Under a long-term deal sealed by the Obama administration, a Chinese Communist company was set to control the second-busiest container port in the United States. In an unreported Trump administration victory, the Communists are out after a drawn-out national security review forced a unit of China-based COSCO Shipping Holdings Co. (Orient Overseas Container Line—OOCL) to sell the cherished container terminal business, which handles among the largest freight of imports into the U.S.
It all started with a 40-year container terminal lease between the Port of Long Beach in southern California and Hong Kong. The Obama administration proudly signed the agreement in 2012 giving China control of America’s second-largest container port behind the nearby Port of Los Angeles. One of the Trump administration’s first big moves was to get the Communists out of the Port of Long Beach. After a national security review and federal intervention, the Long Beach terminal business, which handles millions of containers annually, is finally being sold to an Australian company called Macquarie Infrastructure Partners. That essentially kills China’s decades-long contract with the Obama administration.
Watch: JD Vance Has Hilarious ‘Note to Protesters’ Yelling at Him in a Foreign Language
DHS Delivers Bad News for 300,000 Haitians in the US: ‘It’s Closing Time’
New York City pours $15M into sex change initiatives as Mamdani accuses federal government of intimidation
Socialists sweep NYC as Americans balk at movement’s brutal catch: ‘Talk to immigrants’
Clinton judge orders DOJ to unseal the Epstein files it has been keeping hidden
Pilot Teams Up with Daughter on His Final Flight for Southwest
Luigi Mangione’s team fires back at plea deal report, calls leaks threat to fair trial
Small plane crashes into Beijing’s tallest building
John Bolton pleads guilty to one count of mishandling classified information
White House condemns ‘targeted sabotage’ of reflecting pool as repairs pushed past July 4 celebration
Charlie Kirk judge to rule on Tyler Robinson’s attempt to have potential death penalty removed
Politico: Dems Patriotism Problems So Bad They Have Issues Rooting for US World Cup Success
John Bolton Set to Take Plea Deal: Report
WATCH: AOC lashes out at Trump for ‘betrayal’ of voters after key SCOTUS immigration rulings
WATCH: Kellyanne Conway insists socialist primary victories don’t reflect American values nationwide
The deal never should have been signed in the first place considering the facility’s size, significance and the national security issues associated with a hostile foreign government controlling it. The southern California port is the premier U.S. gateway for trans-Pacific trade, according to its website, and handles trade valued at more than $194 billion annually. It is one of the few ports that can accommodate the world’s largest vessels and serves 140 shipping lines with connections to 217 seaports around the world. The facility encompasses 3,200 acres with 31 miles of waterfront, 10 piers, 62 berths and 68 post-Panamax gantry cranes. In 2018, the Long Beach port handled more than 8 million container units, achieving the busiest year in its history.
Removing Chinese Communists from this essential port is a tremendous feat and a huge victory for U.S. national security. You’d never know it because the media, consumed with the impeachment debacle, has ignored this important achievement. The only coverage of the finalized transfer is found in Long Beach’s local newspaper, which published a brief article omitting important background information on the Trump administration’s work to take back the terminal from the Communists. The story makes it seem like a regular business transaction in which “a Chinese state-owned company, reached a deal to sell the terminal, one of the busiest in the port, for $1.78 billion.” The piece also quotes the Port of Long Beach’s deputy executive director saying that the transaction process was intricate and involved one of “our most valuable port assets.” Buried at the bottom of the article is a sentence mentioning that the U.S. government, which regulates mergers for antitrust and security reasons, stepped in and required COSCO to sell its rights to the container terminal.
Watch: JD Vance Has Hilarious ‘Note to Protesters’ Yelling at Him in a Foreign Language
DHS Delivers Bad News for 300,000 Haitians in the US: ‘It’s Closing Time’
New York City pours $15M into sex change initiatives as Mamdani accuses federal government of intimidation
Socialists sweep NYC as Americans balk at movement’s brutal catch: ‘Talk to immigrants’
Clinton judge orders DOJ to unseal the Epstein files it has been keeping hidden
Pilot Teams Up with Daughter on His Final Flight for Southwest
Luigi Mangione’s team fires back at plea deal report, calls leaks threat to fair trial
Small plane crashes into Beijing’s tallest building
John Bolton pleads guilty to one count of mishandling classified information
White House condemns ‘targeted sabotage’ of reflecting pool as repairs pushed past July 4 celebration
Charlie Kirk judge to rule on Tyler Robinson’s attempt to have potential death penalty removed
Politico: Dems Patriotism Problems So Bad They Have Issues Rooting for US World Cup Success
John Bolton Set to Take Plea Deal: Report
WATCH: AOC lashes out at Trump for ‘betrayal’ of voters after key SCOTUS immigration rulings
WATCH: Kellyanne Conway insists socialist primary victories don’t reflect American values nationwide
In the last few years China has bought cargo ports throughout the world, including in Latin America, the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Chinese-owned ports are located in Greece, Italy, Spain and other European locations. In sub-Saharan Africa there are dozens of existing or planned port projects funded or operated by China, according to a study that highlights the threat the Chinese investments present to U.S. influence in the region. One troubling analysis points out that “COSCO’s commercial expansion has created leverage for Beijing — leverage that has already resulted in countries that host COSCO ports adopting China’s position on key international issues.”
Story cited here.
