning over Hormuz and shipping security.
Trump said the strait would remain open “with or without Iran,” while declaring that the U.S. would be known as the “Guardian of the Hormuz Strait.” Reuters reported that Trump did not immediately explain how the 20% cargo charge would be collected, enforced or justified under international maritime law. Reuters reported that Trump offered few details on how the charge would work.
The announcement came after Iran claimed the Strait of Hormuz was closed again following renewed U.S. strikes, Iranian attacks on ships and retaliatory strikes on U.S.-linked facilities across the Gulf. CBS News reported that traffic through the strait has dropped sharply as security risks mount, with only 14 vessels crossing Sunday, according to Kpler data cited in the live update. CBS reported that traffic through the strait had fallen sharply.
Trump Hormuz Toll Plan Raises Legal Questions
The Trump Hormuz toll plan is bold, politically explosive and legally uncertain. The United States has long protected freedom of navigation in the Gulf, but charging a 20% fee on all cargo would be a dramatic shift from naval protection to a quasi-commercial security regime.
Reuters reported that the U.N.’s International Maritime Organization said it opposes fees on ships passing through international straits and sees no legal basis for mandatory tolls simply to transit such waterways. Shipping industry officials also expressed concern about the proposal and questioned whether it would improve safety. The U.N. maritime agency opposed fees for ships passing through international straits.
That objection matters. Conservatives should support strong maritime security, but they should also be wary of inventing a new global toll system without clear legal authority, congressional oversight or a workable enforcement plan.
A fee that sounds tough in a television interview can become a logistical and diplomatic nightmare in practice. Who bills the cargo? Who collects the money? What happens if a ship refuses? Would the U.S. Navy detain vessels from friendly countries? Would allies treat the charge as a security reimbursement or an American tax on global trade?
Those questions need answers before Washington turns a freedom-of-navigation mission into a revenue operation.
Iran Blockade Returns As Strait Fight Deepens
Trump also announced that the U.S. is reinstating what he called a blockade on Iranian ports and vessels, saying it would stop Iran’s ships and customers while letting other countries use the strait. CBS reported that Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority declared passage through the strait “currently unfeasible” after what it called hostile U.S. actions. Iran’s Strait Authority said passage had become unfeasible after U.S. actions.
Iran has tried to claim authority over shipping through the strait since the U.S. and Israel launched their joint war on Iran earlier this year. CBS reported that Tehran created a new “Strait Authority” and has demanded that vessels seek permission to transit, while rejecting the U.S.-backed southern route near Oman. Iran has tried to exert control over shipping through the strait.
That Iranian move is unacceptable. The Strait of Hormuz is not Tehran’s private checkpoint. It is a vital maritime corridor for energy and commerce. Iran does not get to threaten tankers, demand permits, fire warning shots and then claim it is merely “managing” the waterway.
Trump is right to reject Iranian control. The question is whether his 20% cargo charge strengthens America’s case or muddies it.
The strongest U.S. argument is simple: ships must be able to pass safely without Iranian coercion. A toll demand from Washington risks giving Iran propaganda material, letting Tehran argue that both sides are now trying to monetize the strait.
Oil Markets React To Escalation
CBS reported that oil prices jumped nearly 5% Monday after weekend strikes and new threats over the strait, with benchmark crude prices moving back toward $80 a barrel. The reaction shows why this dispute matters far beyond the Middle East. Oil prices climbed as threats over Hormuz intensified.
The Strait of Hormuz is a global pressure point. The U.S. Energy Information Administration has described it as one of the world’s most important oil transit chokepoints, and in 2024 oil flows through the strait averaged about 20 million barrels per day, roughly 20% of global petroleum liquids consumption. EIA has described Hormuz as one of the world’s most important oil chokepoints.
When ships slow down, reroute or stop broadcasting normal transit plans, markets notice. Insurance costs rise. Energy traders price in risk. Refiners and manufacturers brace for higher input costs. Eventually, American families see the consequences in gasoline, diesel, airfares, food prices and consumer goods.
