President Donald Trump announced on July 14, 2026, that the United States would charge a 20 percent fee on all cargo transported through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil shipments. The decision came amid escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran, which had previously engaged in a brief ceasefire following a series of attacks in February 2026. The announcement, posted on Trump’s social media platform, framed the toll as a means for the U.S. to recoup the costs of safeguarding the waterway, which has been a flashpoint for conflict. Despite the administration’s own legal stance that such tolls would violate international law, Trump insisted the measure was a matter of fairness. The move followed a renewed cycle of hostilities between the U.S. and Iran, marked by multiple incidents involving Iranian missile attacks on commercial vessels traversing the strait. These attacks, part of a broader effort by Iran to assert control over the waterway, had prompted the U.S. to launch retaliatory strikes. The situation deteriorated further as the U.S. reimposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports, prompting Iran to escalate its attacks on oil tankers. The tension reached new levels as the U.S. began targeting Iranian assets in retaliation, leading to a breakdown of the fragile truce that had existed since late May. The proposed toll, according to Trump, would apply to all cargo moving through the strait, with the U.S. claiming it would cover expenses related to military protection. However, the specifics of how the fee would be calculated or collected remained unclear. This lack of detail drew criticism from within the administration itself, particularly from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who stated that imposing tolls on an international waterway was contrary to established international law. The U.S. government had previously signed a temporary agreement with Iran that explicitly prohibited toll collection for 60 days, although it left the door open for future charges. The economic implications of the proposed toll were significant. Analysts estimated that a 20 percent fee on the value of a shipment could increase the cost of transporting oil through the strait by over 100 percent, potentially leading to sharp rises in global oil prices. For instance, a single tanker carrying two million barrels of oil could see additional costs exceeding $30 million. While some industry observers speculated that the toll might not materialize due to its prohibitive nature, others emphasized that the immediate threat of conflict posed a greater risk to shipping operations than the financial burden of the fee. The idea of imposing tolls on international waterways is not entirely without precedent. The Strait of Malacca, a key shipping lane in Southeast Asia, operates under a different model, where fees are levied for specific services such as navigation assistance or emergency towing. Unlike the Hormuz scenario, the Malacca strait is managed collaboratively by three nations, Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia, and its toll structure reflects a negotiated arrangement rather than unilateral imposition. The Hormuz case, however, represents a unique challenge, given the strategic importance of the waterway and the absence of a formal governing body overseeing its usage. Despite the controversy surrounding the toll proposal, Trump quickly pivoted in response to pressure from Gulf Arab leaders. Within 24 hours of initially announcing the plan, he withdrew the toll suggestion and instead proposed that Gulf states increase their investments in the U.S. as an alternative form of compensation for U.S. military efforts in the region. During a meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kazemi, Trump reportedly received calls from regional leaders urging him to abandon the toll plan. He expressed support for the idea of investment deals, stating that such agreements would provide a more equitable solution than direct toll collection. Legal scholars and international relations experts have consistently criticized the toll proposal as both legally dubious and strategically unwise. The U.S. has historically opposed the imposition of tolls on international waterways, citing the principle of free passage as a cornerstone of maritime law. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the U.S. supports but does not formally ratify, establishes that ships have the right to transit international waters without paying fees. Legal experts argue that Trump’s plan would represent a radical shift from long-standing U.S. foreign policy and could provoke further instability in the region. As the situation continues to evolve, the focus remains on the ongoing military confrontations between the U.S. and Iran, with both sides engaging in increasingly aggressive actions. The reimposition of the U.S. naval blockade and the continued attacks on commercial vessels underscore the precariousness of the current geopolitical landscape. With the fate of the Hormuz toll still uncertain, the broader implications for global trade, international law, and regional stability remain subjects of intense scrutiny.
7 izvještaja
The New York Times (World)Neovisan🔒KonzervativnoČinjenice 85Objektivnost 65jučerPredsjednik Trump najavio je planove za nametanje 20-postotne pristojbe na teret koji prolazi kroz Hormuški moreuz, tvrdeći da će pokriti troškove američke vojne zaštite brodova koji koriste vodeni put. Ovaj potez je u suprotnosti s stavom njegove vlastite administracije da takve pristojbe krše međunarodno pravo. Odluka dolazi usred eskalacije napetosti između SAD-a i Irana oko kontrole kritičnog vodnog puta, koji je od vitalnog značaja za globalni prijevoz nafte. Iran je ranije ciljao komercijalne brodove u tom području i zaprijetio da će nametnuti vlastite pristojbe. Trumpov prijedlog slijedi prethodne prijetnje i zanemaruje nedavni sporazum o prekidu vatre koji je zabranio pristojbe za 60 dana. Vrhovni dužnosnici njegove administracije, uključujući državnog tajnika Marco Rubio, izričito su se protivili pristojbama na međunarodnim vodnim putovima.
Procjena pristranosti (Konzervativno): U članku se predlaže da je Trumpov prijedlog opravdana i poštena mjera za nadoknadu troškova vojne zaštite, naglašavajući "pravednost" i prikazujući SAD kao da djeluju u okviru svojih prava.
Zašto ove ocjene (Činjenice 85 · Objektivnost 65): Factuality is high as it accurately describes Trump's proposed toll on the Strait of Hormuz and its geopolitical implications. Objectivity is lower due to emotionally charged language about 'intensifying battle' and 'shattering' the cease-fire.