That is why the United States has a real interest in keeping Hormuz open. The issue is not charity for Gulf states. It is economic security for American consumers and global allies.
But a 20% cargo fee could also raise costs if it is actually applied. Even if the fee is meant to reimburse U.S. security expenses, the cost would likely be passed through supply chains. That means Trump’s plan must be judged not only by its toughness toward Iran, but by its effect on American prices.
U.S. Forces Hit Iranian Naval Targets
The military side of the crisis is accelerating. CBS reported that U.S. Central Command said American forces hit a submarine and ship maintenance facility at Iran’s Bandar Abbas Naval Base, using three Corsair unmanned surface vessels in what CENTCOM described as the first U.S. combat use of sea drones. CENTCOM said U.S. forces struck Iranian naval infrastructure.
CENTCOM said the strike degraded Iran’s ability to attack commercial shipping. If Iran is targeting vessels and threatening the strait, strikes on naval infrastructure tied to those attacks are legitimate military actions.
The use of sea drones is also notable. It signals a new phase in U.S. maritime warfare, where unmanned systems can hit high-value naval facilities without exposing pilots or large crews to direct danger. That is exactly the kind of innovation the Pentagon should be pursuing.
Still, every new strike increases the risk of retaliation. Reuters reported that U.S. and Iranian forces exchanged heavy missile and drone attacks over the weekend and into Monday, with Tehran saying it hit U.S. military facilities across the Gulf. Reuters reported heavy exchanges between U.S. and Iranian forces.
The administration should keep the mission narrow: protect shipping, degrade Iranian capabilities tied to maritime attacks and prevent Tehran from closing the waterway. It should not let a security operation drift into open-ended regional war.
Allies May Not Back A Toll
AP reported that the U.N. maritime agency opposed charging fees for passage through international straits and noted that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had previously said there was no support among Gulf countries for tolls or fees on international waters. AP reported that the U.N. maritime agency and Gulf partners raised concerns about tolls.
That makes Trump’s new plan politically awkward. Washington spent weeks criticizing Iran’s threats to charge ships, then Trump floated an American reimbursement fee for securing the same waterway. Supporters will argue there is a difference between Iran extorting ships and the U.S. protecting them. That distinction is real, but it still needs a legal and diplomatic foundation.
Gulf states may quietly welcome U.S. protection, but that does not mean they want to publicly endorse a broad cargo levy that could disrupt trade, anger Asian buyers or complicate their own energy exports.
A better model may be targeted cost-sharing with Gulf partners through formal defense agreements, not an improvised universal cargo fee. If wealthy Gulf states benefit from U.S. naval protection, they should help pay for it. But the terms should be negotiated clearly, not announced as a blanket charge on global shipping.
Strength Needs Discipline
Trump’s instinct that America should not guard the world’s chokepoints for free will resonate with many voters. For decades, U.S. taxpayers funded global security while wealthy allies and energy exporters benefited. Asking partners to pay more is fair.
But there is a difference between burden-sharing and creating a maritime toll regime overnight. Burden-sharing strengthens alliances when it is negotiated, transparent and tied to specific missions. A sudden cargo charge risks legal challenges, allied backlash and market confusion.
The administration should brief Congress on the blockade, the legal basis for any fee, the role of the Navy, the risks to commercial shipping and the expected cost to consumers. It should also explain whether the charge applies to all cargo, only certain shipments, only energy cargo or only vessels requesting U.S. escort.
The public deserves clarity because this policy could affect prices at home and war risk abroad.
A strong America First policy would keep Hormuz open, make Iran pay a military price for attacking ships, require wealthy regional partners to contribute more and avoid turning U.S. naval power into an improvised toll booth.
Trump’s warning to Tehran may restore deterrence if it is backed by force and clear objectives. The 20% fee, however, needs more than bravado. It needs law, logistics, allied buy-in and a serious accounting of whether the cost lands on Iran, Gulf states, global shippers or American consumers.