AxiosNeovisanSredinaČinjenice 75Objektivnost 60jučerPredsjednik Trump je promijenio svoj raniji prijedlog da nametne 20% pristojbe za brodove koji prolaze kroz Hormuški moreuz, navodeći pritisak od lidera Zaljeva i zabrinutost zbog međunarodnog zakonitosti. Njegov je početni plan kritizirala pomorska agencija UN-a i izazvala uzbunu među američkim saveznicima. Umjesto pristojbi, Trump je predložio trgovinske i investicijske ugovore s zemljama Zaljeva, tvrdeći da će one služiti kao alternativna naknada za američku vojnu zaštitu. Naglasio je da je naplaćivanje pristojbi za strateške vodene puteve nepošteno, iako je priznao potrebu za nekom vrstom naknade. Dužnosnici Zaljeva bili su iznenađeni izvornim prijedlogom pristojbe i tražili su razjašnjenje, dok je Trump također razgovarao o tom pitanju tijekom poziva s katarskim emirom šeikom Tamimom bin Hamadom Al Thanijem.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Članak predstavlja i početni kontroverzni stav predsjednika Trumpa o uvođenju pristojbi i njegov naknadni preokret temeljen na diplomatskim podacima.
Zašto ove ocjene (Činjenice 75 · Objektivnost 60): The article discusses Trump's reversal on a Hormuz toll but doesn't mention the actual closure of the strait or Iran's retaliation. It focuses on Trump's policy shift rather than the factual event described in the primary document. The objectivity score is lower due to the focus on Trump's statement
The New York Times (World)Neovisan🔒SredinaČinjenice 65Objektivnost 60jučer SAD napada Iran treću noć, vraćajući se otvorenom sukobuSjedinjene Američke Države su povećale napetosti s Iranom nametnuvši 20-postotnu naknadu na teret koji prolazi kroz Ormuški moreuz, dok je Iran uzvratio napadom na dva naftna tankera u regiji. Ovo je treća noć izravnog vojnog sukoba između dvije nacije zbog kontrole strateški važnog plovnog puta.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Članak predstavlja informacije iz američke i iranske perspektive, bez da otvoreno favorizira jednu stranu.
Zašto ove ocjene (Činjenice 65 · Objektivnost 60): The article accurately reports Trump's 20% fee proposal and Iran's attack on tankers. It maintains a relatively neutral tone but could provide more context on the strait's significance and the broader geopolitical implications.
Bloomberg NewsNeovisan🔒SredinaČinjenice 60Objektivnost 55jučerPrivremeno primirje između Sjedinjenih Država i Irana raspalo se nakon što su se američke vojne akcije nastavile. Američke snage ponovno su nametnule pomorsku blokadu i izvele dodatne zračne napade, što je potaknulo odmazda iranskih snaga koje su ciljale na naftne tankere u Hormuškom moreuzu.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): U članku se prikazuju činjenični događaji bez očitog ideološkog nagibanja, s naglaskom na vojne akcije i njihove posljedice.
Zašto ove ocjene (Činjenice 60 · Objektivnost 55): The article correctly identifies the collapse of the truce and the resumption of hostilities but lacks detailed information about the strait closure and its effects. The objectivity is slightly compromised by the focus on conflict escalation.
Bloomberg NewsNeovisan🔒SredinaČinjenice 60Objektivnost 55jučer Iran se šulja iz tankera preko Ormuza dok Trump pojačava prijetnjeIran je nastavio koristiti taktiku "izlaska u tamu" kako bi pomaknuo naftne cisterne kroz Ormuški moreuz, strategiju koja se prethodno koristila za zaobilaženje sankcija.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): U članku se prikazuju činjenični događaji u vezi s iranskim akcijama i američkim prijetnjama, bez da se otvoreno favorizira nijedna strana.
Zašto ove ocjene (Činjenice 60 · Objektivnost 55): The article correctly notes Iran's covert movement of tankers and Trump's threats but lacks comprehensive details about the strait closure and its impact. The objectivity is somewhat affected by the focus on Iran's tactics without balancing the U.S. perspective.
Bloomberg NewsNeovisan🔒SredinaČinjenice 60Objektivnost 50jučer Trump planira smanjiti cijenu za Hormuz dok se prekida primirje između SAD-a i IranaSjedinjene Države su najavile planove da nametnu 20% pristojbe brodovima koji prolaze kroz Ormuški moreuz, nakon napetosti s Iranom. Kao odgovor, iranske snage pokrenule su napade na naftne tankerove koji plove strateškim vodnim putem.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): U članku se navodi činjenično izvješće o američko-iranskim napetostima bez da se otvoreno favorizira bilo koja strana.
Zašto ove ocjene (Činjenice 60 · Objektivnost 50): The article correctly notes the U.S. strikes and Iran's attacks on tankers but fails to address the closure of the strait or its economic implications. The objectivity is low due to the focus on conflict escalation without balanced reporting.
PolitiFactNeovisanSredinajučerPolitiFact izvještava da je bivši predsjednik Donald Trump predložio kontroverzni plan nametanja teretnih pristojbi brodovima koji prolaze kroz Hormuški moreuz, za koji je tvrdio da će Sjedinjene Države učiniti "Čuvarom Hormuškog moreuza". Prijedlog, naveden u postu Truth Social 13. srpnja 2026. godine, sugerirao je da bi teretni brodovi platili 20% svoje vrijednosti SAD-u za sigurnosne usluge.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Iako članak predstavlja Trumpov prijedlog kao kontroverznu i pravno upitnu politiku, ne prikazuje ga otvoreno kao partijsku, već pruža uravnotežen kontekst pozivajući se na povijesne presedane, pravna mišljenja i Trumpove prethodne pogrešne izjave, bez naklanjanja prema bilo kojem od glavnih američkih politika.
★
Neka vijesti ostanu poštene.
ObjectiveNews financiraju čitatelji i bez oglasa je – pristranost vam pokazujemo, ne skrivamo. Podržite neovisno novinarstvo za 5 €/mjesec.
Postani podupiratelj
United States
